MTG Salvation

relevant article

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.html

The title seems to be bias, but it is in fact not. Posting this mostly as a background into what laws and stuff accommodate this stuff.

Quote from Quirkiness101

If I remember correctly, she has a very short amount of time to live, which supposedly would have put her at the top of the list were she not so young. I have no idea how accurate that is however, or the severity of the condition of whomever's position she may be taking.

yes. The main policy issue that was contradicted was whether or not an adult lung could function with her body. The ideal age that an adult lung can be adapted to work with a child has many variables which makes it hard to write a policy with a 100% accuracy. In this case several doctors agreed that her body could handle the adapted adult lung do to several factors. Not every factor is the same with age, but age is currently the closest to a catch all metric of who is viable for an adult lung.

Hope this helps.

Quote from Vaclav

[You know, just like how on Facebook earlier today I saw someone criticizing Bloomberg for approving of the NY State gun legislation that goes active LATER THIS YEAR because there were a reasonable number of shootings this weekend... before the legislation actually is active...]

While those who scream the loudest typically know the least(as you mentioned above) real problems do exist with our transplant policy. We put too much emphasis on standardizing things and not enough on letting doctors make the decisions. And again the lack of supply is the main catalyst in this issue. Science has the answer, but we are still a bit away from synthesized organs.(however some recent developments and testing have been positive)

Quote from Taylor

Quote from slipknot72102

We have theories where the universe created itself. One theory suggest that the big bang was caused by a small disturbance in what is essentially the nothingness that existed before the big bang.

I am aware of the Zero-energy universe//Vacuum genesis theory.

Quote from slipknot72102

This is in fact more logical than to say some creator somehow existed that made the universe. This is because then we fall back to what created the creator?

Those theories do not solve the "infinite regression problem" because they don't explain where the basic rules of physics that would allow for those events come from, nor why the event occurred as it did.

Quote from slipknot72102

It leads us to the same point without any sort of explanation.

Indeed, as the theories you mentioned also do. A causeless cause is something wholly outside of our experience as macrobeings.

Quote from slipknot72102

Thus the idea that the universe created itself by making the big bang happen is more logical.

Except it still does not stop the endless line of "whys?" It's no more immune to the Münchhausen trilemma as anything else.

Quote from slipknot72102

Again we can't know for sure at this point in time. This is why some hard atheism is flawed. Logical atheism however states that it makes more sense that god does not exist not that god does not absolutely exist. IMO this is probably the best stance as far as atheism is concerned. It is also pretty much how I identify.

Never heard of "logical atheism" before. You'll have to elaborate for me why that "make more sense."

Logical atheism is a part of theoretical atheism. As per the "whole infinite regression problem" Zero-energy universe does fulfill it with certain caveats. For example the fact that space/time itself did not exist until after the big bang.

As per why atheism makes more sense it is just scientific. Scientifically the world creating itself is more logical. It is illogical that god just existed before space/time. It is plausible that at t=0 out of nothingness(as defined in the 0 energy hypothesis) the big bang started.

Again this is just scientifically. As new evidence is uncovered these models and theories change and adapt. At this point we can't completely disprove god, but we can find other methods for the creation to occur. Many of which are more logical under current scientific standards.

Quote from soulbanana

i know that i would not like to be converted to a religion on my death bed out of force/charm/getting to heaven. i am who i am, and even if i die without going to heaven, i will remember that a lot of people have loved me, and not just Jesus. so i will not change into someone that my friends never saw. if God never saw me as a Christian in my life, why become a Christian now? it seems like cheating by changing yourself completely, and i don't like it. i would feel pretty guilty.

Quote from Zaphrasz

Unfortunately for her, there's no reason to believe her perspective is accurate, and all she would be doing is wasting a person's final moments of existence trying to blackmail them. That seems wrong to me.

this all day, she is wasting a person's final moments by changing that person into a different person who no one knew but her and God(maybe, not too sure about that one).

yes. I mean if I was a person who believed in some certain god. be it thor, loki, yaweh, ect how the hell could I be so damn sure that my god as the right god? How could I be so sure that I would force my beliefs on other people?

Relevant Quote

Quote from Timothy, Mimeslayer

Does this mean that someone else will potentially die to save her life? I would hate to be the doctor who has to explain to someone that they can't get their lifesaving lung transplant because they weren't cute enough for national television.

pretty much yes. Again this is the current state we are in because of the current demand vs the supply. Someone many someones are going to be left to die. Again this is why we have strict policies that we generally don't go against. Otherwise it would become who has the most money or is the most appealing.(note we do favor younger people who are generally healthier aka they don't smoke/drink/do illicit drugs)

Quote from Taylor

Quote from slipknot72102

Occam's razor states that the simplest most logical explanation for something is most likely the truth. Currently it is easier to believe the universe created itself through some process we don't know or understand instead of believing that some creator just existed magically and magically created the universe.

"The universe created itself" is an unfounded assumption. Occam's razor no more favors it the "the universe was created." Both are unfounded assumptions. However, in logic, you need to start with some base axioms, and a base axiom isn't a base axiom if it's justified by something else.

But, it's pretty presumptuous to say you're unjustified assumption is 'better' than someone else's unjustified assumption.

We have theories where the universe created itself. One theory suggest that the big bang was caused by a small disturbance in what is essentially the nothingness that existed before the big bang. This is in fact more logical than to say some creator somehow existed that made the universe. This is because then we fall back to what created the creator? It leads us to the same point without any sort of explanation. Thus the idea that the universe created itself by making the big bang happen is more logical.

Again we can't know for sure at this point in time. This is why some hard atheism is flawed. Logical atheism however states that it makes more sense that god does not exist not that god does not absolutely exist. IMO this is probably the best stance as far as atheism is concerned. It is also pretty much how I identify.

we should take that no policy that can govern the life or death of a person will ever be perfect. There is always room to improve and lessons to take from each unique case. It is unfortunate that the people in need or organs far outweigh the current supply. This is however just a fact or life and can't be helped until we can synthesize our own organs.(which is on the horizon)

Till then all laws and policies of any sort need to be looked at periodically as technology takes leaps and bounds.

Quote from Jay13x

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here that this is a serious post, the answers are pretty simple.

You are psyching yourself out thinking about the infatuation. The problem most nerdy guys have is that they can't talk to women like regular people. Being too polite can be off-putting and seem fake. Pretend like the woman you are interested in is just another friend instead of a romantic interest. Treat them like you would a good friend, be friendly and joke with them. Practice if you have to, but the bottom line is you just need to relax, and realize it's not the end of the world if someone ends up not being interested. It's always worth a shot, right?

If you want to get better at this, start acting like a more assertive person with everyone. Every day, be a little more outgoing than you were before, even if you have to start with just making eye contact more often than you did.

And don't be afraid of saying something stupid. If you do, just make a joke and be self-deprecating about it. People are attracted to other people with confidence, so find ways to start building yours and you'll do fine.

This goes for number 2 as well. Gaining confidence and assertiveness will fix a lot of the problems you find yourself with today.

And let me be clear, you are probably like I was years ago - it's not so much that you 'care too much' but that you 'care too much about what they think of you'. You probably want people to like you and end up letting them treat you badly because of it. My solution was to just start acting like the person I wanted to be, even though I didn't feel that way, and eventually I became that person. It's really that simple, but getting more life experience (joining clubs if you're in school, going on trips, etc.) helps.

This is very solid advice.

Remember to just be yourself when it comes to women. You may strike out 20 times, but as long as your being yourself you will find one that likes you for the person you are. Being polite is a good thing, but don't come off as a suck up or as overly desperate.

Quote from Coffee

If you don't make the minimum payments, even with the 0% APR, you're gonna hurt your credit. Leaving a balance isn't a huge deal, as long as it isn't close to your max limit. Not making payments is a big deal.

This. It is essential to make your at least your minimum payment each month. If you charge 1k and only pay the minimum payment each month until it is paid off you will not hurt your credit score.

Quote from Express

This Link may not work but whatever. Current cart at newegg.com

http://secure.newegg.com/Shopping/ShoppingCart.aspx

I'm interested in playing LAN with a few buddies and wanna build a decent gaming rig. Any suggestions for a CPU? Fm2 or AM3? Etc, etc...thanks!

I don't know much about pc's so everything will be a plus.

Generally speaking you want at least a quad core processor, 4+gigs of 1333/1600 ddr3, and a decent video card. These are the bare basics you need. Gaming mouse and keyboard are technically optional. While nice they can be quite pricey compared to industry standard gear. If you have to cut corners this is honestly where I would start. You can get a suitable mouse, keyboard, and headset on the cheap and upgrade them over time as you come into the funds.

As far as a cpu I would recommend the latest generation of mid tier(aka middle of the road) quad core cpu.(for example the core i5)

Here is an example of processor that would work and is pretty budget.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116782

here is an AMD processor that would work. This model is on a special sale so it is quite a bit cheaper atm but your looking in the 130$-180$ range.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727

Recommended memory
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611%20600006127&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

If your budget allows
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231666

At least 4gigs of any of these that work with your motherboard. MB makers generally test most hardware and have a list that they have tested which work well. You can look at these on the makers websites generally.

When it comes to buying a motherboard I would splurge just a little. Find one that works with the cheap stuff, but that can accept a more pricey cpu and faster memory.


Any of these that are within budget would allow you to upgrade to faster memory and a better cpu later while working with the mid tier stuff for budget sake.

Budget MBs for the sake of budget

any of these that support your cpu.(again look into the online support documents. Sometimes they can be picky about CPUs, but most will work within general parts. For example some say they work with i5 processors so it will most likely work. I just like to play it safe)

More Expensive for the ability to upgrade later on

Again just make sure you match the processor to the board. Leaving room for upgrades when possible within your budget.

Now the hard part video cards. Really we need to know what games you intend to play to recommend the best and most budget build as far as vid cards goes. I can make some general statments at what to look for though by looking at the recommended specs for some of the latest games.

Any of these would be optimal. You can cheat a bit more to lower the budget a bit but then it is kinda hit or miss.

Recommended specs for a vid card.
PCIe 3.0 x16 infrastructure
at worst a 256-bit memory interface.
At least 2gb GDDR5 on v-ram

Possible concessions to make to lower the budget even further
128-bi memory interface.
1gb of GDDR5 ram.(you can sub out slower v-ram like using GDDR3)

as far as a case goes you can skimp here and buy a better one later. Just make sure the form factor of the case supports the motherboard you want to build.(either atx or micro atx generally) having a bad case doesn't really effect your ability to game so this is an obvious place to cheap out until you can buy something better. So many options for cases exist you would have to research yourself when you do upgrade to a better one.

Power supply.

Again this is kinda hard to peg without knowing the exact hardware.

Generally you will need a 24 pin connector
600+ watts
at least 4 sata power connectors
at least 1 12v rail
SLI ready or certified
crossfire ready or certified
PCIe connector 1x6pins and 1x6+2 pins(at least one of each)

This seems like a lot, but quite a bit of this is standard in mid-tier PSUs. however so many people fall into the trap of extreme budget PSUs to realize they don't have the proper connections and stuff. Also not that all of these specs are going to be necessary for the minimalist stuff i mentioned. however you can get these things on a PSU and not really sacrifice your budget.

Gaming peripherals, a UPS, other jive can be bought as budget permits, however you should never sacrifice the basic specs of your system for these things.

If you want me to make a system for you give me a budget to work with and I will give you some options. Hope this helps have a nice day.

Quote from bLatch

Quote from slipknot72102

Now once someone patents it we will have to see how expensive they get and stuff, but hopefully it will be an open patent since it is for the good of mankind as a whole.

...LoL.

Quote from slipknot72102

As far as a time frame and cost of an entry level Tesla model in the future who knows. So many variables exist like fights with the dealerships and with lobbyist who will try to make these cars more expensive(or force excessive taxes on them or something)


However I am willing to believe that unless something happens in the next 10 years a fully electric car could easily be in the 15k to 20k price point...then again I may be an optimist.

I doubt it, because as you pointed out patents interfere with this. A lot. and they last for 20 years (give or take). Suffice to say, any new tech coming down the pipeline will either be expensive or limited to one company.

Then there's also the problem of electric cars not actually being all that much better for the environment since they just shift the pollution to a centralized location instead of each vehicle, and the materials for the batteries aren't recyclable efficiently yet,.

Don't get me wrong, electric cars would be better than existing combustion engine cars, but the advantage is not nearly what its hyped up to be.

Well the ones that could hold the patents are actually a University so maybe just maybe these won't be over monetized. As far as being cleaner we are working on that. We do get some electric from means that don't involve fossil fuels and currently technology is at the edge of taking a huge leap which will make solar/wind/hydro power much more viable and efficient.

Quote from exoclipse

There's a nifty graphene super super capacitor in the works at UCLA I believe that offers capacitance approaching that of batteries, but without using a chemical reaction. That goes a long way towards making an all electric future a thing. Won't see that level of technology at the consumer level for another decade, but it'll be like lithium ion batteries in scope I think.

Yes this is one of the technologies I was talking about. Anther type of battery(which is also beyond my knowledge of physics) is also in works that looks promising. I am almost certain that within 10 years one of these two will be used in electric cars. I am also pretty sure that we will have worked out how to make electricity in a clean and sustainable way.

Quote from ColonelCoo

.


When I press you to name Christian Churches that do not hold the Bible as divine and without error, you respond with a game of 20 questions.

playing devils advocate here, but some branches of the Episcopal church actually admit the bible is flawed but maintain that the teachings of jesus should be held with reverence.

Source: friends who are Episcopalians. I have often had debates that amount to why they believe something they know is flawed. The common response is a large part of the actual words of the bible have be lost in translation and altered to fit one or more political views.

Quote from DTG99

Of course it's wrong. As Christopher Hitches said "what if we (atheists) went around the wards and said to people 'So, you're Catholic right? Yeah, well, why be a mug all your life? Why don't you at the last minute lead a rational day for once without feeling any fear or shame or guilt". They wouldn't like it, I don't think.'

If anyone ever tries to convert me on my death bed I'll find a way to muster up whatever strength I have left to punch that person right in their smug little face.

I agree. My father told me that I would be praising jesus when I was on my death bed and it kinda pissed me off.

Edit: to clarify he meant in the future when I was old and dying or what not. I am not dying as far as i know.

Quote from Highroller

Quote from slipknot72102

wiccan is a form of paganism that does not believe in a god thus all wiccans are atheist.

This is incorrect.

http://semrys.blogspot.com/2012/12/pagan-atheists-yes-we-exist.html

atheism is not believing in a god however you got there.

This is also incorrect.

"In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine."

There is no difference living as though their is not god whether you have heard of gods or not.

You can have religion and still be an atheist.

Such as?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism.2C_religion.2C_and_morality

For example in other parts of the world where religion is not as dominant children even older children have not heard of theism.

Where would this be?

Several different places. I have seen stories like this from South Korea, Japan, China, Canada, Sweden, and a few other countries in eastern Europe. It is actually a pretty common story that is often told within the atheist community. Some stories of this type have surfaced from the united states, but the child in question is typically around 5 or so at the latest. Kinda hard to not be bombarded by religion in most parts of the united states.

Quote from Commons

Quote from slipknot72102

Quote from Commons

IDK seems like Obama is out to get the Tea party if you ask me.

Slightly off topic, but If i was obama I would be going after them too. They are radical fundamentalist with agendas aimed at regressing our lives back into their utopia. The hints of racism, and hatred are kinda hard to miss. It would be like giving a group that followed the Nazism beliefs tax exemption.

Citations needed for your libel.

But here 1-7 is what the Tea party believes in...

The Tea Party movement is not easily defined, primarily because it comprises hundreds of groups at the grassroots level, of varying size, influence and priorities. It is highly factionalized, with no clear leadership or centralized structure. This is highlighted by the fact that it is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue. Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the Constitution across the movement with respect to various issues has helped facilitate scholarly examination of the movement.



Nothing completely concrete however being from a tea party favoring state a large portion of these people openly preach hate, racism, and fascism. They spread lies and rumors about anyone who opposes them and even threaten those who oppose them.

Quote from Timothy, Mimeslayer

Quote from Commons

Quote from Timothy, Mimeslayer

Also, Sailormoonkin, in regards to the Tea Party being the KKK of yesteryear, you missed the point. I wasn't calling Tea Party white supremacists, just pointing out how similar they were beyond that. In fact, if all the Tea Party did was say that whites were better than other races, they would be damn near indistinguishable.

So the KKK an organization created by the Democrats after the Civil war to keep Democrats in power so they can abuse the power of the state for personal gain is somehow the same as a group that wants to limit the power of the state and limit the abuse of power by the state are somehow the same? Despite the fact they're completely opposite

You mean the Democrats who were all for State's Rights since it was the Democrats of the 1800's? Democrats of 1800's =/= Democrats of 1950's+. Also, you are talking about the wrong KKK, I have already pointed out that I was referencing the KKK from post-WWI era.

This. Remember that the current parties have switched a few times. Some of the republicans of now are the democrats that spurred on the KKK. The parties have completely switched.