mookie

ESEA client maxes out your GPU when computer is idle, to mine bitcoins.

*read: non-consensual SETI@home for profit

*Since mid-April

4-core i5 (TDP 95W), mid-range video card, 3 HDD, 1 optical; 600W OCZ PSU failed about 6 months ago. FWIW, I would recommend spending the extra $20 to get a better* PSU.

*moar watts

Which November

23%

If a cop sees a man he deems to be a violent criminal eating lunch, does he have the right to shoot him on sight?

I don't think Robbob can read this thread.

Charter jacked up the price on my internet service last month, which leaves me to wonder, how much are people paying out there and for what quality of service? I'm especially curious about international people; I've heard that ISPs in Europe don't get monopolies the way they do here.

Nominal speed here is 30mbps. Actual speed to the actual internet is about 6mbps. Price is $48/mo (~36 euro per month) for internet only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObU7awpJctQ

A seemingly serious question, whether the asteroid passing near the Earth (last week) was caused by global warming. I'm not sure, but I think this confirms that global warming is a fad, not "science."

Using robot assassins to kill US nationals without judicial oversight is a big step, probably bigger than most that will follow. Unfortunately, people in general remain supportive of anything the government wants to do to "bad" people, and fail to understand that while they themselves may have an objective definition of "bad," the designation by the government of some people as bad is arbitrary. George III designated Congress as "bad."

If you think it's good for the administration to kill US nationals solely on the basis of its own designation of them as terrorists, please do consider the following rhetorical questions:

Is the war on terror a real war? Did Congress authorize this war? Who exactly is the enemy?

Will it be acceptable to use robot assassins to kill US nationals in the war on drugs?

When an ex-member of the LAPD killed several people, there was talk about using robot assassins to kill him. How long will it be before robot assassins are used to kill known murderers? Will a judge sign a warrant for someone to be killed by a robot assassin, or will that decision be left to DHS, or the local state police?

In 2010, when Wikileaks released US diplomatic cables, sitting US senators called for Julian Assange to be convicted and executed or assassinated as a traitor (although he is a foreign national, and by definition incapable of treason against the US). If this diplomatic cable slash unprotected sex scandal had happened now or a few years in the future, would it be acceptable to use robot assassins to kill Julian Assange for the disclosure of information confidential to the US?

Currently, men who can't pay child support are sent to jail (jail, not prison) for contempt of court. How long will it be before robot assassins are used as a threat against people who defy court orders? Is contempt of court different from refusing to be brought to justice or appear for a trial?

Imagine someone trying for 12 minutes to explain tickrate and interpolation in terms that bros understand.

Keep in mind that 'network engineer explains CS interpolation' is essentially the same as 'mailman explains how Netflix decides which DVD to send you'.*

*2007 called

Blue and white are common colors for ethernet jacks; orange is less common. As long as the cables are punched down the same on both ends, there should be no compatibility problems.

One possibility is that there is something wrong with the cable running to one of the jacks. It could have become distressed at some point and stopped working. It could be missing, or it could've been cut. Another is that it is not connected to anything.

Generally, your description of the problem does not make sense to me. Your router should be connecting over ethernet to a modem. All the jacks could be connected to a switch, with the modem also connected to that switch, but that would be unusual for a home setup. All the jacks could be connected to another router, with that router connected to a modem; that would be more likely but still unusual. The key here is that you need to know how each jack is connected to the network.

The orange jack could indicate that there is something different about it. It could be connected to fiber, it might not be punched down straight-through, or it might just be connected to another jack somewhere that is also orange.

Done

p90 nerf is a lie, I hear nothing but dinks when someone is using that thing.

tec9 has been ruined though; 50% price increase and now wildly inaccurate.

maps lists all valid BSP files; it is only valid from the server console (i.e. RCON), otherwise you're running it against your own maps folder.

In my testing, the threshold seems to be about 150 damage, with a very slow quota regeneration over time.

Most likely, it can't be configured, like the auto-kick for teamkilling, and we'll just have to stop using the inbuilt autokick entirely. I'm not sure how flaky the AFK kicker in SourceMod is. Praise be to VALVe.

Typically it's just done with one entity, I believe game_player_equip is the one.

A good deagle5 would almost certainly be used here. Historically, most other aim maps (except hegrenade maps) don't scale well to a 12x12 server; if they are large enough to support the players, their size and design tends to promote slow and tedious play when it gets down to a handful of players.

To put a general spec on what kind of aim/fy (non-objective) maps have been passable, they have almost always had a single main area (deagle5, scoutzknivez, he_dodgeball), or a shape that at least allows players to see clear across the map which prevents players from running around for a long time without seeing each other (iceworld, etc.).

The single biggest hurdle is the blur. A map with no buyzones absolutely cannot leave some players' views blurred. That is a 100% dealbreaker. Unfortunately I haven't been able to spend the time yet to track this down to a specific entity that creates or prevents this issue.

I'm 80% sure I activated this on Tuesday, so probably STEAM_0:1:5037446 is not your Steam ID.

People have been joining, even within the last few seconds.

But they do serve as an example of religious intolerance, and how varying degrees of radicalism, on any side, can cause people to kill others in the name of "religion." A sentiment that is echoed throughout all of history.

 

If you think the Inquisitions were a completely isolated event and similar examples haven't occurred throughout history, I see where your confusion comes from.

 

And I didn't try to imply anything - whatever you infer is up to you. If I've offended you at all, I apologize. Wasn't my intention.

The inquisitions, being a collection of church-government organizations that existed in multiple countries over the course of hundreds of years, could not really be described as "isolated" or an "event," and are unique. The general trend of suppressing dissent with violence does exist in many parts of history. Perhaps a better example would be the Soviet repressions. About sixty-six million (66,000,000) persons were arrested, deported, or killed, by the Communists. This of course does not help your argument about religion, since the Soviet Union was one of relatively few Atheist states in history, and actually banned religion.

That completely disregards all "unknown" conflicts that aren't recorded throughout history, simply because the wars/deaths were not documented - neither side was literate. Tribal warfare was often driven by the concept of a literal battle between the gods of different tribes. Before organized polytheism, few people claimed to have the true gods, only the best gods.

(1) Even if religion didn't cause most of the wars in known history, it did cause most of the wars in prehistory, because.

(1) I think the "because" was explained pretty directly. Don't know what to tell you if you don't see it.

Claims that prehistoric wars were motivated by religion at a higher rate than historic wars are pure speculation and fantasy.

Later on, even the best-known examples of religious violence may not count as real wars. The Crusades were, certainly, but all the different Inquisitions (Wikipedia lists four) were entirely civil affairs (that is, affairs between one country and its own people). Once Lutheranism and Protestantism emerged in Europe, it’s likely that as many people were tried and executed for their beliefs as slain in battle.

(3) The inquisitions, which killed literally thousands of people, are more important than wars because they're more famous (infamous).

(3) If that's what you inferred, read it again. The Crusades were simply mentioned to illustrate how (relatively) *small* the number of deaths that were officially part of The Crusades were, but some don't count those as "real wars."

I think you may have become confused about what you're writing. The implication above, quite clear, is that the inquisitions, being not-wars, are evidence that religion is a significant motivation for killing, more so than would be indicated by only considering wars. This does not follow, because, despite being well-known, the inquisitions did not kill very many people.

Well when people are fed the lie that there is nothing after death and that they are descendended from a puddle of goo, there is nothing but hopelessness. The side effects of hopelessness is either despair or anger. Anger can lead to rage and unrequited rage can lead to something like what happened today.

this is false. I couldn't find out what his religion was but I am willing to bet he wasn't atheist. Even if he was he was mentally ill, just like the gunman in colorado (who was also christian). People with autism or borderline personality disorder have trouble distinguishing right from wrong and social cues. There is no correlation (that I have seen) between believing in no afterlife and killing people. In fact i've heard that less than 1% of people in jail are atheist, though I think this is probably bias because the prison system is a hard place to be atheist and can cause "awakenings"

In the United States in 1997, only 0.2% of the prison population claimed to be Atheists, but additionally 19.8% did not claim any religion. I can't easily find what part of the population considers Atheism to be their religion, but if we were to consider anyone who does not identify with a religion to be an atheist, 20% of the prison population were atheists (in 1997). According to Wikipedia, no religion increased from 8% of the general population in 1990 to 15% in 2008; if those figures are to be believed, people with no religion are incarcerated at a higher rate than religious people.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

Counterpoint:

 

When people are fed a string of lies about "higher powers" and putting some invisible deity #1 in your life, even above family, then you have killings in the name of religion.

 

And as horrific, tragic and senseless as this latest incident in Conn. was, it pales in comparison to the number of deaths throughout history caused by "religion."

 

And yes, that includes ALL religions - including Judeo-Christianity.

 

It would appear you and I have *vastly* differing views on religion/God/afterlife/etc. That's ok - there's room for all opinions. One's daily actions speak volumes louder than anything you, I or anyone else can type on an Internet forum.

 

Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.

 

http://www.foreignpo..._tower?page=0,2

 

So, about one in fifteen wars in known history were caused by religion.

 

That completely disregards all "unknown" conflicts that aren't recorded throughout history, simply because the wars/deaths were not documented - neither side was literate. Tribal warfare was often driven by the concept of a literal battle between the gods of different tribes. Before organized polytheism, few people claimed to have the true gods, only the best gods.

 

Once we get into early recorded history, motivations are somewhat opaque at first because a nation needs no more reason to invade another than the orders of its absolute leader. Religion often comes into it, but usually only to motivate the people after the decision has been made to attack.

 

Later on, even the best-known examples of religious violence may not count as real wars. The Crusades were, certainly, but all the different Inquisitions (Wikipedia lists four) were entirely civil affairs (that is, affairs between one country and its own people). Once Lutheranism and Protestantism emerged in Europe, it’s likely that as many people were tried and executed for their beliefs as slain in battle.

 

Acts of ethnic cleansing continue to this day, with varying degrees of religious justification. Recent examples occurred and are still occurring in Kosovo, Burma and all over Africa. The biggest current, ongoing religious conflict is the War on Terror. It’s not officially Christianity on the march but many in the religious right do see it that way. The Muslim extremists on the other side certainly consider themselves to be waging a Jihad or holy war.

 

There can't be any hard numbers attributed to "100% religious" killings, any more than you can attribute any other mass killings to a single 100% cause. But, taken in aggregate, I stand by my claim that organized religion itself is one of the worst atrocities ever known to mankind.

In summary,

(1) Even if religion didn't cause most of the wars in known history, it did cause most of the wars in prehistory, because.

(2) Religion doesn't cause war, it's just an excuse political leaders use whenever they want to start a war.

(3) The inquisitions, which killed literally thousands of people, are more important than wars because they're more famous (infamous).

(4) Ethnic cleansing, which is ethnically-motivated by definition, is actually a religious problem.

(5) It's difficult or impossible to know why people kill other people, so I feel safe blaming it on religion.

The sooner people start to belive in the humankind, then we can solve all our issues!

 

With this i mean that belive whatever you want, belive in christianity, muslims,jews,spirits,winnie the puh,Lord of the rings! BUT dont forget to belive in the humankind!

If religion makes you happy, if it makes you strong then im glad for your sake! We all need to have something to belive in! Myself i belive in (just like Dude) the humankind!

I belive that after my time have passed im living on the flipside and doing something cool, that makes me strong and happy, but it dosent make me ignorant and stupid just because i dont belive in any gods! For me religion is drunken lullabies, but i dont hate those who actually belive in it, thats called respect. If we ever gonna go along in this world we have to learn to agree to disagre and respect other peoples way of life! Everyone have the rights to live a rightful life, our value is all the same! But as soon as someone starts fumbling on the beliving and starts to measure our values they have to be stopped! And now to the problem that actually is the biggest issue! The guns! It is easy to kill and it gets even easier to kill with a gun that you can buy in every corner of the street, worldwide! Time to open the ovens and melt them down!

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

In 1996, Australia introduced regressive gun-control laws. In about ten years that followed, the homicide rate fell at the same rate as in the United States, meanwhile the overall rate of violent crime increased 42%, while it decreased 32% in the United States. While this falls far short of being a scientific experiment, the logical inference here is that reducing lawful gun-ownership had no effect on homicide, while causing an increase in other violent crime.

Of course one only has to look at the United Kingdom, where "knife crime" is now a common term, to realize that gun control does not prevent bad actors from acting badly.

Have to say you're quite harsh on non-believers Preacher. I may be an atheist but that doesn't make me hopeless. I believe in the power of mankind to overcome its own weaknesses

 

Religion does not have the monopoly on morality. There are no theoretical arguments of practical experiences that support that.

 

I believe people of all generations have always been narcissistic. Some problems are more present today than they used to be, but others have been succesfully dialed back.

 

Individuals are given more freedom and more and more opportunities every day. One of those freedoms is getting hold of a gun and expressing your deluded view on the world in a painful message.

 

Edit: to move on Mookie's point: it's true that religion's influence on war can be exaggerated, but it's so poignant because religion is supposed to spread a message of peace, not spear it.

Is your specific objection here to the fact that some people have started some wars for religious reasons, or to the fact that religions have failed to prevent wars?