914 karma · joined September 12, 2010
Mercury sulfide, asbestos ore and lead oxide might give you an erection thanks to the placebo effect, but pornography has been proven to be much more effective with fewer side effects, and can be delivered efficiently over the internet.
So stop complaining that people arguing for marriage equality are making you tired by pointing out that you're no better than bigots who argue against mixed race marriage. People's right to marry the partner they love trumps your right not to be tired of making weak unconvincing arguments. You are not the victim here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The tolerance paradox arises from a problem that a tolerant person might be antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.
Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
That is a totally sociopathic argument, and you know it, and it makes you an asshole for having the nerve to make it.
"I'm sorry." "I was wrong." These are the words abusers never say; you want our forgiveness without actually promising to stop harming people, or explaining what was going through your head when you DID harm people before.
You're not sorry. You refuse to mention you were wrong, and apologize for the tangible harm you caused. You skirt around the well known fact that you donated money to destroy the existing and potential marriages of gay families. Everyone knows that. It's on the record.
Your verbal gymnastics to avoid addressing that fact overshadowed your message. Why didn't you mention that YOU PERSONALLY are the cause of people mistrusting Mozilla's commitment to equality, and explain WHAT you did and WHY you did it, as you have always refused to do.
If you learned anything, and changed your bigoted beliefs, then you should ADMIT to making a mistake, EXPLAIN why you made it, and APOLOGIZE for the harm you caused.
But no, you're still an abuser, because:
You refuse to admit you were wrong.
You refuse to explain what the fuck you were thinking when you donated money to support Proposition 8.
You refuse to explain why you intended and succeeded in destroying the existing and potential marriages of gay families.
You refuse to explain what you learned from being wrong, so other bigots like yourself can learn from your mistakes, and hopefully change their ways.
Brendan: You are a bigot, and an abuser. Not just because of your beliefs, which you have kept to yourself because they are so unjustifiable that you are ashamed to discuss them, but because of your ACTIONS, which tangibly contributed to the success of Proposition 8, thus destroying the existing gay marriages in California and preventing others. That was your intent, and that was the result of your actions, so you deserve credit for destroying those marriages, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
The Supreme Court finally ruled that Proposition 8 was wrong. Can you finally admit that YOU were wrong?
But I am sure you won't, because as a religious bigot, you think you're better than everyone else, and that you have a right to tell other people how to live their lives.
You've so much as proven that with your latest cowardly statement, a non-apology apology, which dances around the fact that you did what you did, that brought shame to the company that you direct, and blatantly avoids saying you're sorry and that you're wrong.
This is how your non-apology apology sounds:
When an animal trainer gives a dog a cookie for jumping through a hoop, it's beyond question that the trainer intended the dog to jump through the hoop. Even the dog understands that. That is exactly the situation here.
Google liked the idea so much that they acquired the company that developed it. So if that isn't a practical application of AI, I don't know what is.
(That's lower case game industry artificial intelligence, not Upper Case Marvin Minsky Artificial Intelligence.)
http://wiki.niotso.org/SimAntics
http://simswiki.info/SimAntics
http://modthesims.info/t/111469
http://niotso.org/2012/12/23/edith-cracked/
http://www.qrg.cs.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/Programming_...
Some philosophers of epistemology get things so terribly wrong that they follow incorrect hypotheses for so many years and actually take the country to war based on fabricated intelligence that they knew was in fact provably wrong, which they manufactured for purely political reasons to justify their hidden agenda, yet they still won't admit that they were wrong.
Mistakn usrs somtims correctd missd lettrs, so thy downloadd pags from unrelatd servrs.
Howevr, the spc thy postd mentiond othr use cass, and presentd exampls of anothr systm with enterprisy qualitis to delivr usrs to correctd wb sits with misspelld nams:
A clevr browsr evn maks guesss, which enabls fils with unrequestd but correctd nams to be downloadd in paralll ovr integratd distributd per to per technologis, oftn receivd replis cachd, and latr presentd.
Ys, yt again, browsrs designd by committs enabld Opn Sourcs and Fre Softwars to answr anothr complicatd Internt problm!
It shows up near the top of the google results for fundzinger, and a fishy sock puppet "Tim Koteke" showed up in thread and did some damage control for fundzinger. No google or linkedin hits for his name or his projects. Then once people started asking for some evidence that he wasn't just making shit up, he (or somebody) deleted the post (which is still quoted in the thread) and he disappeared.
That discussion inspired them to start this thread: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1126569/kickstarter-boost-co...
If that's the kind of "pr" fundzinger does for themselves, I doubt they do any better for their customers.
So why would they recommend fundzinger so highly? Are they just grateful they didn't have to pay them for the hours they worked (or pretended to work)? Or was there some kind of tit-for-tat: you say nice things about us and we don't charge you for canceling the project. That wouldn't surprise me much, after seeing their lame attempt at sock puppeteering.
...Maybe they should have tried to be hip and cool by calling themselves "Fundzingr", then I would have immediately known they were charlatans.
It's nice that you're happy coding things up in JavaScript and WebGL just for the web browser, but Unity has a much wider scope than that.
Eventually somebody will write something like Unity that runs entirely in the web browser, and figure out how to make it target all the different platforms that Unity does (once Apple has their brain tumor removed and supports WebGL in their iOS browser for use in anything other than advertisements). But right now there is nothing like it for web development, and it brings a lot to the table that many people really need.