I'm a Donovan fan myself and I'm glad you know of that song too, I always liked that one. It's silly, genuinely humorous, and genuinely geeky as well.
I guarantee he didn't come up with the idea of recycling urine himself, though; he probably read about it in a science fiction story. You can tell from his songs (and sometimes the album covers - there are Tolkien quotes on the back of Sunshine Superman) that he read a wide variety of stuff.
He's a great lyricist, though, and because he references so much literature (both blatantly and subtly) it's fun to think about where he took his inspiration from.
It's clearly a technique for child porn investigations. If you have a suspect who owns the same kind of camera you determined was used to take the photo in question, which the investigators most certainly didn't get from the photographer them self, you can know whether to search for more evidence or to eliminate them from your suspect list.
Most people who do this kind of thing are not necessarily going to realize this is possible, so aren't going to think of the obvious solution, which is to borrow someone else's camera or to own two cameras (one bought with cash) and hide the one used for dirty deeds really, really well (in a train station locker, say.)
So basically this is pretty weak evidence, and not that great of an investigative tool, in my opinion. Of course, zealous investigators are going to push stuff like this as fool-proof evidence, despite the multiple problems with this such as I just described in the previous paragraph.
Just FYI, when they look at bullets in an investigation, they match it to the actual original gun, not to a specific model (other than bullet caliber.) They take the bullet from the victim's brains, fire a bullet from a gun of the same caliber seized from a suspect, and can see if they match.
Sorry if you already knew that, but from the wording of your post I wasn't sure. I think it's pretty cool so in case you didn't know, there you go. The things you learn from Dragnet.
I bought Unreal Tournament 3 recently for my ps3 (which I bought primarily to watch blu-ray movies on) for three reasons:
1. It's $20, brand new 2. I saw that the company put up map packs for download on the playstation store, for FREE - unlike every other game that charges you up to $10-15 for a couple extra maps 3. You can use a USB or bluetooth keyboard and mouse to play the game, on the ps3!
I've only played it for a few minutes (I've got other things, like being a grad student and browsing slashdot, to do) but it worked flawlessly and it could have fooled me into thinking I was playing on a computer if someone else had set it up (it helps of course that I don't have a TV and connect the ps3 to my computer monitor.)
If other console games supported that, I would be much happier to pay the ridiculous prices they want for them.
I completely agree, I'm sure that would happen - if I used "cool" phrases at all. I'm sure I seem like a square among people I talk to, and I know by writing this I'm going to sound like a jerk, but I actually feel really awkward using trendy phrases and slang so I don't do it. I don't even like calling people by nicknames. It's uncomfortable for me.
Now, I consider this to be something of a problem; I'm not saying I'm better than people who use cool phrases - in fact I wish I was able to do so more easily! I think this actually has the same effect you predict, except I don't have to wait to get old, where young(er) "trendiness nazis" are annoyed at my language usage. It certainly has made for many awkward conversations.
I know you're being sarcastic in your post (while letting in an amount of meanness appropriate to the level of jerkiness found in my original post) so please don't take this the wrong way. I'm taking the time to defend myself against a sarcastic attack only because this is something I think about a lot; on the one hand I'm glad I never fell into the trap of using too much slang most young people have, on the other I wish I didn't sound like such a dork when I talk to people:)
Heh, at least she has a sense of humor; it's funny too that she even knew what that meant in the anatomical sense (I'm imagining a typical middle-aged secretary, obviously that could be wrong.)
Now I'm really going to sound like an ass, but calling a computer a "box" in the first place has always bothered me, so of course I don't like "boxen" either:)
I guess I'm somewhat out of place here; I love computers, run linux exclusively and know a lot of the inner workings, but in real life I'm actually a science nerd (and grad student) so I don't fit in with slashdot's predominantly computer science/IT culture (of course I know science is a big deal around here too, but it's not the main focus.)
That's my excuse for criticizing common IT slang:)
Your points are valid, particularly about the style of classes (large versus small), except that UCLA is actually a top school and is likely as good or better than most private universities. *Of course* you would have gotten a good education at UCLA, and it would be just as impressive on your resume as whatever (unnamed) private university you ended up going to.
The real comparison you should be looking for is between a public school in, for example, the Cal State system and a small private school.
That said, if you can afford it or have someone that's paying for you, I do believe you'll get an overall better education at a small private school. It's a much better learning environment, with small classes and everything else you mention.
I went to a small, private, prestigious research university, the University of Rochester, and graduated with a B.S. in Geology. Now I'm a grad student working on an M.S. at Cal State Fullerton.
I am paid as a TA to teach lab sections for geology 101. I teach three sections of ~25 students each and I guarantee that my students learn as much or more in my class than the students in geology 101 at the University of Rochester do. I'm bragging here to make my point, but I *know* I'm a pretty good teacher and I *know* that many (obviously not all) people teaching at prestigious schools are not very good teachers.
Anyway I've rambled a bit; the point was supposed to be that I agree with your sentiment but UCLA is really not a good example. I'm sure also that things have changed in the past few decades:)
Use of "boxen" is actually really annoying to many people, including myself; and honestly, at least for me, when I see that it lowers my opinion of whoever wrote it. The impression it gives me is that the author is trying to sound cool to people who are computer geeks, but the kind of geek that mods their computer so it looks cool and runs the latest game quickly, not the kind that's actually interested in the inner workings of the system.
So that's my problem with it - I know other people say "boxen" as well, but it seems like the kind of thing that is most often used in the group described above. That this is a negative connotation for me I guess would imply that I'm an elitist of sorts, but that's not it; I'm just not into the same kind of thing. That's just not the kind of geek I am and I sometimes regret being found guilty by association with that group by people who don't know me well but can tell I'm a geek.
Of course, I'm also the kind of person who gets annoyed at most all improper grammar usage. The "Its/It's" problem so many people have is one of the worst.
On the other hand, I don't mind "virii" that much; I know it's incorrect but it's not so much of a stretch as "boxen". I agree, it's fun, when used in the right context. A story about popular anti-virus software running amok definitely counts as the right context.
Also, while I do use them quite frequently myself, I don't get too concerned about proper comma and semicolon usage, so please no comments about that if I've done something wrong in that regard:)
It's hard to tell with a show like that, but you can be safe in saying that just about everything in there is a reference to something. They wouldn't have a character that hunts blaculas if the blacula precedent hadn't been set previously.
I don't know if you've actually seen blu-ray movies in comparison with DVD movies, then, because it is actually a huge improvement. Blu-ray movies look amazing - if you need proof, go to pirate bay and download one.
You of course won't notice a difference on non-HD TV, but on a computer monitor or HDTV the difference is quite large and well worth the upgrade in my opinion.
The difference in quality is so apparent on an HDTV that even the many people who didn't notice a difference between VHS and DVD immediately see the massive improvement.
I imagine more thought went into that study than we know of without reading the actual thing. They chose "positive" liberal traits, and "negative" conservative traits. What I'd guess they did was do a survey to find out what people thought stereotypical personality traits for each were, and that resulted in this traits. Now, I know there are "negative" liberal traits, but I have a hard time coming up with "positive" conservative traits. We're talking big generalities here. Is it hard to believe that their initial survey to determine wait traits to study came to the same conclusion? I don't think so.
There could be political spin involved, and the researchers could have had an agenda. I don' t know. But I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, because I also know that the media that most people will have heard about the study from twisted things out of it that weren't intended.
For all either of us knows without looking up the study, "negative" liberal traits and "positive" conservative traits *were* studied. Perhaps they did not provide interesting results - maybe they didn't follow from childhood through adulthood as the reported traits did. It's rare that bad science lasts long enough to complete a 20-year study. I'm not saying it's impossible, of course.
The most important point is that the traits they chose to study and how they chose to frame those traits is irrelevant - the conclusion remains valid that traits seen in childhood continue through adulthood (this is not surprising.) They're not saying *all* traits remain, so they're not saying traits are fixed at birth. Obviously, as people grow up and mature, their traits change and are refined.
Depending on how much study actually went into determining common traits among liberals and conservatives, their conclusions regarding that are also valid, but I would look into further research in that area. The study probably mentions at the end that more research is required there, and perhaps that's where those scientists are going next.
This is all conjecture without reading the study, but I feel you were exhibiting some "negative" conservative traits in your analysis of this study:)
Off-Topic: I can't get the preview to show paragraph breaks, so I hope this shows up formatted properly.
Part of the parent's argument, though, is that the quality and amount of play time present in a lot of games these days is abysmal. Twenty hours worth of gameplay is a heck of a lot for a new title to have.
Gears of War, for example, lasted 5 hours for me and a friend playing co-op. I don't pay for the privilege of playing the games I already payed for online through xbox live and the only offline multiplayer in Gears of War is 2-player deathmatch (incredibly boring.)
It was a great game and I enjoyed the experience, but was it worth $60 for 5 hours? That's $12/hr.
I could re-play it, sure, but that's not the same as getting 20 or more hours of enjoyable gameplay for $60 (and $60 is a heck of a lot of money to most people.)
In your "free soda anywhere" scenario, what do the soda companies do? They are presumably the ones providing the soda, right? Yet, they have no money because no one pays for it. It's not equivalent. Soda doesn't come out of thin air and can't be copied freely, while data can. It's the whole physical product vs. data argument.
Assuming soda did come out of nowhere, though, then what would happen? To remain competitive, the soda companies would have to create a different product that is either legitimately better, or is perceived as better. And people would buy it (like the other replier's example of bottled water.)
So what should the content industry do? Provide a better product. People will buy it.
I pay for quite a lot of content, when I feel I'm getting a good product. If the distributor puts no effort into it (and likely doesn't pay the artists a whole lot), what is my incentive to pay for it? Put out a quality product and pay the artist a good amount, and people will pay for it (including grad students with no money like me!)
I think it's funny you call your W300i a good convergence of a cellphone and portable alarm clock. I have the W350i ("free" upgrade for continuing my contract) and I also only use it as a phone and alarm clock. I looked up the 300 and I think the 350 is a much better, smaller design (actually I think it's kind of cool,) but the functionality is probably identical.
I was mildly interested in using it as an mp3 player when I was looking at phones in the store because it's something I'll always have on me, but when I got it I discovered that it doesn't have a headphone jack. I'm not going to pay extra to get one, so I decided, why bother, when I have an excellent Cowon X5L and high-quality headphones and earbuds for various applications?
All said, it really is a pretty darn good alarm clock, much better than those on my previous phones. I've had a ridiculous amount of trouble finding a regular alarm clock in stores that works for me (the one I've been using for at least ten years now no longer wakes me up - I guess I'm too used to it,) and just last week I returned the latest one I tried and decided to just use the cell phone.
If there's one market I predict these "convergence" products will overtake, it's the alarm clock market.
I grew up in Amherst and went to the University of Rochester, and while I mostly agree with what you said (we've both got the same experiences obviously,) I think you've exaggerated a bit.
I don't find that there is an inordinate amount of SUVs in Western New York. Not like if you've ever been to a mountain state out west - there, you really do notice that almost everyone drives an SUV or something similar. I base this off of the fact that now I live in Southern California, and just as many people drive SUVs here than they do in WNY.
I find instead that the popularity of cars like Subarus is increased in WNY. All Subarus have AWD, and it really does make a difference in snow. This is essentially what you said, except that you specify SUVs when I think that the smaller ones are more popular (especially the Subaru Outback - I drive an Impreza now myself.)
That said, before I moved out here to Southern California a month and a half ago, I was driving a FWD, standard shift '96 Saturn without ABS for years and I never had any problem even when driving in deeper snow than anyone would think was safe (even with an SUV.) I find this is true of most people in the area - they don't drive fancy cars and SUVs, they just learn to drive more safely and are able to control the car in snow. Not like people here in California - it's rained once, for 20 minutes or so, the entire time I've been here, and it resulted in someone launching themself over a road division next to my house;)
You make excellent points. You're looking at it from a different perspective of course; I bought it for myself as a moderately advanced Linux user to use for school and personal stuff. I'm not a business user and enjoy fixing things myself, so support from the company isn't a big requirement for me.
One of the big things for me was, as you mentioned, that the important hardware was guaranteed to work with Linux. That's the thing I worry about now with potential Thinkpad purchases in the future, as a poorly supported laptop component would not be easy to replace. I'm not going to completely write them off as you are, though, because the quality of the hardware and build is easily the best on the market. Other than Macs, I haven't seen any other laptop with anywhere near as good quality.
Indeed, it's easy to think of ways that they bring the price down for the Windows models; the crapware you mention for example.
While I didn't have the option for the built-in webcam, I was able to get bluetooth, and it works perfectly in opensuse. I use it all the time with a really nice wireless mouse made by... Microsoft;)
I also got the integrated fingerprint reader, which doesn't really work. I knew it had limited support in linux, but wanted it anyway. Maybe it's improved since then, I haven't looked into it. The point is, though, that I'm not sure why they included it as an option because it didn't work with the pre-loaded Suse.
I also haven't been able to get the volume control buttons to work, and they didn't work in the pre-load either.
They didn't really put enough work into supporting all the hardware, clearly.
I bought a T61 several months ago from them with Suse pre-installed (I then installed the latest version of OpenSuse instead as the pre-installed one was an older, stable and supported version.)
I like it a lot and was planning on doing the same for any future laptop purchases. It's a shame because these are great machines and perfect for Linux (and the kind of person that normally runs Linux.)
However, I ran through the various options before purchasing and it was hard to tell if I was really saving money this way. For the Linux systems the choice of hardware options was more limited than with Windows (which does make sense) and I don't think I was able to set up equal systems which to compare prices with. In the end I think I paid the same or possibly even more for this system than if I had got one with Windows with the intention of not using it.
I think, then, their trial of selling Linux machines failed because they failed to make it a compelling option to the buyer, either financially or otherwise (limited options.)
I still feel good about myself for not giving any money to Microsoft.
I didn't read TFA, but I did read the FSA (fine Science article) itself. Also, IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student.)
It is not as simple as LiveScience apparently paints it - the low velocity seismic zones are well-known to geologists and have been explained by theory fairly completely.
Though this isn't what they're talking about, there are different zones of seismic velocity within the layers themselves due to changes in temperature, pressure, and composition of the material, which leads to zones of partial melting. Seismic waves either slow down or disappear completely in liquids, depending on the type of wave, which explains some of these zones.
What this article discusses is not those zones, obviously, but rather the boundary between layers. There are a lot of thoughts on that, too, and it's well known that the boundaries are not so distinct and perfect. For example, mantle plumes (which form hotspots like Hawaii and Yellowstone) have many theories of origin - one of them being that they originate near the core. If this were true, then there would be hot plumes of material reaching all the way through the earth to the core, which obviously would cause irregularities in the layer boundaries - creating zones of partial melting which slow down seismic waves.
What this new article offers is a model of this behavior based on extended sets of data not available before. It's not really telling us anything too new, rather, it's describing and confirming what was already theorized using some nice new data (which is of course equally important as coming up with totally new ideas, but not as glamorous.)
Now, I'm not sure if anyone actually believed that they do, but geologists do not subscribe to the "middle school" model of earth. And middle school teaching will not change. The concentric sphere model is still fine as a simplification.
That's an interesting idea - and on cable TV they run local ads over the ads coming from the actual station. If they can get away with that, surely they would get away with doing it on the internet too.
That thinking only takes you so far - the idea is that if you take away the market for it by pursuing those that pay money for it, then the producers will have less incentive to produce it.
Which, of course, is ridiculous - it's the same thing with drug possession laws. The war on child porn is as ineffective as the war on drugs, but is not criticized as often. If you criticize the war on child porn, you risk painting yourself as someone who likes child porn, which is MUCH worse than being painted a drug user.
But then, in both cases, if the users are being pursued, presumably some of them will be persuaded to move their interests elsewhere. In the case of child porn, even if someone has a really strong attachment to it, in most cases they should be able to condition themselves to enjoy non-child porn instead. If not, they should be able to seek help for it if they desire, without fear of prosecution.
The point is that it's more complicated than you suggest. Going for the producers of child porn should obviously be the primary goal, but is not the complete solution - with a whole bunch of people now lacking a supplier, what will happen? A new supplier will show up, almost immediately.
Something radically different needs to happen if the government wants to effectively combat illicit industries like this.
Like your friend, I do not think an outright war on these industries is the answer; it is already proven to not work and it doesn't make sense to begin with. But while legalizing drugs and controlling them through the government seems like a perfectly reasonably solution, proposing to legalize child porn (even just possession of it) is completely different. If there is nothing against possessing it, then there will be an even bigger market for it (probably much bigger than anyone wants to admit) - which means there would have to be legal producers of it, which defeats the purpose, or the illegal producers will just continue producing and distributing it - in fact it's likely even more producers would pop up.
What is going on? Squid are awesome and this is an interesting discovery... two comments?
Realistically I don't know if this is so "revolutionary", though - it's great for the squid, sure, but the revolutionary part will be figuring out how to actually engineer stuff like this.
It sounds simple and obvious enough, but thinking about how to create materials that behave like this one realizes the challenges involved (not that I am a materials engineer and know anything about it.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a Donovan fan myself and I'm glad you know of that song too, I always liked that one. It's silly, genuinely humorous, and genuinely geeky as well.
I guarantee he didn't come up with the idea of recycling urine himself, though; he probably read about it in a science fiction story. You can tell from his songs (and sometimes the album covers - there are Tolkien quotes on the back of Sunshine Superman) that he read a wide variety of stuff.
He's a great lyricist, though, and because he references so much literature (both blatantly and subtly) it's fun to think about where he took his inspiration from.
It's clearly a technique for child porn investigations. If you have a suspect who owns the same kind of camera you determined was used to take the photo in question, which the investigators most certainly didn't get from the photographer them self, you can know whether to search for more evidence or to eliminate them from your suspect list.
Most people who do this kind of thing are not necessarily going to realize this is possible, so aren't going to think of the obvious solution, which is to borrow someone else's camera or to own two cameras (one bought with cash) and hide the one used for dirty deeds really, really well (in a train station locker, say.)
So basically this is pretty weak evidence, and not that great of an investigative tool, in my opinion. Of course, zealous investigators are going to push stuff like this as fool-proof evidence, despite the multiple problems with this such as I just described in the previous paragraph.
Just FYI, when they look at bullets in an investigation, they match it to the actual original gun, not to a specific model (other than bullet caliber.) They take the bullet from the victim's brains, fire a bullet from a gun of the same caliber seized from a suspect, and can see if they match.
Sorry if you already knew that, but from the wording of your post I wasn't sure. I think it's pretty cool so in case you didn't know, there you go. The things you learn from Dragnet.
I bought Unreal Tournament 3 recently for my ps3 (which I bought primarily to watch blu-ray movies on) for three reasons:
1. It's $20, brand new
2. I saw that the company put up map packs for download on the playstation store, for FREE - unlike every other game that charges you up to $10-15 for a couple extra maps
3. You can use a USB or bluetooth keyboard and mouse to play the game, on the ps3!
I've only played it for a few minutes (I've got other things, like being a grad student and browsing slashdot, to do) but it worked flawlessly and it could have fooled me into thinking I was playing on a computer if someone else had set it up (it helps of course that I don't have a TV and connect the ps3 to my computer monitor.)
If other console games supported that, I would be much happier to pay the ridiculous prices they want for them.
I completely agree, I'm sure that would happen - if I used "cool" phrases at all. I'm sure I seem like a square among people I talk to, and I know by writing this I'm going to sound like a jerk, but I actually feel really awkward using trendy phrases and slang so I don't do it. I don't even like calling people by nicknames. It's uncomfortable for me.
Now, I consider this to be something of a problem; I'm not saying I'm better than people who use cool phrases - in fact I wish I was able to do so more easily! I think this actually has the same effect you predict, except I don't have to wait to get old, where young(er) "trendiness nazis" are annoyed at my language usage. It certainly has made for many awkward conversations.
I know you're being sarcastic in your post (while letting in an amount of meanness appropriate to the level of jerkiness found in my original post) so please don't take this the wrong way. I'm taking the time to defend myself against a sarcastic attack only because this is something I think about a lot; on the one hand I'm glad I never fell into the trap of using too much slang most young people have, on the other I wish I didn't sound like such a dork when I talk to people :)
Heh, at least she has a sense of humor; it's funny too that she even knew what that meant in the anatomical sense (I'm imagining a typical middle-aged secretary, obviously that could be wrong.)
Now I'm really going to sound like an ass, but calling a computer a "box" in the first place has always bothered me, so of course I don't like "boxen" either :)
I guess I'm somewhat out of place here; I love computers, run linux exclusively and know a lot of the inner workings, but in real life I'm actually a science nerd (and grad student) so I don't fit in with slashdot's predominantly computer science/IT culture (of course I know science is a big deal around here too, but it's not the main focus.)
That's my excuse for criticizing common IT slang :)
Your points are valid, particularly about the style of classes (large versus small), except that UCLA is actually a top school and is likely as good or better than most private universities. *Of course* you would have gotten a good education at UCLA, and it would be just as impressive on your resume as whatever (unnamed) private university you ended up going to.
The real comparison you should be looking for is between a public school in, for example, the Cal State system and a small private school.
That said, if you can afford it or have someone that's paying for you, I do believe you'll get an overall better education at a small private school. It's a much better learning environment, with small classes and everything else you mention.
I went to a small, private, prestigious research university, the University of Rochester, and graduated with a B.S. in Geology. Now I'm a grad student working on an M.S. at Cal State Fullerton.
I am paid as a TA to teach lab sections for geology 101. I teach three sections of ~25 students each and I guarantee that my students learn as much or more in my class than the students in geology 101 at the University of Rochester do. I'm bragging here to make my point, but I *know* I'm a pretty good teacher and I *know* that many (obviously not all) people teaching at prestigious schools are not very good teachers.
Anyway I've rambled a bit; the point was supposed to be that I agree with your sentiment but UCLA is really not a good example. I'm sure also that things have changed in the past few decades :)
Use of "boxen" is actually really annoying to many people, including myself; and honestly, at least for me, when I see that it lowers my opinion of whoever wrote it. The impression it gives me is that the author is trying to sound cool to people who are computer geeks, but the kind of geek that mods their computer so it looks cool and runs the latest game quickly, not the kind that's actually interested in the inner workings of the system.
So that's my problem with it - I know other people say "boxen" as well, but it seems like the kind of thing that is most often used in the group described above. That this is a negative connotation for me I guess would imply that I'm an elitist of sorts, but that's not it; I'm just not into the same kind of thing. That's just not the kind of geek I am and I sometimes regret being found guilty by association with that group by people who don't know me well but can tell I'm a geek.
Of course, I'm also the kind of person who gets annoyed at most all improper grammar usage. The "Its/It's" problem so many people have is one of the worst.
On the other hand, I don't mind "virii" that much; I know it's incorrect but it's not so much of a stretch as "boxen". I agree, it's fun, when used in the right context. A story about popular anti-virus software running amok definitely counts as the right context.
Also, while I do use them quite frequently myself, I don't get too concerned about proper comma and semicolon usage, so please no comments about that if I've done something wrong in that regard :)
It's not a Venture Brothers reference; Blacula is a real film from 1972: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068284/. There's a sequel, too.
It's hard to tell with a show like that, but you can be safe in saying that just about everything in there is a reference to something. They wouldn't have a character that hunts blaculas if the blacula precedent hadn't been set previously.
I don't know if you've actually seen blu-ray movies in comparison with DVD movies, then, because it is actually a huge improvement. Blu-ray movies look amazing - if you need proof, go to pirate bay and download one.
You of course won't notice a difference on non-HD TV, but on a computer monitor or HDTV the difference is quite large and well worth the upgrade in my opinion.
The difference in quality is so apparent on an HDTV that even the many people who didn't notice a difference between VHS and DVD immediately see the massive improvement.
When your hard drive fails and you hear those awful noises, you can say it's churning butter.
The preview box problem I mentioned caused me to not actually preview my post, so my first paragraph is riddled with typos, sorry.
I imagine more thought went into that study than we know of without reading the actual thing. They chose "positive" liberal traits, and "negative" conservative traits. What I'd guess they did was do a survey to find out what people thought stereotypical personality traits for each were, and that resulted in this traits. Now, I know there are "negative" liberal traits, but I have a hard time coming up with "positive" conservative traits. We're talking big generalities here. Is it hard to believe that their initial survey to determine wait traits to study came to the same conclusion? I don't think so.
There could be political spin involved, and the researchers could have had an agenda. I don' t know. But I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, because I also know that the media that most people will have heard about the study from twisted things out of it that weren't intended.
For all either of us knows without looking up the study, "negative" liberal traits and "positive" conservative traits *were* studied. Perhaps they did not provide interesting results - maybe they didn't follow from childhood through adulthood as the reported traits did. It's rare that bad science lasts long enough to complete a 20-year study. I'm not saying it's impossible, of course.
The most important point is that the traits they chose to study and how they chose to frame those traits is irrelevant - the conclusion remains valid that traits seen in childhood continue through adulthood (this is not surprising.) They're not saying *all* traits remain, so they're not saying traits are fixed at birth. Obviously, as people grow up and mature, their traits change and are refined.
Depending on how much study actually went into determining common traits among liberals and conservatives, their conclusions regarding that are also valid, but I would look into further research in that area. The study probably mentions at the end that more research is required there, and perhaps that's where those scientists are going next.
This is all conjecture without reading the study, but I feel you were exhibiting some "negative" conservative traits in your analysis of this study :)
Off-Topic: I can't get the preview to show paragraph breaks, so I hope this shows up formatted properly.
Part of the parent's argument, though, is that the quality and amount of play time present in a lot of games these days is abysmal. Twenty hours worth of gameplay is a heck of a lot for a new title to have.
Gears of War, for example, lasted 5 hours for me and a friend playing co-op. I don't pay for the privilege of playing the games I already payed for online through xbox live and the only offline multiplayer in Gears of War is 2-player deathmatch (incredibly boring.)
It was a great game and I enjoyed the experience, but was it worth $60 for 5 hours? That's $12/hr.
I could re-play it, sure, but that's not the same as getting 20 or more hours of enjoyable gameplay for $60 (and $60 is a heck of a lot of money to most people.)
In your "free soda anywhere" scenario, what do the soda companies do? They are presumably the ones providing the soda, right? Yet, they have no money because no one pays for it. It's not equivalent. Soda doesn't come out of thin air and can't be copied freely, while data can. It's the whole physical product vs. data argument.
Assuming soda did come out of nowhere, though, then what would happen? To remain competitive, the soda companies would have to create a different product that is either legitimately better, or is perceived as better. And people would buy it (like the other replier's example of bottled water.)
So what should the content industry do? Provide a better product. People will buy it.
I pay for quite a lot of content, when I feel I'm getting a good product. If the distributor puts no effort into it (and likely doesn't pay the artists a whole lot), what is my incentive to pay for it? Put out a quality product and pay the artist a good amount, and people will pay for it (including grad students with no money like me!)
I think it's funny you call your W300i a good convergence of a cellphone and portable alarm clock. I have the W350i ("free" upgrade for continuing my contract) and I also only use it as a phone and alarm clock. I looked up the 300 and I think the 350 is a much better, smaller design (actually I think it's kind of cool,) but the functionality is probably identical.
I was mildly interested in using it as an mp3 player when I was looking at phones in the store because it's something I'll always have on me, but when I got it I discovered that it doesn't have a headphone jack. I'm not going to pay extra to get one, so I decided, why bother, when I have an excellent Cowon X5L and high-quality headphones and earbuds for various applications?
All said, it really is a pretty darn good alarm clock, much better than those on my previous phones. I've had a ridiculous amount of trouble finding a regular alarm clock in stores that works for me (the one I've been using for at least ten years now no longer wakes me up - I guess I'm too used to it,) and just last week I returned the latest one I tried and decided to just use the cell phone.
If there's one market I predict these "convergence" products will overtake, it's the alarm clock market.
I grew up in Amherst and went to the University of Rochester, and while I mostly agree with what you said (we've both got the same experiences obviously,) I think you've exaggerated a bit.
I don't find that there is an inordinate amount of SUVs in Western New York. Not like if you've ever been to a mountain state out west - there, you really do notice that almost everyone drives an SUV or something similar. I base this off of the fact that now I live in Southern California, and just as many people drive SUVs here than they do in WNY.
I find instead that the popularity of cars like Subarus is increased in WNY. All Subarus have AWD, and it really does make a difference in snow. This is essentially what you said, except that you specify SUVs when I think that the smaller ones are more popular (especially the Subaru Outback - I drive an Impreza now myself.)
That said, before I moved out here to Southern California a month and a half ago, I was driving a FWD, standard shift '96 Saturn without ABS for years and I never had any problem even when driving in deeper snow than anyone would think was safe (even with an SUV.) I find this is true of most people in the area - they don't drive fancy cars and SUVs, they just learn to drive more safely and are able to control the car in snow. Not like people here in California - it's rained once, for 20 minutes or so, the entire time I've been here, and it resulted in someone launching themself over a road division next to my house ;)
You make excellent points. You're looking at it from a different perspective of course; I bought it for myself as a moderately advanced Linux user to use for school and personal stuff. I'm not a business user and enjoy fixing things myself, so support from the company isn't a big requirement for me.
One of the big things for me was, as you mentioned, that the important hardware was guaranteed to work with Linux. That's the thing I worry about now with potential Thinkpad purchases in the future, as a poorly supported laptop component would not be easy to replace. I'm not going to completely write them off as you are, though, because the quality of the hardware and build is easily the best on the market. Other than Macs, I haven't seen any other laptop with anywhere near as good quality.
Indeed, it's easy to think of ways that they bring the price down for the Windows models; the crapware you mention for example.
While I didn't have the option for the built-in webcam, I was able to get bluetooth, and it works perfectly in opensuse. I use it all the time with a really nice wireless mouse made by... Microsoft ;)
I also got the integrated fingerprint reader, which doesn't really work. I knew it had limited support in linux, but wanted it anyway. Maybe it's improved since then, I haven't looked into it. The point is, though, that I'm not sure why they included it as an option because it didn't work with the pre-loaded Suse.
I also haven't been able to get the volume control buttons to work, and they didn't work in the pre-load either.
They didn't really put enough work into supporting all the hardware, clearly.
I bought a T61 several months ago from them with Suse pre-installed (I then installed the latest version of OpenSuse instead as the pre-installed one was an older, stable and supported version.)
I like it a lot and was planning on doing the same for any future laptop purchases. It's a shame because these are great machines and perfect for Linux (and the kind of person that normally runs Linux.)
However, I ran through the various options before purchasing and it was hard to tell if I was really saving money this way. For the Linux systems the choice of hardware options was more limited than with Windows (which does make sense) and I don't think I was able to set up equal systems which to compare prices with. In the end I think I paid the same or possibly even more for this system than if I had got one with Windows with the intention of not using it.
I think, then, their trial of selling Linux machines failed because they failed to make it a compelling option to the buyer, either financially or otherwise (limited options.)
I still feel good about myself for not giving any money to Microsoft.
I didn't read TFA, but I did read the FSA (fine Science article) itself. Also, IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student.)
It is not as simple as LiveScience apparently paints it - the low velocity seismic zones are well-known to geologists and have been explained by theory fairly completely.
Though this isn't what they're talking about, there are different zones of seismic velocity within the layers themselves due to changes in temperature, pressure, and composition of the material, which leads to zones of partial melting. Seismic waves either slow down or disappear completely in liquids, depending on the type of wave, which explains some of these zones.
What this article discusses is not those zones, obviously, but rather the boundary between layers. There are a lot of thoughts on that, too, and it's well known that the boundaries are not so distinct and perfect. For example, mantle plumes (which form hotspots like Hawaii and Yellowstone) have many theories of origin - one of them being that they originate near the core. If this were true, then there would be hot plumes of material reaching all the way through the earth to the core, which obviously would cause irregularities in the layer boundaries - creating zones of partial melting which slow down seismic waves.
What this new article offers is a model of this behavior based on extended sets of data not available before. It's not really telling us anything too new, rather, it's describing and confirming what was already theorized using some nice new data (which is of course equally important as coming up with totally new ideas, but not as glamorous.)
Now, I'm not sure if anyone actually believed that they do, but geologists do not subscribe to the "middle school" model of earth. And middle school teaching will not change. The concentric sphere model is still fine as a simplification.
That's an interesting idea - and on cable TV they run local ads over the ads coming from the actual station. If they can get away with that, surely they would get away with doing it on the internet too.
That thinking only takes you so far - the idea is that if you take away the market for it by pursuing those that pay money for it, then the producers will have less incentive to produce it.
Which, of course, is ridiculous - it's the same thing with drug possession laws. The war on child porn is as ineffective as the war on drugs, but is not criticized as often. If you criticize the war on child porn, you risk painting yourself as someone who likes child porn, which is MUCH worse than being painted a drug user.
But then, in both cases, if the users are being pursued, presumably some of them will be persuaded to move their interests elsewhere. In the case of child porn, even if someone has a really strong attachment to it, in most cases they should be able to condition themselves to enjoy non-child porn instead. If not, they should be able to seek help for it if they desire, without fear of prosecution.
The point is that it's more complicated than you suggest. Going for the producers of child porn should obviously be the primary goal, but is not the complete solution - with a whole bunch of people now lacking a supplier, what will happen? A new supplier will show up, almost immediately.
Something radically different needs to happen if the government wants to effectively combat illicit industries like this.
Like your friend, I do not think an outright war on these industries is the answer; it is already proven to not work and it doesn't make sense to begin with. But while legalizing drugs and controlling them through the government seems like a perfectly reasonably solution, proposing to legalize child porn (even just possession of it) is completely different. If there is nothing against possessing it, then there will be an even bigger market for it (probably much bigger than anyone wants to admit) - which means there would have to be legal producers of it, which defeats the purpose, or the illegal producers will just continue producing and distributing it - in fact it's likely even more producers would pop up.
This is +5 Insightful, not Flamebait. Moderators, please read the parent post before jumping to conclusions.
What is going on? Squid are awesome and this is an interesting discovery... two comments?
Realistically I don't know if this is so "revolutionary", though - it's great for the squid, sure, but the revolutionary part will be figuring out how to actually engineer stuff like this.
It sounds simple and obvious enough, but thinking about how to create materials that behave like this one realizes the challenges involved (not that I am a materials engineer and know anything about it.)