And plenty of games are much better in 3D than in 2d. Halo comes to mind along with any FPS or over the shoulder. Mario and metroid are clear examples of the opposite of what you're suggesting even though you compensate by saying "totally different." Katamari damancy... The grand theft auto series is by itself a reason to say that all 2d series should at least have one attempt at a 3d incarnation.
2d has it's place, there are definitely some games that need to be 3d, I think we need more 2d platformers, but let's not act like a few franchises that are better in 2d are reasons why games are worse today.
Before I read them I have to ask: are they advocating anarchy in theory? Because if they are, I've got better things to be doing. If they are convincing that it would work in practice, I might read it out of curiosity.
When the only electable candidates are those chosen by the mainstream media, and controlled by special interests, I would say most emphatically that voting or democracy doesn't "work".
I'm reminded of that Churchill quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It's all good and well to cynically talk about the problems of voting, dominated by special interests, mainstream media chooses for us... but really it would be wierd if it worked perfectly, wouldn't it? Finding a system where special interests could NOT exert disproportionate influence, and where canidates were ONLY chosen by quality, not any funnels or filters... how realistic is that? Getting rid of the vote is obviously only going to massively increase those problems directly, we have history to prove that.
Money always influences lawmaking, the only thing to do is to keep in mind that money takes the path of least resistance to politicians pockets and close the more damaging paths.
Media chooses canidates to a large degree, but voters tend to get tunnel vision even without their aid, we've had a 2 party system since before the media really got into swing.
WORST... IDEA... EVER. I do not want to live in a country ruled by porn sites. It would be more interesting at first, but would quickly become disgusting.
The two-party system is caused by the same sources perpetuating the stagnant economy - the plethora of 24-hour news organizations.
Question: When did the two party system spring up? Was it with the advent of 24 hour news organizations, or was it with the advent of our political system? Because I'm pretty sure TV did not invent the two party system, the constitution did (albeit unintentionally.)
Surprisingly his constituents appear to be following in his footsteps and not calling for endless recounts or crying about being marginalized as citizens.
Well, I think that's only suprising if you're somehow sure that any whining about voting errors stems from being a poor loser, not legitimate voting concerns. Also if you ignore the margin that Obama won by. I'm sure there were voting inconsistencies out there that may have potentially decreased the number of votes McCain got, but you could not make the case that swung the election. Conversely, the 2000 election you could although we won't get into that again here.
I think they would have had some issue if it looked like it actually made a difference.
That's an interesting idea and would be really cool, but if anyone has done it, I'd imagine it would be outrageously expensive compared to standard methods. For many applications, as the misnamed unknowingfool alluded to, benzene is a pretty cheap way. For human consumption purposes, 95% ethanol is not noticeably different from 100%. But there will definitely be a big market for nanofilters that could separate ethanol from water as soon as it's working and cheap.
Uh, I'm not sure I follow your logic there, even though I agree with the end result. TFA points out they had discovered this by using ethanol and water mixed. They made mixes from pure alchohol and water, it was only after they found the ideal ratio that someone realized it was the same as tequilla. Had prohibition been going on, they would have discovered the real money making part: the ratio of water to alchohol needed to make diamonds.
Interestingly, most labs that use ethanol for things like sterilization get most of it not in the form of pure ethanol but 70% ethanol. There seem to be two causes for that in the US, one is of course that higher-purity ethanol is harder to make, I'm not sure what goes into getting 100% ethanol, but I've heard you can't distill it that pure. The other is that the 70% stock is usually denatured, it often has methanol added. The addition of methanol makes it undrinkable (er, well you could drink it, but you'd go blind and die if you drank enough of it) and also makes it taxed less.
I wonder if these guys weren't trying to cut down on laboratory costs, maybe methanol reduces the efficiency (ruling out the denatured alchohol), but the non-methanol contaminants in tequilla don't. Maybe tequilla is a lot cheaper than even denatured alchohol in Mexico.
No, you got modded troll, because you are a sarcastic prick.
After my previous post of "Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards," got marked troll. What was sarcastic about that? And I'm sorry, but equating marriage and prostitution DOES show an extreme lack of perspective.
can anyone explain a possible application for this research, other than acting like a prick?
Better understanding of group mentality and the human psyche. Seems more worthwhile to me than developing a more powerful bomb. Then again, I am just a bleeding heart liberal.
Troll? Well I've learned my lesson: implying that free market forces aren't the perfect cure to every societal ill is an amoral thought that must be banned!
let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work.
Well, forcing them do something is at least one way to ensure they're no longer unmotivated. Now they'll have a reason to take an interest in politics. Anyway, it's not like they're doing much important now. Most of my time in high school was spent playing "Marathon" and listening to bad music. They're frittering their time away.
Although that may not really be a good reason to force them to community service... as I post on slashdot at work...
What are you talking about? "Nerd" hasn't been redefined as "someone who ONLY cares about a small subset of trivial things that are not politics" has it?
I think this entire article is a load of attention seeking BS, and I will not believe a word of it until I see a proper peer-reviewed research paper in a medical journal that debunks stretching.
Well, it's not like the implications of the study are that significant to where you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure one way or the other. This isn't a study telling you you'll live 10 years longer if you stop investing. Although it's dubious right now (and I have to say, could still be dubious even after publishing) you could just keep it in mind if you're exercising that there's some indication you shouldn't stretch like that beforehand.
It really shouldn't have to be 100% believe or 100% doubt when it comes to research findings, in fact it should NEVER be all-or-none, especially with current research. Even if there were three other studies coming to the same conclusion in good journals, they could all still be wrong. Likewise, unless a study is completely illogical and concludes something like "Evolution is too complex, God did it," you can't say with certainty that it CANNOT be true, even if it's a crappy blurb like this.
You can most certainly say they haven't proven their case and you don't trust them at all, but let's not forget that most good tested theories were at some point untested hypotheses.
If prostitutes had a legal standing their position would be a much better one.
That's not a sure thing for the US. I haven't researched this in depth, this article I found (http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article1596) seems biased against prostitution, but suggests that legalization in europe hasn't had that effect. It points out that legal, licensed prostitues have been decreasing while profits from the sex trade have increased. It suggests that the sex trade which would remain illegal under any legalization proposal, such as underage child prostituion and sex slavery, is what benefits from legalization. There's a chance that legalization of one form of prostitution will make it harder to control the clearly immoral forms of it. I say we shouldn't experiment.
In addition to the hard data, it makes sense to me that legalizing prostitution would only compound the problems. I don't know why one would think that a pimp is suddenly going to become a good employer just because his "employees" aren't breaking the law anymore.
As far as "marriage is prostitution," if you really can't tell a difference then either you came from a really fucked up home or are incredibly naive as to what prostitution actually is.
That said, the neanderthal assholes who post them might not be aware of that* and almost certainly won't be happy if they catch you taking them down, legally right or not, so be careful when picking up trash
I don't know that they would be mad. The guys who are hired to plant the signs won't have any interest as to whether they work or not. Their boss tells them "Put all these signs up and I'll give you $20." If you followed them closely, picking up the signs right after, some of them might realize that whoever is paying them minimum wage might drive by later to make sure they weren't just being tossed in the trash, and they won't get hired again. But the point of the signs is that they are cheap and dispensable, no one is going to care if you collect 100 of them, there will be a million more tomorrow.
Forgiveable, as it points out in the article cited that the eastern blot is rather pointless with LC/MS. But it also points out that Ed Southern gave it the thumbs up, so you should include it.
Unless of course pirates absorb greenhouse gases [seanbonner.com]
... well, that's obviously not the only interpretation to walk away with there. Another would be that some of the same changes that drove piracy down, like using internal combustion engines to power boats that would then go faster, decreasing the efficiency of hijacking a boat on the open seas, also may have been putting out more greenhouse gasses.
Correlation does not mean DIRECT causation, but it's often hard to rule out indirect causation.
Anyway, his point was right. People here pull out that trite bit of fortune-cookie wisdom every time two things happen, even if an argument of causation is made. Stubbornly refusing to admit the possibility that A and B are at all related just because a direct link has not been shown is not very logical either.
In this case, people are quick to point out correlation does not mean causation maybe because they like videogames and don't want any possibility of seeing games blamed for any real problems and censored. I don't think denying the truth, if this is true, is the best way to guard against censorship. I think we need to continue to argue that the responsibility to control oneself is on the individual, if some kids become violent after playing games, the obvious solution would be to not let them play games. Barring that, lock them up or sedate them. I really don't care, but you're not taking my gaming options away just because of bad parents.
Of course violent video games cause violence. I played GTA the other day, then I went out and stole a car, then I ran some people over, then I did some missions, got a rocket launcher and blew some stuff up, then I had 4 stars above my head and I knew I had some problems.
Ah, but I have to point out everyone's favorite logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation!!! Maybe you were going to do that anyway? Have not enough stories been tagged with it? I mean, any story in which two things happen gets tagged "correlationisnotcausation."
I mainly replied in response to the comment "Seriously, some of you people scare me..." which was annoying and unnecessary.
As opposed to your comment of "It is a cold hard fact that when people do not die they are called 'alive' and therefore are contributing to the number of people considered to be the 'population.'"? Did you take "Malthus' theory misinterpreted 101" last quarter or something?
We wouldn't need to CLONE to do that, just figure out how to take a cow embryonic stem cell line and make it differentiate into organized muscle in a dish. We could just expand the bES cell lines as much as we needed. I think it's possible to get muscle cells from ES cells already, but last I heard they didn't organize into muscles, so it would be a bit like eating steak puree. They may have solved that little problem by now.
Of course, that might piss off vegetarians AND people opposed to stem cell research, but I think we'll win over some of them with 40 lb lean steaks in the shape of mount rushmore.
What are we becoming? Now every sleazy behaviour is ok as long as you can opt-out? That hasn't worked for spam for the past 20 years, has everyone suddenly got a learning disorder?
Just to point out, if you RTFP (post) mattytee doesn't say it's ok, he says it's "hinky." Which might NOT mean okay. I admit, I don't know what it ACTUALLY means, so it might mean "good." I don't think I'd enjoy being called "hinky" so it doesn't sound like he's saying "You can opt out, so it's cool."
Slashdot Mirror
And plenty of games are much better in 3D than in 2d. Halo comes to mind along with any FPS or over the shoulder. Mario and metroid are clear examples of the opposite of what you're suggesting even though you compensate by saying "totally different." Katamari damancy... The grand theft auto series is by itself a reason to say that all 2d series should at least have one attempt at a 3d incarnation.
2d has it's place, there are definitely some games that need to be 3d, I think we need more 2d platformers, but let's not act like a few franchises that are better in 2d are reasons why games are worse today.
Before I read them I have to ask: are they advocating anarchy in theory? Because if they are, I've got better things to be doing. If they are convincing that it would work in practice, I might read it out of curiosity.
Right, like I was saying, NOT the 24 hour media but the system itself.
When the only electable candidates are those chosen by the mainstream media, and controlled by special interests, I would say most emphatically that voting or democracy doesn't "work".
I'm reminded of that Churchill quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It's all good and well to cynically talk about the problems of voting, dominated by special interests, mainstream media chooses for us... but really it would be wierd if it worked perfectly, wouldn't it? Finding a system where special interests could NOT exert disproportionate influence, and where canidates were ONLY chosen by quality, not any funnels or filters... how realistic is that? Getting rid of the vote is obviously only going to massively increase those problems directly, we have history to prove that.
Money always influences lawmaking, the only thing to do is to keep in mind that money takes the path of least resistance to politicians pockets and close the more damaging paths.
Media chooses canidates to a large degree, but voters tend to get tunnel vision even without their aid, we've had a 2 party system since before the media really got into swing.
WORST... IDEA... EVER. I do not want to live in a country ruled by porn sites. It would be more interesting at first, but would quickly become disgusting.
The two-party system is caused by the same sources perpetuating the stagnant economy - the plethora of 24-hour news organizations.
Question: When did the two party system spring up? Was it with the advent of 24 hour news organizations, or was it with the advent of our political system? Because I'm pretty sure TV did not invent the two party system, the constitution did (albeit unintentionally.)
Surprisingly his constituents appear to be following in his footsteps and not calling for endless recounts or crying about being marginalized as citizens.
Well, I think that's only suprising if you're somehow sure that any whining about voting errors stems from being a poor loser, not legitimate voting concerns. Also if you ignore the margin that Obama won by. I'm sure there were voting inconsistencies out there that may have potentially decreased the number of votes McCain got, but you could not make the case that swung the election. Conversely, the 2000 election you could although we won't get into that again here.
I think they would have had some issue if it looked like it actually made a difference.
That's an interesting idea and would be really cool, but if anyone has done it, I'd imagine it would be outrageously expensive compared to standard methods. For many applications, as the misnamed unknowingfool alluded to, benzene is a pretty cheap way. For human consumption purposes, 95% ethanol is not noticeably different from 100%. But there will definitely be a big market for nanofilters that could separate ethanol from water as soon as it's working and cheap.
Uh, I'm not sure I follow your logic there, even though I agree with the end result. TFA points out they had discovered this by using ethanol and water mixed. They made mixes from pure alchohol and water, it was only after they found the ideal ratio that someone realized it was the same as tequilla. Had prohibition been going on, they would have discovered the real money making part: the ratio of water to alchohol needed to make diamonds.
Interestingly, most labs that use ethanol for things like sterilization get most of it not in the form of pure ethanol but 70% ethanol. There seem to be two causes for that in the US, one is of course that higher-purity ethanol is harder to make, I'm not sure what goes into getting 100% ethanol, but I've heard you can't distill it that pure. The other is that the 70% stock is usually denatured, it often has methanol added. The addition of methanol makes it undrinkable (er, well you could drink it, but you'd go blind and die if you drank enough of it) and also makes it taxed less.
I wonder if these guys weren't trying to cut down on laboratory costs, maybe methanol reduces the efficiency (ruling out the denatured alchohol), but the non-methanol contaminants in tequilla don't. Maybe tequilla is a lot cheaper than even denatured alchohol in Mexico.
No, you got modded troll, because you are a sarcastic prick.
After my previous post of "Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards," got marked troll. What was sarcastic about that? And I'm sorry, but equating marriage and prostitution DOES show an extreme lack of perspective.
can anyone explain a possible application for this research, other than acting like a prick?
Better understanding of group mentality and the human psyche. Seems more worthwhile to me than developing a more powerful bomb. Then again, I am just a bleeding heart liberal.
Troll? Well I've learned my lesson: implying that free market forces aren't the perfect cure to every societal ill is an amoral thought that must be banned!
let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work.
Well, forcing them do something is at least one way to ensure they're no longer unmotivated. Now they'll have a reason to take an interest in politics. Anyway, it's not like they're doing much important now. Most of my time in high school was spent playing "Marathon" and listening to bad music. They're frittering their time away.
Although that may not really be a good reason to force them to community service... as I post on slashdot at work...
What are you talking about? "Nerd" hasn't been redefined as "someone who ONLY cares about a small subset of trivial things that are not politics" has it?
I think this entire article is a load of attention seeking BS, and I will not believe a word of it until I see a proper peer-reviewed research paper in a medical journal that debunks stretching.
Well, it's not like the implications of the study are that significant to where you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure one way or the other. This isn't a study telling you you'll live 10 years longer if you stop investing. Although it's dubious right now (and I have to say, could still be dubious even after publishing) you could just keep it in mind if you're exercising that there's some indication you shouldn't stretch like that beforehand.
It really shouldn't have to be 100% believe or 100% doubt when it comes to research findings, in fact it should NEVER be all-or-none, especially with current research. Even if there were three other studies coming to the same conclusion in good journals, they could all still be wrong. Likewise, unless a study is completely illogical and concludes something like "Evolution is too complex, God did it," you can't say with certainty that it CANNOT be true, even if it's a crappy blurb like this.
You can most certainly say they haven't proven their case and you don't trust them at all, but let's not forget that most good tested theories were at some point untested hypotheses.
If prostitutes had a legal standing their position would be a much better one.
That's not a sure thing for the US. I haven't researched this in depth, this article I found (http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article1596) seems biased against prostitution, but suggests that legalization in europe hasn't had that effect. It points out that legal, licensed prostitues have been decreasing while profits from the sex trade have increased. It suggests that the sex trade which would remain illegal under any legalization proposal, such as underage child prostituion and sex slavery, is what benefits from legalization. There's a chance that legalization of one form of prostitution will make it harder to control the clearly immoral forms of it. I say we shouldn't experiment.
In addition to the hard data, it makes sense to me that legalizing prostitution would only compound the problems. I don't know why one would think that a pimp is suddenly going to become a good employer just because his "employees" aren't breaking the law anymore.
As far as "marriage is prostitution," if you really can't tell a difference then either you came from a really fucked up home or are incredibly naive as to what prostitution actually is.
Regulating morality does NOT work. Legislating a prohibition never has worked, especially on things that are victimless crimes.
Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards.
That said, the neanderthal assholes who post them might not be aware of that* and almost certainly won't be happy if they catch you taking them down, legally right or not, so be careful when picking up trash
I don't know that they would be mad. The guys who are hired to plant the signs won't have any interest as to whether they work or not. Their boss tells them "Put all these signs up and I'll give you $20." If you followed them closely, picking up the signs right after, some of them might realize that whoever is paying them minimum wage might drive by later to make sure they weren't just being tossed in the trash, and they won't get hired again. But the point of the signs is that they are cheap and dispensable, no one is going to care if you collect 100 of them, there will be a million more tomorrow.
Yeah, but -I- didn't get to make those. Anyway, you forgot one: the eastern blot.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/May/04050701.asp
Forgiveable, as it points out in the article cited that the eastern blot is rather pointless with LC/MS. But it also points out that Ed Southern gave it the thumbs up, so you should include it.
Unless of course pirates absorb greenhouse gases [seanbonner.com]
... well, that's obviously not the only interpretation to walk away with there. Another would be that some of the same changes that drove piracy down, like using internal combustion engines to power boats that would then go faster, decreasing the efficiency of hijacking a boat on the open seas, also may have been putting out more greenhouse gasses.
Correlation does not mean DIRECT causation, but it's often hard to rule out indirect causation.
Anyway, his point was right. People here pull out that trite bit of fortune-cookie wisdom every time two things happen, even if an argument of causation is made. Stubbornly refusing to admit the possibility that A and B are at all related just because a direct link has not been shown is not very logical either.
In this case, people are quick to point out correlation does not mean causation maybe because they like videogames and don't want any possibility of seeing games blamed for any real problems and censored. I don't think denying the truth, if this is true, is the best way to guard against censorship. I think we need to continue to argue that the responsibility to control oneself is on the individual, if some kids become violent after playing games, the obvious solution would be to not let them play games. Barring that, lock them up or sedate them. I really don't care, but you're not taking my gaming options away just because of bad parents.
Of course violent video games cause violence. I played GTA the other day, then I went out and stole a car, then I ran some people over, then I did some missions, got a rocket launcher and blew some stuff up, then I had 4 stars above my head and I knew I had some problems.
Ah, but I have to point out everyone's favorite logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation!!! Maybe you were going to do that anyway? Have not enough stories been tagged with it? I mean, any story in which two things happen gets tagged "correlationisnotcausation."
I mainly replied in response to the comment "Seriously, some of you people scare me..." which was annoying and unnecessary.
As opposed to your comment of "It is a cold hard fact that when people do not die they are called 'alive' and therefore are contributing to the number of people considered to be the 'population.'"? Did you take "Malthus' theory misinterpreted 101" last quarter or something?
Remember northern blots?
Honestly? No, I've BLOTTED it out.
It's so rare you get to make a molecular-biology related pun, you have to take every opportunity you get, even if they are that bad. I'm sorry.
We wouldn't need to CLONE to do that, just figure out how to take a cow embryonic stem cell line and make it differentiate into organized muscle in a dish. We could just expand the bES cell lines as much as we needed. I think it's possible to get muscle cells from ES cells already, but last I heard they didn't organize into muscles, so it would be a bit like eating steak puree. They may have solved that little problem by now.
Of course, that might piss off vegetarians AND people opposed to stem cell research, but I think we'll win over some of them with 40 lb lean steaks in the shape of mount rushmore.
What are we becoming? Now every sleazy behaviour is ok as long as you can opt-out? That hasn't worked for spam for the past 20 years, has everyone suddenly got a learning disorder?
Just to point out, if you RTFP (post) mattytee doesn't say it's ok, he says it's "hinky." Which might NOT mean okay. I admit, I don't know what it ACTUALLY means, so it might mean "good." I don't think I'd enjoy being called "hinky" so it doesn't sound like he's saying "You can opt out, so it's cool."