I don't think anyone is arguing that it wasn't accident. Just because it is an accident doesn't absolve them from responsibility. It will be interesting to see if any civil lawsuits are brought.
Tetris was released June 6, 1984. 28 years ago in the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviet Union was the original owner of the copyright. It's still stupid IP law.
An Office Space quote modded troll? That's not a troll. If you really don't like that reference or don't get it maybe mod off-topic. Personally I thought it was funny and at least somewhat relevant considering the movie involves IT people getting back at a company that fired 2 of them.
Tertullian, an early Christian author (ca. CE 160-220), was one of the first to describe famine and war as factors that can prevent overpopulation.[5] He wrote: "The strongest witness is the vast population of the earth to which we are a burden and she scarcely can provide for our needs; as our demands grow greater, our complaints against Nature's inadequacy are heard by all. The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.
Knowledge and technological advance keep solving and bringing back this age old problem. I wonder if we bent all of Earth's resources to our needs how much of the biomass of the Earth could be comprised of human beings.
I think they live in a fairy land. From the summary.
...enhancing the overarching academic mission to create and disseminate knowledge.
The idea that protecting copyright helps encourage the creation process is at least a valid idea. However I don't see any way that restricting the ability to copy that knowledge somehow helps disseminate it.
Evolution doesn't predict that an organisms would ever give birth to a distinctly different organism. Red and Blue are to distinctly different colors but you can move between them by making tiny imperceptible changes. At no time will you see red turn to blue. Even with different species organisms are not distinctly different. Taxonomy is debated all the time precisely because it is difficult to differentiate organisms.
We classify horses and donkeys as separate species because they cannot produce offspring that can reproduce. On the other hand they can produce sterile offspring. Evolution attempts to explain this by offering that horses and donkeys were once capable of producing fertile offspring and are now diverging. Their gene pools are not affected by the other. Now this doesn't 'prove' Evolution. In this case, Evolution is the theory that explains the observation.
Now let's look at a prediction of Evolution. Evolution predicts that the traits passed from parent to offspring change very slightly. Now it is obvious that for bisexual parents offspring are not clones. But Darwin wasn't saying that offspring were a different mix of traits he was actually proposing that the traits varied slightly and that new traits were introduced. He didn't know their was DNA that mutated slightly through each generation. But Evolution depended on it. If it had turned out that DNA was static and that varying traits were dependent solely on mixing genes as opposed to introducing slight changes (changes in genes means changes in traits) it would have falsified evolution on the spot.
Some people aren't sold on the theory. It really doesn't make any sense to a lot of people because 2 controdictory things must happen: the organism must first be best adapted to the environment, and the organism also must have mutations (most of which are not immediately beneficial) to continue change.
Since existing organisms are already in existing environments the first thing you state has been observed and is what most people would call a fact.
Since mutations have also been observed in organisms this would also be considered by most as fact
To continue what I perceive as implied (that these observation can't make evolution happen).
We have also observed that dna is responsible for the traits displayed in the organism. We have observed that if we change that dna, traits of the organism are changed. We have also observed that we can select the largest organism of a given population and that over time the average size of the organism will increase (e.g. cows or strawberries or my fruit flies in 10th grade).
We have observed that selection pressures exist in nature so that when the environment changes traits observed in populations change. (loss of sight for organism isolated underground, colors of moths as pollution-soot changes or reproductive ages of fish changing with fishing laws)
We have observed that the same trait can be detrimental in one environment and beneficial in another (pigmentation's benefit/detriment depends largely on latitude; Sickle Cell Anemia depends on the threat of malaria.)
Personally I think it is rather isolating for a 6 year old to only play their games on an iPad. I think the Wii encourages the kind of family engagement that board games used to. Playing network games with each other over iPad's isn't the same as 4 family members laughing and screaming as their mario characters bounce off of each other. And while there are games on any console that a family might be able to play together the Wii seems to stand out for that particular purpose.
I think the Wii is a hit with young families. Trouble is those kids are getting older now so Nintendo needs to capture newer parents with young children. I don't know if they realize that parents with young children don't necessarily want a social networking aspect to the game system. I enjoy playing the Wii casually but it has always seemed cartoonish and geared towards family fun. Phone games don't fill the gap for a family with a 6 year old.
Perhaps there is something else to choose from between 'have all the answers' and 'don't give any answers'. Then again what do I know I don't have -1 answers.
Shame you're modded down. While off-topic I think you asked an honest curious question./. is a community and I personally wouldn't waste a negative mod point on someone that asks another member a question politely.
At any rate the title of the submission renders the topic little respect. 'The Poor Waste More Time...' isn't a good start. Ending with 'On Digital Entertainment' doesn't help. After all/. should despise the idea that digital entertainment is some kind of magical version of regular entertainment. It's not like movie theaters and water parks are full of rich people. And the premise that if you're not doing something to make more money then you are wasting time is flawed to begin with (let's face it the only reason people tend to argue for more education is to get a better job and get more money). Time may be money but money is not time.
In the case of male lineage couldn't you look at the Y chromosome? Is it too small to variate much? I have no idea how its complexity (unique points of mutations?) compares to mitochondrial dna.
Indeed the 50%-90% are getting screwed from both ends. The bottom half have 2.5% of the wealth so they are also do not pay their fair share of taxes. So if it breaks down that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes on 75% of the wealth and the bottom 50% pay nothing on 2.5% of the wealth then the 50-90% pay 30% on 22.5% of the wealth. It looks like the middle class is taking on 2.5% of the tax burden for the bottom 50% and 5% for the top 10%.
and I know damn well if the top 10% pay 70% of the tax burdon (true) than the distribution of weath is not going in their favor
Without comparing how much wealth the top 10% have it is meaningless to suggest that because they pay 70% of the taxes that the distribution of wealth is not in their favor. Estimates I've seen show the top 10% having around 3/4 of the wealth so they pay 70% of the taxes and have 75% of the wealth. Or the bottom 90% have 25% of the wealth and pay 30% of the taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
What's interesting is that we're okay with $3.75/gal. 10 years ago $2 made people angry.
If NetFlix is required, then are theaters?
Yes Last I heard the ninth circuit upheld it. Don't know if it's on the way to the Supreme Court or if they refused to hear it.
FWIW gooooogle.com redirects to digforgold.com.
You are exactly right this was an accidental fire
I don't think anyone is arguing that it wasn't accident. Just because it is an accident doesn't absolve them from responsibility. It will be interesting to see if any civil lawsuits are brought.
Tetris was released June 6, 1984. 28 years ago in the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviet Union was the original owner of the copyright. It's still stupid IP law.
It's difficult to argue that anything is random.
Don't know about the juveniles but Google does return some results for citizens targeted in drone strikes.
You'd think we'd have nanochannels by now.
I wonder how a chimney style might work. Pull 'cooler' air from the sides and eject hot air out the top.
An Office Space quote modded troll? That's not a troll. If you really don't like that reference or don't get it maybe mod off-topic. Personally I thought it was funny and at least somewhat relevant considering the movie involves IT people getting back at a company that fired 2 of them.
Tertullian, an early Christian author (ca. CE 160-220), was one of the first to describe famine and war as factors that can prevent overpopulation.[5] He wrote: "The strongest witness is the vast population of the earth to which we are a burden and she scarcely can provide for our needs; as our demands grow greater, our complaints against Nature's inadequacy are heard by all. The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.
Knowledge and technological advance keep solving and bringing back this age old problem. I wonder if we bent all of Earth's resources to our needs how much of the biomass of the Earth could be comprised of human beings.
They think we live in fairy land
I think they live in a fairy land. From the summary.
...enhancing the overarching academic mission to create and disseminate knowledge.
The idea that protecting copyright helps encourage the creation process is at least a valid idea. However I don't see any way that restricting the ability to copy that knowledge somehow helps disseminate it.
Perhaps it's the cigarettes that go so good with coffee :)-~
Evolution doesn't predict that an organisms would ever give birth to a distinctly different organism. Red and Blue are to distinctly different colors but you can move between them by making tiny imperceptible changes. At no time will you see red turn to blue. Even with different species organisms are not distinctly different. Taxonomy is debated all the time precisely because it is difficult to differentiate organisms.
We classify horses and donkeys as separate species because they cannot produce offspring that can reproduce. On the other hand they can produce sterile offspring. Evolution attempts to explain this by offering that horses and donkeys were once capable of producing fertile offspring and are now diverging. Their gene pools are not affected by the other. Now this doesn't 'prove' Evolution. In this case, Evolution is the theory that explains the observation.
Now let's look at a prediction of Evolution. Evolution predicts that the traits passed from parent to offspring change very slightly. Now it is obvious that for bisexual parents offspring are not clones. But Darwin wasn't saying that offspring were a different mix of traits he was actually proposing that the traits varied slightly and that new traits were introduced. He didn't know their was DNA that mutated slightly through each generation. But Evolution depended on it. If it had turned out that DNA was static and that varying traits were dependent solely on mixing genes as opposed to introducing slight changes (changes in genes means changes in traits) it would have falsified evolution on the spot.
Some people aren't sold on the theory. It really doesn't make any sense to a lot of people because 2 controdictory things must happen: the organism must first be best adapted to the environment, and the organism also must have mutations (most of which are not immediately beneficial) to continue change.
Since existing organisms are already in existing environments the first thing you state has been observed and is what most people would call a fact.
Since mutations have also been observed in organisms this would also be considered by most as fact
To continue what I perceive as implied (that these observation can't make evolution happen).
We have also observed that dna is responsible for the traits displayed in the organism. We have observed that if we change that dna, traits of the organism are changed. We have also observed that we can select the largest organism of a given population and that over time the average size of the organism will increase (e.g. cows or strawberries or my fruit flies in 10th grade). We have observed that selection pressures exist in nature so that when the environment changes traits observed in populations change. (loss of sight for organism isolated underground, colors of moths as pollution-soot changes or reproductive ages of fish changing with fishing laws)
We have observed that the same trait can be detrimental in one environment and beneficial in another (pigmentation's benefit/detriment depends largely on latitude; Sickle Cell Anemia depends on the threat of malaria.)
I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem.
According to Wikipedia a browser called InternetWorks had tabs in 1994.
Personally I think it is rather isolating for a 6 year old to only play their games on an iPad. I think the Wii encourages the kind of family engagement that board games used to. Playing network games with each other over iPad's isn't the same as 4 family members laughing and screaming as their mario characters bounce off of each other. And while there are games on any console that a family might be able to play together the Wii seems to stand out for that particular purpose.
Sadly the article is wrong. It is 185,000 dollars.
I think the Wii is a hit with young families. Trouble is those kids are getting older now so Nintendo needs to capture newer parents with young children. I don't know if they realize that parents with young children don't necessarily want a social networking aspect to the game system. I enjoy playing the Wii casually but it has always seemed cartoonish and geared towards family fun. Phone games don't fill the gap for a family with a 6 year old.
Perhaps there is something else to choose from between 'have all the answers' and 'don't give any answers'. Then again what do I know I don't have -1 answers.
Shame you're modded down. While off-topic I think you asked an honest curious question. /. is a community and I personally wouldn't waste a negative mod point on someone that asks another member a question politely.
/. should despise the idea that digital entertainment is some kind of magical version of regular entertainment. It's not like movie theaters and water parks are full of rich people. And the premise that if you're not doing something to make more money then you are wasting time is flawed to begin with (let's face it the only reason people tend to argue for more education is to get a better job and get more money). Time may be money but money is not time.
At any rate the title of the submission renders the topic little respect. 'The Poor Waste More Time...' isn't a good start. Ending with 'On Digital Entertainment' doesn't help. After all
In the case of male lineage couldn't you look at the Y chromosome? Is it too small to variate much? I have no idea how its complexity (unique points of mutations?) compares to mitochondrial dna.
Civil rights are not about empathy.
Indeed the 50%-90% are getting screwed from both ends. The bottom half have 2.5% of the wealth so they are also do not pay their fair share of taxes. So if it breaks down that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes on 75% of the wealth and the bottom 50% pay nothing on 2.5% of the wealth then the 50-90% pay 30% on 22.5% of the wealth. It looks like the middle class is taking on 2.5% of the tax burden for the bottom 50% and 5% for the top 10%.
and I know damn well if the top 10% pay 70% of the tax burdon (true) than the distribution of weath is not going in their favor
Without comparing how much wealth the top 10% have it is meaningless to suggest that because they pay 70% of the taxes that the distribution of wealth is not in their favor. Estimates I've seen show the top 10% having around 3/4 of the wealth so they pay 70% of the taxes and have 75% of the wealth. Or the bottom 90% have 25% of the wealth and pay 30% of the taxes.