To be honest, me either. It's a fine game, but it's not as good as it's been made out to be; but like I said, for some reason, it seems to be the gateway-game for getting people in to modern German-style board games. I think it might be because it can be played very non-competitively, which makes new players not feel so intimidated. Playing that way also makes the game completly random, victory wise; but I consider it a fair price in order to get a new fan of the genre.
When you don't know anything about the topic under discussion, it's better to just not say anything at all. Clearly I need to start doing meta-moderation again.
And what, pray tell, is wrong with board games? I like board games, I've spent a lot of money on board games. Before Japanese-styled cartoons caught on, it was considered that "cartoons are for kids"; and German-style board games are fighting the same "for kids" hurdles in the same way anime did for cartoons (by being AWESOME.) Seriously, at least try Settlers of Catan before you knock on board games (it's like the Ninja Scroll of board games; for some reason, it's often the first thing people try, and it gets them interested in trying more things.)
ANYWAY, enough of that rant.
Yes, Hasbro has made a lot of mistakes when it comes to computer entertainment (buying and selling Microprose and Atari; selling away and then buying back digital rights to most of their properties (including Scrabble and Dungons&Dragons)). Add this craptacular version of Scrabble to the pile (and a hefty amount of blame goes to EA too!)
Point being, Hasbro hardly fits the mold of "buggy whip company". They keep trying new things, and yes, lots of them fail. But hey, they could have shut down Scrabulous before they had their replacement ready, so they could have shot themselves in the foot worse.
I am opposed to the actions Hasbro has taken in this. Regretably, they are acting entirely within the law.
Ah, well that's different then. I'd have to look at the study more closely to see what, if any, difference they looked for, or found, on the spread among various societies. It's a good question.
So I'll give you that point if you'll give that elementary and high schools, which are essentially random samples, should keep an eye out for these unwarrented discriminatory differences in expectations for math performance.
It's easy to say "girls would do better in math if society didn't drive them from it", but it's, as they say, "just a theory", and another equally valid theory is "irrespective of socialization, girls aren't as good at math".
Why, it's the kind of thing one might do a scientific experiment on, to try to find out the truth. How about this for an experiment: We measure boys and girls math abilities in several different societies that have different emphasees regarding mathematical ability and gender roles. If it isn't found that girls universally do worse in math, then we could say that that would be evidence in favor of the theory I proposed, and against yours. Not necessarily conclusive evidence, but evidence none the less, which we could use to refine our respective theories and develop new experiments. That's how science works.
Now, let me do a quick google search and see if any such experiments have been done... Oh, hey, here's an article and discussion on just such a study: No Gap Found in Math Abilities of Girls, Boys.
"The patriarchy" doesn't mean guys all got together and decided to keep women down. It's a societal construct which self-perpetuates gender-based division of roles; including "male==leader" and "female==likes shoes".
That women--under the burden of this construct--also assist in perpetuating these divisions, is an argument IN SUPPORT of its existence and its ongoing effects; NOT of it being "made up" to "sell" "feminism".
Just how foot binding, arranged mariages, and bride-burning are all strongly enforced by the women (most older women who experienced such things when they were younger) in the patriarcal cultures that practice(d) them. You don't have to be a dude to buy what the patriarchy is selling.
That study bases it's data on a single sensor, which is downwind of a major coke plant, miles away from any of the major population centers. The actual places where anyone lives are significantly cleaner, with most of the airborne toxins and particulates blowing in from Ohio (*shakes fist at Ohio*).
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
"It becomes something else... could be harmful right?"
You mean... calcium carbonate and hydrogen? A common compound in rocks and sea shells and a light gas that combines with oxygen to form pure water? No, it's not harmful.
Are you on crack? Telerama is still all over (mostly Squirell Hill/Oakland, but many further out from there, too). The reason it's not everywhere-everywhere blanketing the whole city is it COSTS TOO MUCH to do that with WiFi. If you want trully ubiquitous "free" wireless, YOU can pay for it.
WiFi was never designed for ubiquitous coverage. That doesn't mean other people don't want the coverage, they're just aware of the costs/benefits.
*googelstalks you* Ahh. Maybe I can have Bryan walk over and bop you for your silliness.
Concentrating people together (cities) lets more people work more closely together, which makes them "smarter". (Read Tim Harford's The Logic of Life.)
Additionally, Silicon Valley, as an example of "it's not the government!", is interesting, given that recent research suggests that Boston, Mass. could have been what Silicon Valley became... if it weren't for Massachusett's laws enforcing non-compete aggreements. (See: thesearticles.) In other words, sometimes it/is/ the government.
Yes, but. One of the two is an anti-quark. So while you need three (regular) quarks to get a chromodynamically balanced particle (red+blue+green=0), green+antigreen (for example) is also balanced.
(Excuse the naive liberties taken to explain the concept. Let the pedants now correct this statement down to incoherence.)
Then the thing for you to do is educate yourself and others on ranked voting methods (I personally prefer one of the Condorcet methods, but Instant Runoff Voting is a step in the right direction) and work to get them used in your local area.
FISA's roll is to make the executive branch prove to the other branches that it's spying actions ARE not domestic. EVERY bit that went through that AT&T hub was copied into that NSA-access-only room, not just internationally originating bits. The issue IS "domestic spying" because that's what we're worried about whether or not happened.
With yesterday's vote, Congress has said "Yeah, what you did was certainly illegal, because it may have included MASSIVE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE which we and the judicial branch are suppose to ensure you're not doing; but we're not going to bother looking into it."
National security is part of the duties of all branches of the government. Civics 101: congress writes the law, executive executes the law, courts interpret the law; all are responsibile for security.
Also; no, it's not that you don't need a warrent to spy on a spy, it's that you do need a warrent to spy on an AMERICAN CITIZEN who you think MIGHT BE a spy. Have you read how low the bar the law sets in order to get a FISA warrant is? Do you even know why the FISA court was set up in the first place? It's because Nixon was SPYING on AMERICAN CITIZENS for POLITICAL GAIN and NOT national security. And that's BAD.
We know (not suspect) that Bush ignored the (already at the time affirmatively the only way to conduct surveilance and super-low barrier to approval) FISA courts; which is illegal. And we know that most of the major telecom companies helped; which is illegal (and which they should have known, but apparently Qwest is the only one who did). I'm sure they got a lot of good anti-terrorism information; that's GREAT, but they should have done it through legal channels. Because now, what we'll never know, is what other non-security related information this administration has learned by ILLEGALLY SPYING on AMERICAN CITIZENS. Which might be nothing (but then, why go through all the illegal actions to get it?) But it might not.
It comes down to trust. We know we can't trust the president of the US with this sort of power, because we know it's been abused in the past (by Nixon). Why then do we trust our current moron in chief? Why would all the Republican congressmen trust Barak Obama with this power? I don't get it.
Finally, we don't need to defend our citizens rights ONLY when we're sure they're NOT terrorist. We need to defend our citizens rights until we are CERTAIN they ARE terrorist (well, all the time: even terrorists, as human beings, have significant rights). It's a subtle but INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT distinction. Otherwise, the government could lock up anyone it didn't like on unfounded or trumped up accusations of terrorism.
Doesn't matter how charismatic a leader you can find; there is no escape from the two-party system.
It's mathematics, really: given our current plurality voting method, if there were ever more than two options with a snowball's chance in hell, then coalitions would form until there were, again, only two options. (Your only escape: ranked voting methods such as Condorcet. But why would any two-party member support that sort of change?)
The players may change (we did lose the Whigs), but it takes a serious, serious shake-up, and settles back down to one-on-one very, very quickly.
And consider this: do you know who runs the pressidential debates? If you said "The League of Women Voters," you're wrong. They used too, but since that old Ross Perot nonsense almost worked, those are organized by a joint project between the Democratic and Republican parties. So good luck getting any third party candidate recognition. Sure, there are other venues: but every single one has these same kind of roadblocks errected by the current duopoly of parites.
I don't normally nitpick, but you made the same confounding error multiple times in one post: silicon and silicone are two different things. One is a chemical element, the other is a group of polymers which contain the element.
So we've put all this effort into all this technology to make the world a "smaller" place; to make every bit of information reachable and searchable from everywhere; to make location, distance, space itself, as irrelevant as possible; and somehow the idea of going back and tying information to a physical location is suppose to be... good?
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, me either. It's a fine game, but it's not as good as it's been made out to be; but like I said, for some reason, it seems to be the gateway-game for getting people in to modern German-style board games. I think it might be because it can be played very non-competitively, which makes new players not feel so intimidated. Playing that way also makes the game completly random, victory wise; but I consider it a fair price in order to get a new fan of the genre.
When you don't know anything about the topic under discussion, it's better to just not say anything at all. Clearly I need to start doing meta-moderation again.
Man, there should be, like, a test before they let you have a userid...
ANYWAY, enough of that rant.
Yes, Hasbro has made a lot of mistakes when it comes to computer entertainment (buying and selling Microprose and Atari; selling away and then buying back digital rights to most of their properties (including Scrabble and Dungons&Dragons)). Add this craptacular version of Scrabble to the pile (and a hefty amount of blame goes to EA too!)
Point being, Hasbro hardly fits the mold of "buggy whip company". They keep trying new things, and yes, lots of them fail. But hey, they could have shut down Scrabulous before they had their replacement ready, so they could have shot themselves in the foot worse.
I am opposed to the actions Hasbro has taken in this. Regretably, they are acting entirely within the law.
So I'll give you that point if you'll give that elementary and high schools, which are essentially random samples, should keep an eye out for these unwarrented discriminatory differences in expectations for math performance.
It's easy to say "girls would do better in math if society didn't drive them from it", but it's, as they say, "just a theory", and another equally valid theory is "irrespective of socialization, girls aren't as good at math".
Why, it's the kind of thing one might do a scientific experiment on, to try to find out the truth. How about this for an experiment: We measure boys and girls math abilities in several different societies that have different emphasees regarding mathematical ability and gender roles. If it isn't found that girls universally do worse in math, then we could say that that would be evidence in favor of the theory I proposed, and against yours. Not necessarily conclusive evidence, but evidence none the less, which we could use to refine our respective theories and develop new experiments. That's how science works.
Now, let me do a quick google search and see if any such experiments have been done... Oh, hey, here's an article and discussion on just such a study: No Gap Found in Math Abilities of Girls, Boys.
Do you have data to back up that claim?
That women--under the burden of this construct--also assist in perpetuating these divisions, is an argument IN SUPPORT of its existence and its ongoing effects; NOT of it being "made up" to "sell" "feminism".
Just how foot binding, arranged mariages, and bride-burning are all strongly enforced by the women (most older women who experienced such things when they were younger) in the patriarcal cultures that practice(d) them. You don't have to be a dude to buy what the patriarchy is selling.
I never took a class with Pausch, but had plenty of friends who did, so I've heard stories; and not all them good.
But let's forget the bad for today, and let him be a god.
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml">Techdirt's latest on the topic
Kudos to Chicago then, for keeping excess phosphorus off of all the farmland within city limits!
You mean... calcium carbonate and hydrogen? A common compound in rocks and sea shells and a light gas that combines with oxygen to form pure water? No, it's not harmful.
I'm just reply so that my signature is attached to this.
WiFi was never designed for ubiquitous coverage. That doesn't mean other people don't want the coverage, they're just aware of the costs/benefits.
*googelstalks you* Ahh. Maybe I can have Bryan walk over and bop you for your silliness.
That is the most logical reason I've heard for why they hadn't filed earlier. Excellent deduction!
Additionally, Silicon Valley, as an example of "it's not the government!", is interesting, given that recent research suggests that Boston, Mass. could have been what Silicon Valley became... if it weren't for Massachusett's laws enforcing non-compete aggreements. (See: these articles.) In other words, sometimes it /is/ the government.
(Excuse the naive liberties taken to explain the concept. Let the pedants now correct this statement down to incoherence.)
Then the thing for you to do is educate yourself and others on ranked voting methods (I personally prefer one of the Condorcet methods, but Instant Runoff Voting is a step in the right direction) and work to get them used in your local area.
With yesterday's vote, Congress has said "Yeah, what you did was certainly illegal, because it may have included MASSIVE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE which we and the judicial branch are suppose to ensure you're not doing; but we're not going to bother looking into it."
Also; no, it's not that you don't need a warrent to spy on a spy, it's that you do need a warrent to spy on an AMERICAN CITIZEN who you think MIGHT BE a spy. Have you read how low the bar the law sets in order to get a FISA warrant is? Do you even know why the FISA court was set up in the first place? It's because Nixon was SPYING on AMERICAN CITIZENS for POLITICAL GAIN and NOT national security. And that's BAD.
We know (not suspect) that Bush ignored the (already at the time affirmatively the only way to conduct surveilance and super-low barrier to approval) FISA courts; which is illegal. And we know that most of the major telecom companies helped; which is illegal (and which they should have known, but apparently Qwest is the only one who did). I'm sure they got a lot of good anti-terrorism information; that's GREAT, but they should have done it through legal channels. Because now, what we'll never know, is what other non-security related information this administration has learned by ILLEGALLY SPYING on AMERICAN CITIZENS. Which might be nothing (but then, why go through all the illegal actions to get it?) But it might not.
It comes down to trust. We know we can't trust the president of the US with this sort of power, because we know it's been abused in the past (by Nixon). Why then do we trust our current moron in chief? Why would all the Republican congressmen trust Barak Obama with this power? I don't get it.
Finally, we don't need to defend our citizens rights ONLY when we're sure they're NOT terrorist. We need to defend our citizens rights until we are CERTAIN they ARE terrorist (well, all the time: even terrorists, as human beings, have significant rights). It's a subtle but INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT distinction. Otherwise, the government could lock up anyone it didn't like on unfounded or trumped up accusations of terrorism.
It's mathematics, really: given our current plurality voting method, if there were ever more than two options with a snowball's chance in hell, then coalitions would form until there were, again, only two options. (Your only escape: ranked voting methods such as Condorcet. But why would any two-party member support that sort of change?)
The players may change (we did lose the Whigs), but it takes a serious, serious shake-up, and settles back down to one-on-one very, very quickly.
And consider this: do you know who runs the pressidential debates? If you said "The League of Women Voters," you're wrong. They used too, but since that old Ross Perot nonsense almost worked, those are organized by a joint project between the Democratic and Republican parties. So good luck getting any third party candidate recognition. Sure, there are other venues: but every single one has these same kind of roadblocks errected by the current duopoly of parites.
I don't normally nitpick, but you made the same confounding error multiple times in one post: silicon and silicone are two different things. One is a chemical element, the other is a group of polymers which contain the element.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the point?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html