This isn't the early 90's. Games aren't necessarily targeted toward children anymore, and their content reflects this. Games will soon exceed film's capacity to convey material that is inappropriate for children, and as such, it makes sense to apply the same restrictions to video games, that are currently applied to movies. If we are to permit the sale of rated M games to minors, are we also to permit minors into rated R movies without the presence of a parent or guardian? It is very much the same circumstance.
Depends on the handgun but probably 4 clips. Then again it was probably 2 if they used an AR-17 but it could have just been 1 if Google paid for the 100 round mag...
The ash cloud also caused harm to the windscreen and landing lights, and smoke filled the cabin. Engines 1, 2 and 3, and the windscreen had to be replaced. Ash also got into the fuel tank, and that had to be flushed, and the contaminated fuel disposed of.
Ash clouds destroy planes, and endanger the lives of all crew and passengers aboard. Understandably, the presence of a massive ash cloud over Europe requires that air travel be shut down, until the cloud has passed.
Well, they can try to force legislation that will pay them through taxes, effectively selling themselves to the government, a move that is certain to backfire on them. They can force legislation that would require Americans to purchase their products, which seems unlikely to succeed. They can also try to force legislation that would require artists to go through them to distribute their works, but I suspect such a law would get overturned by the courts rather quickly.
The recording industry blames their decline in sales on piracy, but I suspect it has much more to do with the increasing quality of material available from other venues. Artists can publish their material cheaply and easily over the internet. By using this method, they are free from the recording industry's abusive contracts, and they also retain ownership of their creations. In this way, the internet is revolutionizing how artists interact with their audiences, and even big name musicians are turning to it.
Meanwhile, the RIAA continues to alienate its consumer-base, with lawsuits, uncompetitive prices, rootkits and outlandish demands. For decades, they could control their content producers with harsh contracts, accepted only because there weren't any other practical options. Now the artists have another option, and the RIAA's policies are driving both them and their audience to it. Why should I sign a recording contract which requires me to sell so many hundred thousand albums or become the professional property of the corporation, when I can publish my material on YouTube? Why should I pay $15 for a CD which might have only one or two songs I enjoy, when I can find all of the satisfying material I want for free on YouTube?
They're losing ground because they've failed to alter their business model to compensate for the changes technology has made to their market. They can try to force all sorts of legislation, but their efforts will only be in vane.
Let's go ahead and put all religion aside. Here's the simple fact: Sex comes with it, the possibility of resulting pregnancy. Once you've taken multiple people with multiple partners into the equation, you've increased the ante to include gonorrhea, AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, herpes, crabs, and many other infections. Many of these diseases are easy to spread, and some of them can't be cured. Is a few minutes of carnal entertainment really worth these potential consequences? Some of them discourage ever doing it again, for the rest of your life.
One of the best parts about being intelligent human beings, is that we can disregard what our hormones tell us to do, and choose a wiser course of action. We have the capacity to be thoroughly in control of ourselves, and that is also a natural thing. We should be exploiting this.
I'm not saying that everyone should live like monks, but I am saying that promiscuous sex is a foolish pass-time, and that justifying it by claiming it to be a "natural" thing is foolish, as well. To pursue exclusively what is brainlessly natural, is to pursue a chaotic world, full of disease and fatherless children.
Religions don't discourage this sort of behavior on accident. There are a lot of religions that really miss the point of things and abuse the power that they have over people, but you'll find, nevertheless, that rules pertaining to morality are generally rooted in good, cause-and-effect wisdom. The real tragedy is that those reasons aren't often explained to people.
Teaching practices need to promote the ideal circumstances, and count on the opposite. In the case of sexual education, promote abstinence, explain the array of potential consequences (which can occur despite the use of condoms), and make sure they know what their contraceptive options are, as well as how to go about getting them-- After all, even if they don't take this new found knowledge and immediately go out to copulate, this information will still be useful when they get married.
Really, in a perfect world, the responsibility for teaching children about sex would fall squarely on the parents, but we just can't count on the parents doing that part of their job. Maybe it's because we have horrible parents who are so bad at their tasks because their own parents were no good at it, or maybe it's because our culture regards sex as a generally impolite subject which parents are generally content to ignore. One way or another, we've failed on the whole subject for a couple of generations now, and the consequence is that each successive generation is slightly more loose than the one that came before (on the other hand, I'm not certain that the current youth is quite as promiscuous as the "FREE LOVE" generation of the 60's, but then, I've only born distant witness to the younger of the two). One way or another, something needs to be fixed.
If you were Chinese, you would have the opinion that the Chinese government has groomed you to have. Supposedly. The fundamental problem with a Communist system, is that the truth must be kept secret from the people. So long as they remain in ignorance of the possibility of having plenty, and on their own terms, they'll continue to work and slave as they always have. Let them see that there are other, easier ways that they could be living, on the other hand, and they soon become disgruntled. The sorts of things that the Chinese Government wants stripped from their internet, are relating to liberty and freedom.
It seems to me, that any truly good system should not require ignorance on the part of its constituents, but should instead encourage them to learn as much as they can.
There've also been a great deal of smaller-scale rebellions involving labor unions, which have been the direct cause of the creation of new laws, over the decades. Now, we haven't gone all out as the French have done, and gone so far as to drag our ruler out of his home to chop his head off with a heavy, keen-edged blade, but that's partly because we have laws in place to depose our president if he screws up too bad, and also because any conflict that headed in that direction was stopped before that result came about.
I dunno, the DS restored my faith in portable gaming. There's the Ace Attorney series, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, New Super Mario Brothers, Scribblenauts... Honestly, a lot of these games are simply good entertainment. Personally, I was particularly impressed with how well Phantom Hourglass used the DS's features.
The best solution yet, is to just make everything more efficient. Smaller power plants that generate more power with less fuel and waste, and electronics that require less energy to produce the same results of previous generations. By improving both ends of the power line, the improvements at either end of it seem even more productive.
I have to disagree on the point about explaining our evolutionary origins to them. DNA forming by accident is already a longshot as it is, and it's probably useful to consider that an alien race having no common past with us, would likely have come into being by some other means, which may be substantially more or less probable than our own path of evolution. The discussion goes a long way to emphasize that the aliens will not be familiar with concepts unique to Earth, but completely fails to remember that evolution as we understand it, is also unique to Earth. If our fate-appointed ambassador just starts drawing animals, then the aliens may very well get entirely the wrong idea.
Beyond that, it's probably best if we leave theology (and by extension, origin theories in general) out of the encounter altogether, unless they bring it up. Being technologically advanced does not preclude religious belief-- our religious organizations have a history of denying the validity of scientific discovery, but that doesn't mean the aliens' religions have done the same. Simply enough, if our fate-appointed ambassador makes some sort of implication that refutes their belief system, the result is likely to sour the whole event. Best to leave it alone.
Replicator technology would have a massive impact on the economy. The price of goods would decline dramatically, making services the only remaining source of strong income. Copyright law will become yet more complicated. In the end, it'd seriously be a different world.
I have worked with cows and chickens. I grew up on a ranch, worked on a dairy, and occasionally helped out a friend who worked on a chicken ranch. Cattle are not very bright beasts. The calves will drink their mothers' milk until their innards burst, and the adults are content, so long as they know where to find the food. As for chickens... I just cannot feel remorse for any alleged suffering that has been applied to a creature whose behavior does not change, after its head has been removed, leaving only a portion of its brain stem.
In my experience with these creatures, I have not seen any evidence of sentience. They have no ability to behave outside of instinct, and insofar as I can tell, memory is only established through repetition.
These animals are not people. They are food.
Now, I can understand the concept of a "Sex Offenders" registry. Victims of rape or pedophilia experience a lasting and significant impact on their lives, from the events, impacting everything from their feelings of personal security and self-confidence, to even grander things such as sexual orientation (and all of its permutations). The desires that inspired sex offenders to perform the act(s) which got them on the list are generally not the sort of thing that one leaves behind in his life, but rather, something that (s)he must live with, indefinitely. Therefore, keeping a publicly accessible registry of these people is, more or less, a fair thing to do.
Animal abuse, however, is generally not driven by hormones that are persistent through life, but rather, the adolescent hormone cocktail, or general ignorant belligerence. It's really not the sort of thing that needs a registry, because the behavior can be effectively turned off with minimal effort, or may even go away on its own. Normal punitive measures are generally sufficient. To require people involved in this sort of crime to add their names to a public registry is ridiculous.
You don't seem to realize that the browser attached to that interface you're in love with, will not continue to serve your needs for much longer. You can hold onto it all you want, but what will you be left with when new features of HTML make a great deal of Flash obsolete, and all of a sudden, you can no longer view a large swath of your favorite sites?
A great deal of modern browsers are skinnable. I suggest you look into finding a browser you can live with, which can be skinned to an interface very similar to that of IE6.
Having an interface you like does you absolutely no good, if the browser it's attached to is incompatible with most of the websites on the net.
It's not Microsoft's support if IE6 that you should be concerned with. It's the whole of the web, and web development standards which is increasingly built of standards that IE6 does not support. Before long, IE6 simply won't be able to display a majority of webpages, at which point you'll be left with a choice to either switch to a modern browser, or stop using the web.
You have a wide variety of options. If you don't like IE8 (and I personally can't blame you), then there's always Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, Avant, and if you're really clever, even your Windows desktop. I'm not going to tell you which browser you should use, but I do recommend that you shop around to see if another browser has features that you don't yet realize that you like.
You will eventually have to switch to another browser. IE6 will not be supported forever, nor should it be. Give tabs a try. You'll find that you like them.
I will concede though, that IE8 has a horrible interface. The way IE8 handles tabs makes me wonder why Microsoft bothered with them, at all.
Type I is normally diagnosed in children (it is seldom diagnosed after the age of 16 or so, though this does happen), and is the most severe type, characterized by the ceasation of insulin production by pancreas. This differs from Type II, in which, the pancreas may be fine, but the body has developed a resistance to use of the insulin, or in some cases, the pancreas may not be able to produce enough insulin to compensate for the body's size (a larger body has a larger quantity of blood, which in turn, requires a larger amount of insulin to process the glucose within)-- they body can out-grow the pancreas.
Personally, it would save me a lot of headaches if Type I and Type II Diabetes had different names. Since Type II is so incredibly common in the US, when I tell people that I have Diabetes, they immediately misunderstand what I mean, which has lead to a number of Pharmacy errors, in the past.
I'm not convinced that immortality is a desireable thing to begin with. Can you imagine an eternity of bitching about politics and the technological ignorance of others?
That would be the cost per mile. If he has a 12-gallon tank, and can travel 300 miles on it, then at $2.969 per gallon, it costs him $35.63 to fill up the tank, and by extension, costs him 11.876 to drive a mile in his car. He is therefore complaining that $36 will only get him 300 miles away from where he is.
At some point, someone worked out that religion can be exploited to control large swathes of the world's population. Add into that can of worms, religious leaders that don't actually understand their scriptures, interpreting them to support their existing views, rather than adopting the views described within, and you get what we've seen, what with the fanaticism and irrational witch-trials.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't the early 90's. Games aren't necessarily targeted toward children anymore, and their content reflects this. Games will soon exceed film's capacity to convey material that is inappropriate for children, and as such, it makes sense to apply the same restrictions to video games, that are currently applied to movies. If we are to permit the sale of rated M games to minors, are we also to permit minors into rated R movies without the presence of a parent or guardian? It is very much the same circumstance.
Depends on the handgun but probably 4 clips. Then again it was probably 2 if they used an AR-17 but it could have just been 1 if Google paid for the 100 round mag...
But does it run Droid?
That'll work great, until the pirates crack the purchasing system.
The ash cloud also caused harm to the windscreen and landing lights, and smoke filled the cabin. Engines 1, 2 and 3, and the windscreen had to be replaced. Ash also got into the fuel tank, and that had to be flushed, and the contaminated fuel disposed of.
Ash clouds destroy planes, and endanger the lives of all crew and passengers aboard. Understandably, the presence of a massive ash cloud over Europe requires that air travel be shut down, until the cloud has passed.
Well, they can try to force legislation that will pay them through taxes, effectively selling themselves to the government, a move that is certain to backfire on them. They can force legislation that would require Americans to purchase their products, which seems unlikely to succeed. They can also try to force legislation that would require artists to go through them to distribute their works, but I suspect such a law would get overturned by the courts rather quickly.
The recording industry blames their decline in sales on piracy, but I suspect it has much more to do with the increasing quality of material available from other venues. Artists can publish their material cheaply and easily over the internet. By using this method, they are free from the recording industry's abusive contracts, and they also retain ownership of their creations. In this way, the internet is revolutionizing how artists interact with their audiences, and even big name musicians are turning to it.
Meanwhile, the RIAA continues to alienate its consumer-base, with lawsuits, uncompetitive prices, rootkits and outlandish demands. For decades, they could control their content producers with harsh contracts, accepted only because there weren't any other practical options. Now the artists have another option, and the RIAA's policies are driving both them and their audience to it. Why should I sign a recording contract which requires me to sell so many hundred thousand albums or become the professional property of the corporation, when I can publish my material on YouTube? Why should I pay $15 for a CD which might have only one or two songs I enjoy, when I can find all of the satisfying material I want for free on YouTube?
They're losing ground because they've failed to alter their business model to compensate for the changes technology has made to their market. They can try to force all sorts of legislation, but their efforts will only be in vane.
Let's go ahead and put all religion aside. Here's the simple fact: Sex comes with it, the possibility of resulting pregnancy. Once you've taken multiple people with multiple partners into the equation, you've increased the ante to include gonorrhea, AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, herpes, crabs, and many other infections. Many of these diseases are easy to spread, and some of them can't be cured. Is a few minutes of carnal entertainment really worth these potential consequences? Some of them discourage ever doing it again, for the rest of your life.
One of the best parts about being intelligent human beings, is that we can disregard what our hormones tell us to do, and choose a wiser course of action. We have the capacity to be thoroughly in control of ourselves, and that is also a natural thing. We should be exploiting this.
I'm not saying that everyone should live like monks, but I am saying that promiscuous sex is a foolish pass-time, and that justifying it by claiming it to be a "natural" thing is foolish, as well. To pursue exclusively what is brainlessly natural, is to pursue a chaotic world, full of disease and fatherless children.
Religions don't discourage this sort of behavior on accident. There are a lot of religions that really miss the point of things and abuse the power that they have over people, but you'll find, nevertheless, that rules pertaining to morality are generally rooted in good, cause-and-effect wisdom. The real tragedy is that those reasons aren't often explained to people.
Teaching practices need to promote the ideal circumstances, and count on the opposite. In the case of sexual education, promote abstinence, explain the array of potential consequences (which can occur despite the use of condoms), and make sure they know what their contraceptive options are, as well as how to go about getting them-- After all, even if they don't take this new found knowledge and immediately go out to copulate, this information will still be useful when they get married.
Really, in a perfect world, the responsibility for teaching children about sex would fall squarely on the parents, but we just can't count on the parents doing that part of their job. Maybe it's because we have horrible parents who are so bad at their tasks because their own parents were no good at it, or maybe it's because our culture regards sex as a generally impolite subject which parents are generally content to ignore. One way or another, we've failed on the whole subject for a couple of generations now, and the consequence is that each successive generation is slightly more loose than the one that came before (on the other hand, I'm not certain that the current youth is quite as promiscuous as the "FREE LOVE" generation of the 60's, but then, I've only born distant witness to the younger of the two). One way or another, something needs to be fixed.
If you were Chinese, you would have the opinion that the Chinese government has groomed you to have. Supposedly. The fundamental problem with a Communist system, is that the truth must be kept secret from the people. So long as they remain in ignorance of the possibility of having plenty, and on their own terms, they'll continue to work and slave as they always have. Let them see that there are other, easier ways that they could be living, on the other hand, and they soon become disgruntled. The sorts of things that the Chinese Government wants stripped from their internet, are relating to liberty and freedom.
It seems to me, that any truly good system should not require ignorance on the part of its constituents, but should instead encourage them to learn as much as they can.
Really? I can think of two big ones, off hand.
American Revolutionary War
American Civil War
There've also been a great deal of smaller-scale rebellions involving labor unions, which have been the direct cause of the creation of new laws, over the decades. Now, we haven't gone all out as the French have done, and gone so far as to drag our ruler out of his home to chop his head off with a heavy, keen-edged blade, but that's partly because we have laws in place to depose our president if he screws up too bad, and also because any conflict that headed in that direction was stopped before that result came about.
Yeah? So? My country has a bigger dick than your country.
Are you talking about this?
I dunno, the DS restored my faith in portable gaming. There's the Ace Attorney series, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, New Super Mario Brothers, Scribblenauts... Honestly, a lot of these games are simply good entertainment. Personally, I was particularly impressed with how well Phantom Hourglass used the DS's features.
The best solution yet, is to just make everything more efficient. Smaller power plants that generate more power with less fuel and waste, and electronics that require less energy to produce the same results of previous generations. By improving both ends of the power line, the improvements at either end of it seem even more productive.
I have to disagree on the point about explaining our evolutionary origins to them. DNA forming by accident is already a longshot as it is, and it's probably useful to consider that an alien race having no common past with us, would likely have come into being by some other means, which may be substantially more or less probable than our own path of evolution. The discussion goes a long way to emphasize that the aliens will not be familiar with concepts unique to Earth, but completely fails to remember that evolution as we understand it, is also unique to Earth. If our fate-appointed ambassador just starts drawing animals, then the aliens may very well get entirely the wrong idea.
Beyond that, it's probably best if we leave theology (and by extension, origin theories in general) out of the encounter altogether, unless they bring it up. Being technologically advanced does not preclude religious belief-- our religious organizations have a history of denying the validity of scientific discovery, but that doesn't mean the aliens' religions have done the same. Simply enough, if our fate-appointed ambassador makes some sort of implication that refutes their belief system, the result is likely to sour the whole event. Best to leave it alone.
Replicator technology would have a massive impact on the economy. The price of goods would decline dramatically, making services the only remaining source of strong income. Copyright law will become yet more complicated. In the end, it'd seriously be a different world.
I have worked with cows and chickens. I grew up on a ranch, worked on a dairy, and occasionally helped out a friend who worked on a chicken ranch. Cattle are not very bright beasts. The calves will drink their mothers' milk until their innards burst, and the adults are content, so long as they know where to find the food. As for chickens... I just cannot feel remorse for any alleged suffering that has been applied to a creature whose behavior does not change, after its head has been removed, leaving only a portion of its brain stem.
In my experience with these creatures, I have not seen any evidence of sentience. They have no ability to behave outside of instinct, and insofar as I can tell, memory is only established through repetition.
These animals are not people. They are food.
Now, I can understand the concept of a "Sex Offenders" registry. Victims of rape or pedophilia experience a lasting and significant impact on their lives, from the events, impacting everything from their feelings of personal security and self-confidence, to even grander things such as sexual orientation (and all of its permutations). The desires that inspired sex offenders to perform the act(s) which got them on the list are generally not the sort of thing that one leaves behind in his life, but rather, something that (s)he must live with, indefinitely. Therefore, keeping a publicly accessible registry of these people is, more or less, a fair thing to do.
Animal abuse, however, is generally not driven by hormones that are persistent through life, but rather, the adolescent hormone cocktail, or general ignorant belligerence. It's really not the sort of thing that needs a registry, because the behavior can be effectively turned off with minimal effort, or may even go away on its own. Normal punitive measures are generally sufficient. To require people involved in this sort of crime to add their names to a public registry is ridiculous.
You don't seem to realize that the browser attached to that interface you're in love with, will not continue to serve your needs for much longer. You can hold onto it all you want, but what will you be left with when new features of HTML make a great deal of Flash obsolete, and all of a sudden, you can no longer view a large swath of your favorite sites?
A great deal of modern browsers are skinnable. I suggest you look into finding a browser you can live with, which can be skinned to an interface very similar to that of IE6.
Having an interface you like does you absolutely no good, if the browser it's attached to is incompatible with most of the websites on the net.
It's not Microsoft's support if IE6 that you should be concerned with. It's the whole of the web, and web development standards which is increasingly built of standards that IE6 does not support. Before long, IE6 simply won't be able to display a majority of webpages, at which point you'll be left with a choice to either switch to a modern browser, or stop using the web.
You have a wide variety of options. If you don't like IE8 (and I personally can't blame you), then there's always Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, Avant, and if you're really clever, even your Windows desktop. I'm not going to tell you which browser you should use, but I do recommend that you shop around to see if another browser has features that you don't yet realize that you like.
You will eventually have to switch to another browser. IE6 will not be supported forever, nor should it be. Give tabs a try. You'll find that you like them.
I will concede though, that IE8 has a horrible interface. The way IE8 handles tabs makes me wonder why Microsoft bothered with them, at all.
Type I is normally diagnosed in children (it is seldom diagnosed after the age of 16 or so, though this does happen), and is the most severe type, characterized by the ceasation of insulin production by pancreas. This differs from Type II, in which, the pancreas may be fine, but the body has developed a resistance to use of the insulin, or in some cases, the pancreas may not be able to produce enough insulin to compensate for the body's size (a larger body has a larger quantity of blood, which in turn, requires a larger amount of insulin to process the glucose within)-- they body can out-grow the pancreas.
Personally, it would save me a lot of headaches if Type I and Type II Diabetes had different names. Since Type II is so incredibly common in the US, when I tell people that I have Diabetes, they immediately misunderstand what I mean, which has lead to a number of Pharmacy errors, in the past.
Speaking as a Diabetic, the idea of having a new pancreas that my body won't immediately reject is rather appealing.
I'm not convinced that immortality is a desireable thing to begin with. Can you imagine an eternity of bitching about politics and the technological ignorance of others?
Don't forget to double-tap.
Well... There should have been a cent sign attached to the figure, but apparently Slashdot chopped it off.
That would be the cost per mile. If he has a 12-gallon tank, and can travel 300 miles on it, then at $2.969 per gallon, it costs him $35.63 to fill up the tank, and by extension, costs him 11.876 to drive a mile in his car. He is therefore complaining that $36 will only get him 300 miles away from where he is.
Hypocrisy, it loves religion.
At some point, someone worked out that religion can be exploited to control large swathes of the world's population. Add into that can of worms, religious leaders that don't actually understand their scriptures, interpreting them to support their existing views, rather than adopting the views described within, and you get what we've seen, what with the fanaticism and irrational witch-trials.