The town I went to college in had a budget theater (second-run movies at $2/ticket) with a huge (old-school) screen and a ton of seating. The first several rows of seats had big tables where they'd bring out pizza, beer, subs, etc, quietly and discreetly during the movie (or you could order ahead of time and get it beforehand). On Sunday afternoons they showed live NFL football games with free admission. They also got permission to show episodes of South Park (free admission again) for the first couple of seasons. In short, it was perfect. I think it's still there.
Catalyst Game Labs are the people who hold the license for the board game right now, and are releasing the 25th anniversary box set something or other...
Just curious -- I wonder if you could do a psychological study and see if the "good feeling" a pirate gets from paying for something legitimately is like the good feeling non-pirates get by donating to charity. Which might reveal something about the pirate's view of the media they pirate -- that it's charity or something.
(Posting Anon as IBM employee. Opinions are my own, I don't speak for them etc etc)
I've worked for IBM in two countries. I have been paid overtime in neither one. The flip side of this is that I haven't been expected to work ovetime.
Sure, I've put in a few extra hours at crunch time, but nobody forced me to. And crunch time means just that - a couple of weeks before an important deadline, if there's something critical needing fixing. Doesn't even happen every release, or every year.
As far as I can tell, Big Blue respect the whole concept of work/life balance, and having people well rested and working sensible hours. I doubt very much they would have lobbied for this.
I've worked at IBM, and I know several people that still do. They are constantly being forced to work overtime -- "Crunch Time" stretches into months-straight of 60 hour weeks. No overtime. No bonuses (unless you're in India or China). Just a slight less chance of being laid off in the next 6 months. *Everyone* I know at IBM is so desperate to leave they're taking pay cuts to do so.
Just like how I would never intentionally dip my bacon, and sausage, in runny egg yolk and wrap it in a butter and syrup-soaked pancake.
Not without adding peanut butter, that is.
Starcraft II forces online activation, but you can play the single player campaign off-line (ie, if their server goes down, you can still play the game). For me, that wasn't great, but it was still a "buy" for me. Diablo III? Not so much. FTA:
This system functions essentially like an MMO, where if your connection is interrupted during a game you'll be dropped back out to the login screen. It differs from what Blizzard did with StarCraft II because though the Wings of Liberty required an initial online activation, the campaign could still be played in an offline mode.
Nope. Not for me. Too many other options (Torchlight 2, Guild Wars 2 (where forcing connection makes sense)) to make D3 attractive.
I'm a Creationist; an old-school bible-thumper. I think this sort of thing is genuinely fascinating and I have no problem with it, or other evidence that points to an old Earth/universe, etc. I accept the scientific evidence for what it is (that is: true according to the best of our knowledge today, and may be altered tomorrow based on new evidence), and generally believe that everything is as old as geologists say it is, and that life evolves over time because of mutations like these combined with natural selection factors. In short -- I accept what the scientific community says. My daughter is big into dinosaurs, fossils, and paleontology right now and I'm encouraging that.
I also believe the universe and everything in it was created by an omnipotent being with a specific intent a relatively short time ago. I get that from the protestant christian Bible, and my best understanding of it.
I intellectually manage that by remembering three things: 1) We don't know everything about the physical universe. 2) We don't understand everything in the Bible. 3) We don't really know what happens when something is created from nothing, but wouldn't it make sense that whatever is created comes into existence at a specific age? I think it's called the "Ideal Age" theory or something like that in philosophy/theology.
I thought about that little further. If you'd seen Adam 5 minutes after he was created you'd think, "He's an adult male, probably 20-30 years old." And you'd be right. He's a 20-30 year old male that's only been around for 5 minutes. He'd bear every mark of having been born and matured like any human, because he really was an adult. If you'd look at the universe you'd say, "It's about 13-15 billion years old." And you'd be right. It's a 13-15 billion year old universe that's been around for a few thousand years, bearing every mark of a universe coming from a big bang complete with background radiation, dark matter, rate of expansion, the whole deal. Earth itself bears every mark that a 4.5 billion year old life-bearing planet would have; a fossil record, evidence of cyclic ice ages, etc, because it is a 4.5 billion year old life-bearing planet. It came into existence at that age.
Some Creationists say that God planted the fossils and other geological evidence to "test our faith" and I don't buy that. Doing so wouldn't be consistent with what we can see of God's nature -- consistency and truth (with one or two curious exceptions in the Bible). It's not an illusion or a trick; it's reality. It looks old because it is old. I don't think the age of the universe was ever meant to test anything, except maybe the egos of the people who think they have to be right about everything in the Bible.
But, to more directly answer the parent's post, wouldn't fewer mutations argue against evolution anyway? Don't we need, now, a lot more time for our species to evolve? And are we sure the rate of mutation has been constant, anyway? I still think it's an interesting discovery, anyway.
Apologies for throwing fuel on what will just end up being another flame war....
Originally, he couldn't fly. In some of the earliest Superman cartoons he's seen not flying, just jumping very very far. Like the Hulk does. A few episodes later in, what I think is the same season of the same show, he is seen flying.
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine.
I never read the comic but loved the movie. Went into it cold, not knowing anything other than people said the comic was one of the best ever written, and that it was some kind of alternate history thing. I fell in love with it. From the very beginning to the last frame.
But then I watched part of it again and, well, the acting wasn't that good after all. In fact, it kind of ruins it. It was a bold move to cast a bunch of no-names. It paid off for a couple of the characters, but not all of them. It's made me afraid to watch the whole thing again because it's so awesome in my memory.
Slashdot Mirror
The town I went to college in had a budget theater (second-run movies at $2/ticket) with a huge (old-school) screen and a ton of seating. The first several rows of seats had big tables where they'd bring out pizza, beer, subs, etc, quietly and discreetly during the movie (or you could order ahead of time and get it beforehand). On Sunday afternoons they showed live NFL football games with free admission. They also got permission to show episodes of South Park (free admission again) for the first couple of seasons. In short, it was perfect. I think it's still there.
Which would be awesome!!!
Yea, they're sure to be really hot!
It's almost 1000 light years away. After a trip that long, *any* woman is going to look hot.
"May also contain one of the following: Wilbur Babe Bessy Betsy Gerty ..."
Catalyst Game Labs are the people who hold the license for the board game right now, and are releasing the 25th anniversary box set something or other...
Just curious -- I wonder if you could do a psychological study and see if the "good feeling" a pirate gets from paying for something legitimately is like the good feeling non-pirates get by donating to charity. Which might reveal something about the pirate's view of the media they pirate -- that it's charity or something.
(Posting Anon as IBM employee. Opinions are my own, I don't speak for them etc etc)
I've worked for IBM in two countries. I have been paid overtime in neither one. The flip side of this is that I haven't been expected to work ovetime.
Sure, I've put in a few extra hours at crunch time, but nobody forced me to. And crunch time means just that - a couple of weeks before an important deadline, if there's something critical needing fixing. Doesn't even happen every release, or every year.
As far as I can tell, Big Blue respect the whole concept of work/life balance, and having people well rested and working sensible hours. I doubt very much they would have lobbied for this.
I've worked at IBM, and I know several people that still do. They are constantly being forced to work overtime -- "Crunch Time" stretches into months-straight of 60 hour weeks. No overtime. No bonuses (unless you're in India or China). Just a slight less chance of being laid off in the next 6 months. *Everyone* I know at IBM is so desperate to leave they're taking pay cuts to do so.
I think you meant: "This work, performed by MAD scientists at the Automatic Control Laboratory..."
Just like how I would never intentionally dip my bacon, and sausage, in runny egg yolk and wrap it in a butter and syrup-soaked pancake. Not without adding peanut butter, that is.
Good idea. I'll keep them distracted.
The lace is a tie.
"ALL YOUR BASE"
This system functions essentially like an MMO, where if your connection is interrupted during a game you'll be dropped back out to the login screen. It differs from what Blizzard did with StarCraft II because though the Wings of Liberty required an initial online activation, the campaign could still be played in an offline mode.
Nope. Not for me. Too many other options (Torchlight 2, Guild Wars 2 (where forcing connection makes sense)) to make D3 attractive.
SQUIRREL!
Not sure the lights in the chair were bright enough, but I thought the concept was silly, at the time....
I also believe the universe and everything in it was created by an omnipotent being with a specific intent a relatively short time ago. I get that from the protestant christian Bible, and my best understanding of it.
I intellectually manage that by remembering three things: 1) We don't know everything about the physical universe. 2) We don't understand everything in the Bible. 3) We don't really know what happens when something is created from nothing, but wouldn't it make sense that whatever is created comes into existence at a specific age? I think it's called the "Ideal Age" theory or something like that in philosophy/theology.
I thought about that little further. If you'd seen Adam 5 minutes after he was created you'd think, "He's an adult male, probably 20-30 years old." And you'd be right. He's a 20-30 year old male that's only been around for 5 minutes. He'd bear every mark of having been born and matured like any human, because he really was an adult. If you'd look at the universe you'd say, "It's about 13-15 billion years old." And you'd be right. It's a 13-15 billion year old universe that's been around for a few thousand years, bearing every mark of a universe coming from a big bang complete with background radiation, dark matter, rate of expansion, the whole deal. Earth itself bears every mark that a 4.5 billion year old life-bearing planet would have; a fossil record, evidence of cyclic ice ages, etc, because it is a 4.5 billion year old life-bearing planet. It came into existence at that age.
Some Creationists say that God planted the fossils and other geological evidence to "test our faith" and I don't buy that. Doing so wouldn't be consistent with what we can see of God's nature -- consistency and truth (with one or two curious exceptions in the Bible). It's not an illusion or a trick; it's reality. It looks old because it is old. I don't think the age of the universe was ever meant to test anything, except maybe the egos of the people who think they have to be right about everything in the Bible.
But, to more directly answer the parent's post, wouldn't fewer mutations argue against evolution anyway? Don't we need, now, a lot more time for our species to evolve? And are we sure the rate of mutation has been constant, anyway? I still think it's an interesting discovery, anyway.
Apologies for throwing fuel on what will just end up being another flame war....
The year 1994: From out of space comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon...
Thundarr Intro
IANAScientist, but does that usually mean that genetic mutations, and most "big steps" in evolution, would be stunted?
you cannot fight real bullets with lawyers not matter how many lawyers you have.
But, man, that would be great to try...
If we heard that a United States General had been captured, crucified, and fed to rats, would that soothe the average American or aggravate him?
We would be outraged. Until NBC started airing new episodes of Two and a Half Men. Then we'd be like, "What general?"
Originally, he couldn't fly. In some of the earliest Superman cartoons he's seen not flying, just jumping very very far. Like the Hulk does. A few episodes later in, what I think is the same season of the same show, he is seen flying.
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine.
I never read the comic but loved the movie. Went into it cold, not knowing anything other than people said the comic was one of the best ever written, and that it was some kind of alternate history thing. I fell in love with it. From the very beginning to the last frame.
But then I watched part of it again and, well, the acting wasn't that good after all. In fact, it kind of ruins it. It was a bold move to cast a bunch of no-names. It paid off for a couple of the characters, but not all of them. It's made me afraid to watch the whole thing again because it's so awesome in my memory.
I do want to read the comic now, too.
I'm sorry.
I prefer to read Huckleberry Finn in the original Klingon text.
Not just that. All recordings of MLK Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech should be redubbed to use "African American" every time he says "negro".