If you're suggesting mario games don't add anything new, you clearly haven't played them. At a minimum, you haven't played new super mario bros for the wii if you're saying they don't have multiplayer. They are platformers: multiplayer doesn't make sense for super mario galaxy.
I'm also not clear how set pieces being different constitutes a major change. That's like saying "The levels change between mario games!" I'm not saying they're exactly the same in call of duty, but the mario franchise goes from 2D to 3D for example. Even were call of duty to release an entire game in which you were operating a tank the whole time, that would not be as fundamental a change as the differences between super mario galaxy and new super mario bros.
In some Stephen Jay Gould book, he talks about how the theory of punctuated equilibrium that he helped develop started being misinterpreted by the creationists to say that evolution was disproven. They quoted him directly and had a picture which they said was of him, but he had no idea who it was. Eventually he figured it out: they were confusing Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, (1941-2002) with Jay Gould, robber barron (1836-1892).
The ignorance this movement embodies is just staggering and willful.
Mario games are just about the last games I ever want to play now.
Gee, I can't believe Nintendo hasn't stopped making mario games then.
A lot of us are tired of rehashes, and Nintendo is the worst offender...or maybe tied with Capcom for that crown.
To me, "Rehash" means the same thing over and over again. That's call of duty, which is essentially the same run, gun, cutscene, repeat, or multiplayer and they've released 9 of them. Many more if you count DLC and handheld/console versions.
New super mario bros is not a rehash of super mario galaxy. Even the handheld Mario 3D land is not a rehash of galaxy.
You're mixing 2D platformers, 3D platformers, and rereleases in there.
And, I think bussdriver meant "Yearly releases" as it is typically used with games like call of duty: there's little to no difference between releases. Super mario galaxy and new super mario bros are completely different games.
I'm no lawyer, so I'm not talking about legal standards, but the last link in the summary mentions that at least some other similar schemes this guy pulled off, he essentially threatened to post the e-mail contents, which he said were sensitive, on his blog for all to read. Which to me is a pretty clear indication he did intend to extort.
It also points out that this is a scheme that is at least 14 years old, hard to claim that he bought all these domains without realizing they were very close to other domains.
Again I'll point out that I'm not a lawyer, so I'm talking common sense standards here, not legal standards, which usually make no sense to me.
When a "First post" is on topic, I won't hijack it. When it's a lame joke or "first!!!" then it's fair game. Also, posting AC still undoes your moderations.
Well, grad school is generally a paid position in the sciences. The issue is that 6 years after graduation from college with more experience and training, that's not a great salary.
Probably because a gender gap implies something is separating the two, and not necessarily inherent differences. If little girls are being told not to be scientists, and it sticks, we're losing about half the good ones.
I'd suggest that if that's the number one reason they found why girls aren't going into science, they're polling at too early a stage. That sounds like something I'd expect grade schoolers to say, not college graduates deciding whether to head to grad school, not college students picking a major... that's even more immature than I'd expect high-schoolers to be.
When I was in grade school, I briefly didn't want to be a scientist because I thought it was too nerdy. I had an early interest in science that my parents managed to nurture despite not being interested themselves. The science teachers at my school were mostly terrible, and my classmates expressed a dim opinion of science. I got made fun of for watching Bill Nye.
I probably would have come around on my own, peer pressure didn't keep me doing sports for very long, so I doubt it would have killed my interest in science. And anyway, I had an amazing junior high science teacher who really solidified my intentions to be a scientist.
Being a scientist doesn't quite depend on the degree you hold. It appears she does sort of scientific method on TV and gets paid to do it. That to me = professional scientist. I mean, I'm a scientist: it's not a very exclusive club. So don't suggest that simply because she doesn't hold a degree in science she can't do science.
The producers of Mythbusters were indeed shamefull sellouts indeed if their hiring decision was based on looks, sure.
As the summary says, the video was pulled from the website. The video you're probably watching is not the one being discussed. I can't fathom who would be so dumb as to think that removing it from the website would be more effective than lying and saying it WAS a parody, even after saying it wasn't. Anyway, here's the real one. The summary was completely accurate.
I'm suspicious that the whole thing is an overly complicated marketing ploy by some nail polish company, bribe some science commission to put an ad up. It could easily be a commercial for cosmetics.
I've found that cynical comments in general get modded higher than more optimistic ones. The assumption seems to be made that if you're saying something bad about something, you know what you're talking about and appear wise. Someone praising something on the other hand, that's either a shill or a naive person. I guess pessimism is contagious.
Uh, and that's dumb and we're probably all going to die somehow as a direct result of that pessimism...
Voting is a right though, not something you have to earn. This is important, as there's really no universal standard to decide who is qualified to vote. It used to essentially be skin color. You'd argue it should be basic history, I'm not convinced this is the case. Certainly not enough to risk the slippery slope. You make voting something you have to prove yourself worthy of, you'll get some communities setting the standard to be something they prefer, like you have to have basic knowledge of their holy book.
No, I say better to let everyone vote, the idiots and the competent, and hope that the idiots stay home and the competent ones will vote, rather than risk the idiots deciding the competent ones are elitist anti-american scum who don't get to vote.
They'd do what they do already: not pass anything we wanted to pass, shovel through the stuff we don't want to pass via loopholes, political tricks, misinformation, and waiting until the fewest possible people are watching.
Furthermore, if we can't manage to vote twice every year between about 5 candidates (or 2 if you ignore the primaries, which most people do), what makes you think we'll be able to handle voting many more times a year?
Lastly, I think of myself as better informed and smarter than the average voter, and I don't know if TARP was a good idea or a bad idea. I know most other voters were stronger in their convictions about it than I was, I don't think that means anything though.
Or that if you tell someone they can't do something one way, that encourages them to do it a different way?
It had been about 7 years since I had last downloaded a commercially available MP3 or movie without paying for it when SOPA/PIPA got trotted out and they started clamping down on pirate bay. So I started subscribing to a VPN service. I was being really stingy with what I listened to or watched. Now that I started pirating again, I've come across so much music and TV shows that I had missed out on. Some of which are so good I bought them legally.
You have to admit, aside from the "Stupid ISPs," his post was pretty dead-on. Someone wanted this, and they are fucking morons, and people will get around the blocks to pirate.
Just throwing this out there: they may not have started out testing in humans. They may have tested this in animals first, in which case they would have hopefully done those controls. Clinical trials aren't standard experiments by necessity.
Also, I think at this point unless we have reason to believe that the placebo effect can actually revert cells back to non-cancerous, I think it's not a serious concern.
Most humans HATE formality, it's only scientists, autistics, and a couple of other weirdos that like it.
You don't know many scientists. Or only know a very specific breed of scientists (like maybe MD PhDs, they might be more formal). Or are confused on the definition of formality.
I'm also not sure about the autistics part either.
Applying that to what 3seas said, some of the corporations that fear change, like the ones who are using laws to try to keep their obsolete business from sinking, aren't capitalist. At least, one could make that argument
Sadly, I doubt that would really resonate with voters like it seems to when someone is saying "Not capitalism!" as a reason to cut taxes further.
There's a guy around town who must not be right in the head, he's always shielding his face with one hand, has long fingernails, all black clothing, a hat, long hair, and a beard. Whenever I see him I'm tempted to tell him that whoever he thinks is watching him, he's making it really easy to track him by standing out like a sore thumb. Holding your hand over your face is not really a good way to stay incognito.
I wonder if the same isn't true for online privacy, if by caring about it and making some attempt to remain private, I've put myself on the radar for anyone who happens to be monitoring online activity.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're suggesting mario games don't add anything new, you clearly haven't played them. At a minimum, you haven't played new super mario bros for the wii if you're saying they don't have multiplayer. They are platformers: multiplayer doesn't make sense for super mario galaxy.
I'm also not clear how set pieces being different constitutes a major change. That's like saying "The levels change between mario games!" I'm not saying they're exactly the same in call of duty, but the mario franchise goes from 2D to 3D for example. Even were call of duty to release an entire game in which you were operating a tank the whole time, that would not be as fundamental a change as the differences between super mario galaxy and new super mario bros.
In some Stephen Jay Gould book, he talks about how the theory of punctuated equilibrium that he helped develop started being misinterpreted by the creationists to say that evolution was disproven. They quoted him directly and had a picture which they said was of him, but he had no idea who it was. Eventually he figured it out: they were confusing Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, (1941-2002) with Jay Gould, robber barron (1836-1892).
The ignorance this movement embodies is just staggering and willful.
Sadly, no, the fundamentalists are not trolling, they honestly believe a fairy tale disproves science.
Mario games are just about the last games I ever want to play now.
Gee, I can't believe Nintendo hasn't stopped making mario games then.
A lot of us are tired of rehashes, and Nintendo is the worst offender...or maybe tied with Capcom for that crown.
To me, "Rehash" means the same thing over and over again. That's call of duty, which is essentially the same run, gun, cutscene, repeat, or multiplayer and they've released 9 of them. Many more if you count DLC and handheld/console versions.
New super mario bros is not a rehash of super mario galaxy. Even the handheld Mario 3D land is not a rehash of galaxy.
You're mixing 2D platformers, 3D platformers, and rereleases in there.
And, I think bussdriver meant "Yearly releases" as it is typically used with games like call of duty: there's little to no difference between releases. Super mario galaxy and new super mario bros are completely different games.
But I thought there aren't any gay people in Iran!
I'm no lawyer, so I'm not talking about legal standards, but the last link in the summary mentions that at least some other similar schemes this guy pulled off, he essentially threatened to post the e-mail contents, which he said were sensitive, on his blog for all to read. Which to me is a pretty clear indication he did intend to extort.
It also points out that this is a scheme that is at least 14 years old, hard to claim that he bought all these domains without realizing they were very close to other domains.
Again I'll point out that I'm not a lawyer, so I'm talking common sense standards here, not legal standards, which usually make no sense to me.
When a "First post" is on topic, I won't hijack it. When it's a lame joke or "first!!!" then it's fair game. Also, posting AC still undoes your moderations.
Well, grad school is generally a paid position in the sciences. The issue is that 6 years after graduation from college with more experience and training, that's not a great salary.
Probably because a gender gap implies something is separating the two, and not necessarily inherent differences. If little girls are being told not to be scientists, and it sticks, we're losing about half the good ones.
I'd suggest that if that's the number one reason they found why girls aren't going into science, they're polling at too early a stage. That sounds like something I'd expect grade schoolers to say, not college graduates deciding whether to head to grad school, not college students picking a major... that's even more immature than I'd expect high-schoolers to be.
When I was in grade school, I briefly didn't want to be a scientist because I thought it was too nerdy. I had an early interest in science that my parents managed to nurture despite not being interested themselves. The science teachers at my school were mostly terrible, and my classmates expressed a dim opinion of science. I got made fun of for watching Bill Nye.
I probably would have come around on my own, peer pressure didn't keep me doing sports for very long, so I doubt it would have killed my interest in science. And anyway, I had an amazing junior high science teacher who really solidified my intentions to be a scientist.
Being a scientist doesn't quite depend on the degree you hold. It appears she does sort of scientific method on TV and gets paid to do it. That to me = professional scientist. I mean, I'm a scientist: it's not a very exclusive club. So don't suggest that simply because she doesn't hold a degree in science she can't do science.
The producers of Mythbusters were indeed shamefull sellouts indeed if their hiring decision was based on looks, sure.
As the summary says, the video was pulled from the website. The video you're probably watching is not the one being discussed. I can't fathom who would be so dumb as to think that removing it from the website would be more effective than lying and saying it WAS a parody, even after saying it wasn't. Anyway, here's the real one. The summary was completely accurate.
I'm suspicious that the whole thing is an overly complicated marketing ploy by some nail polish company, bribe some science commission to put an ad up. It could easily be a commercial for cosmetics.
And, are you not glad that now someone has published a paper on it, so Megacorp cannot 'patent' this Earth-saving idea?"
Right, because publishing something on it means that no one will hold this ransom until they get a payout.
Senator Smith: "Fellow senators, I'm afraid I can't allow this to be built unless the construction takes place in my district."
Senator Bob: "Smith, your district has nothing but cattle and oil fields. You can't make it there."
Smith: "Well then we need to appropriate funds to build some factories in my district to make the array."
Bob: "NASA says the asteroid will be hitting the earth in two years!"
Smith: "Well then, we better get started building those factories in my district right away!"
I've found that cynical comments in general get modded higher than more optimistic ones. The assumption seems to be made that if you're saying something bad about something, you know what you're talking about and appear wise. Someone praising something on the other hand, that's either a shill or a naive person. I guess pessimism is contagious.
Uh, and that's dumb and we're probably all going to die somehow as a direct result of that pessimism...
Voting is a right though, not something you have to earn. This is important, as there's really no universal standard to decide who is qualified to vote. It used to essentially be skin color. You'd argue it should be basic history, I'm not convinced this is the case. Certainly not enough to risk the slippery slope. You make voting something you have to prove yourself worthy of, you'll get some communities setting the standard to be something they prefer, like you have to have basic knowledge of their holy book.
No, I say better to let everyone vote, the idiots and the competent, and hope that the idiots stay home and the competent ones will vote, rather than risk the idiots deciding the competent ones are elitist anti-american scum who don't get to vote.
They'd do what they do already: not pass anything we wanted to pass, shovel through the stuff we don't want to pass via loopholes, political tricks, misinformation, and waiting until the fewest possible people are watching.
Furthermore, if we can't manage to vote twice every year between about 5 candidates (or 2 if you ignore the primaries, which most people do), what makes you think we'll be able to handle voting many more times a year?
Lastly, I think of myself as better informed and smarter than the average voter, and I don't know if TARP was a good idea or a bad idea. I know most other voters were stronger in their convictions about it than I was, I don't think that means anything though.
to create the illusion of a busy parking lot.
To anyone watching the parking lot for an extended amount of time to before deciding whether or not to shop there?
I'm not sure that necessarily proves the principle is sound, it just proves that some people believe in the principle.
Or that if you tell someone they can't do something one way, that encourages them to do it a different way?
It had been about 7 years since I had last downloaded a commercially available MP3 or movie without paying for it when SOPA/PIPA got trotted out and they started clamping down on pirate bay. So I started subscribing to a VPN service. I was being really stingy with what I listened to or watched. Now that I started pirating again, I've come across so much music and TV shows that I had missed out on. Some of which are so good I bought them legally.
Maybe that was the MPAA/RIAA's plan all along...
You have to admit, aside from the "Stupid ISPs," his post was pretty dead-on. Someone wanted this, and they are fucking morons, and people will get around the blocks to pirate.
Just throwing this out there: they may not have started out testing in humans. They may have tested this in animals first, in which case they would have hopefully done those controls. Clinical trials aren't standard experiments by necessity.
Also, I think at this point unless we have reason to believe that the placebo effect can actually revert cells back to non-cancerous, I think it's not a serious concern.
Well, you do slough off a lot of cells with your genome in them with every stool, so you are in fact shitting genes every time.
Most humans HATE formality, it's only scientists, autistics, and a couple of other weirdos that like it.
You don't know many scientists. Or only know a very specific breed of scientists (like maybe MD PhDs, they might be more formal). Or are confused on the definition of formality.
I'm also not sure about the autistics part either.
Applying that to what 3seas said, some of the corporations that fear change, like the ones who are using laws to try to keep their obsolete business from sinking, aren't capitalist. At least, one could make that argument
Sadly, I doubt that would really resonate with voters like it seems to when someone is saying "Not capitalism!" as a reason to cut taxes further.
There's a guy around town who must not be right in the head, he's always shielding his face with one hand, has long fingernails, all black clothing, a hat, long hair, and a beard. Whenever I see him I'm tempted to tell him that whoever he thinks is watching him, he's making it really easy to track him by standing out like a sore thumb. Holding your hand over your face is not really a good way to stay incognito.
I wonder if the same isn't true for online privacy, if by caring about it and making some attempt to remain private, I've put myself on the radar for anyone who happens to be monitoring online activity.