California legislature is anxious and eager to do anything that distracts them from the budget problem.
I'd say there's also a little of "journalists are anxious to cover stories about the california legislature that aren't 'old news' about the budget problems."
There's only so much you can say about it. There's not enough money in the budget. It's politically impossible to raise taxes. There's likely to be hell to pay for cutting any more spending (would you prefer to be voted out of office for slashing education or voted out for slashing law enforcement?) That's 90% of the news coming out of Sacramento summed up in 3 sentences. If I were a journalist covering the California legislature, I'd probably be writing a novel right about now.
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
As a scientist who went to a Kansas high school during the controversy you're probably referring to, I have to say the biggest effect is other scientists asking if they taught me evolution in high school (they did, but that's beside the point). For most scientists, high school did nothing to encourage and interest in science regardless of a liberal/conservative bias.
If the idiots on the school board decide not to require the teaching of evolution, your teacher in the classroom is probably going to teach it anyway. If you have a shitty high school science teacher who doesn't mention anything about evolution, you probably learned about evolution on your own when you were interested in dinosaurs as a kid. If not, you'll learn it in your introductory biology classes in undergrad. You'll come across it at some point. It's not like high school is the only place learning goes on.
I'm not saying we should give up and let the creationists win, nor should we let these nuts rewrite history. The truth should be taught in schools or else it's a complete waste of time. Still, it's helpful to realize that these idiots aren't going to effectively brainwash the masses by putting lies into education, because it doesn't work like that. Education is not just what is taught by the text book and teacher in a classroom.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
And just think, that's with our so-called liberal agenda in education. Without it? Here's hoping we won't see "Crusades 2035: taking back Europe in the name of capitalism"
progress for progress' sake is the dirty word. If it is not broken don't @#$% it up.
I reject that logic. Progress can be made on even the best performing government programs. We haven't had a successful terrorist attack on our airlines in a while, some would say that's proof that TSA is doing a good job and is not broken, so we shouldn't fix it. Others among us see TSA as an organization run by a bunch of idiots and it's only luck that the would-be terrorists so far have just been even dumber.
I have read lots of history and while I think the church-and-state arguments the Texas board makes are a little week, I can tell you that if you pickup the typical High School Civics book today there IS a progressive bias. I don't think its out of line to insists that books at least cover major political events like the Contract with America, the Goldwater movement in the 60s and not leaving kids with the impression Nixon started Vietnam, is out of line at all.
It's hard to demonstrate political bias, since obviously a lot of that is in relation to your personal standpoint. You can look at those things not being mentioned and see a "progressive bias." I look at those things not being mentioned as "The amount of history that you're actually going to put in a kid's head with a textbook is shockingly low and there's more important stuff that would need to be cut to make room."
I mean, what -are- the major outcomes of Contract with America? To play devil's advocate based entirely on a brief scanning of the wiki page (acknowledging again my ignorance): gerrymandering, both of the architects taken down by scandals while their opponent overcame his scandal, feel-good but trivial reforms on welfare, and a tough on crime approach that largely failed?
(again, not saying that's all it was, I'm genuinely ignorant of this, devil's advocate here)
Anyway, while it's a matter of opinion whether or not there is a liberal bias, the texas pannel openly admitted they were moving it in a conservative direction intentionally. They say to correct it, but I'd prefer that they don't actually -set out- to put a bias in, and their justification for changing things is based more off what is important, not "Haha, we're in the majority now!"
At the very least, the rest of us who are being affected would have some say in the matter, as opposed to now, where a handful of fox news viewers has found a way to brainwash everyone's children.
Yes, we are often wrong, our fixes to complex systems we understand like our bodies and ecosystems often backfire. I'd say we have a worse track record with the things we do based off -no- evidence or foresight though. Smoking, for example, is worse for your health than the low fat low calorie diet. We were smoking before we realized it could be affecting our health.
What you seem to be suggesting is a little like saying to a smoker "Don't stop smoking to prevent respiratory problems, there are other medicines to deal with that." Instead of continuing on our current levels of carbon emissions and dealing with malaria and other problems with other quick fixes, we should try to prevent global warming in the first place, since we know that won't be very good. Not having to use DDT in our lattitude, sidestepping the issue of whether or not DDT is a miracle or a curse, is the smarter option.
... come to think of it, maybe I'm reading too much into "it's not the temperature that should concern you." Maybe you're not advocating doing nothing to prevent global warming and then fixing it with DDT.
BP is doing everything possible to fix the problem, while we sit on the sidelines and debate their ineffectiveness. I don't think that's really fair -- if we get into a car accident, we're quick to shrug it off as just that: an accident. Nobody's fault. We pick up the pieces and move on.
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard? No, I don't think they should. They're holding themselves to the same standard the average person would.
There's also the fact that one driver has momentary lapses in attention and judgment. That doesn't go for a large corporation. We can't pass this off as "They were distracted by a cool bird on the side of the road while building the thing." There was undoubtedly multiple people assesing risks of a blowout vs potential profit. They undoubtedly weighted blowout a lot less than anyone living on or making a living in the gulf would have.
And from a liability standpoint, there SHOULDN'T be a difference, but there is. You run into a car, you have to pay for it. BP blows up the gulf: they should pay for it. Except they won't.
They should be held to a higher standard both because the stakes are higher and because they -can- be better.
the natural human desire for privacy that has existed since the dawn of human evolution.
Getting a funny mental image of Adam and Eve detagging all their facebook photos with naughty bits in them after eating the apple.
News Feed:
Eve and The Serpent are now friends Adam and Eve became fans of "Eating from the tree of knowledge" and "If one more person posts their cave drawings, I'll quit facebook" Adam "LOL, apples R so GOOD" Eve --> Adam: "where u at? Bring as many fig leafs as you can ASAP!" Eve changed her profile picture Adam and eve left "Garden of Eden" network. Adam is OMFG PAIN SUCKS!!! I MISS THE PORN BUSH!! Adam and Eve joined the group "2 strong for getting Adam and Eve back into the Garden of Eden"
We didn't know why. I always assumed it was because overheard conversations are ALWAYS boring!
Here's a rule I'd like everyone to adopt: if you absolutely must be talking on a cell phone in public, make sure to spice up the conversation for anyone who has to listen. Here are some lines to throw in at random that will make it at least semi interesting:
-"How could you cheat on me with all those people?!? HOW?!?" -"... now was that before or after you chopped up the body?" -"Yes, that's right doctor, green, throbbing, and painful." -"I could be wrong, I huffed a lot of gold paint just before I left." -"This is indisputable proof that the incans had a primitive internet long before europeans came to this continent!" -"I think I put my thong on backwards, it really hurts."
Sadly, no, 99% of the conversations I overhear don't involve anything more than he said she said I'll see you later do you want me to meet you there we just landed crap. It's just plain boring, people.
Which completely and totally removes any and all need to do a study.
If only they would have asked you first.
For those of you whose threshold for displayed comments is too low to show the AC's half of that conversation, the first part of that was "We already knew this." There, now that you know both sides of the discussion, it's not as annoying.
That would be a good readout that it is functional, and undoubtedly they did that already. Working with a single bacterium is I guess possible, but pretty much everyone just works with whole colonies.
They wouldn't have had much to screen from to see if they got the genome in had they not gotten a colony rather than a single cell.
Anyway, the reason "reproducing" isn't a good standard for defining life is there are many live things, such as mules, which aren't capable of reproducing, and some non-living things which are capable of reproducing to various degrees. For example fire spreads by catching other things on fire, and it's questionable whether prions are alive or not though they can reproduce.
I guess we should wait until the actual Science article comes out, but it looks like they basically synthesized an entire bacterial genome, as opposed to the normal way of having a bacteria copy it's own genome with it's own enzymes, and then they put it into a different bacterial strain.
Is that "making" a cell artificially? They didn't make most of the bacterial cell themselves, the bacteria did that. They didn't design the genome from scratch, they just copied an existing one that nature made and modified it a bit. I'm not sure that constitutes actually making a cell artificially. If you buy a mac at a store, print out the ones and zeros to make windows vista, manually retype them, make a boot disk, and install that on the mac and it worked, that would be an impressive feat, sure, but did you "make a completely new computer?" (Best comparison I could come up with, sorry about that in advance). I don't think this can be considered making life yet.
Second, is this "life?" Life seems to be impossible to define, but it's pretty certain that "genome was stitched together in a lab and inserted into a dummy cell" is unique to this thing, nothing else we'd call life has that feature. Does that disqualify it as life and make it something else?
To their credit, Venter doesn't seem to be claiming they made new life, but they are aiming for that eventually, and I'm curious as to what slashdot thinks about when we can actually say we've created artificial life.
If you're worried about malaria, it's not the temperature that should concern you, it's the irrational demonization of life saving chemicals like DDT.
And if you're wrong, and environmentalists are not completely wrong about global warming, whether or not DDT is bad, and everything else then what? Planning on being dead by then and have no children to care about?
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise. The price of running your heater or AC will rise, a lot. And it's a regressive tax, like all consumption taxes.
If half the harms of global climate change come true, that's going to happen anyway. I'd hate to pay more for my amazon order, but I'd hate even more to catch malaria because it was warm enough now for it to thrive in my latitude.
(note that I have no idea how likely that effect of climate change is. I'd probably invest in some bug spray and gin and tonic... maybe that's not a bad thing...)
Being as volcanoes are responsible for an irrelevant amount of CO2, no one. Humanity produces several orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanoes. It's like suggesting that we tax squirrels for using the road while they cross the street.
Sure, but just for kicks, I'd like to see the IRS try to enforce taxes on both volcanoes and squirrels.
You do realise that the Rastafarian religion is based on black supremacy, right?
...
I indeed did not and hereby take back my endorsement of a rastafarian government. At least, one that is true to what you say are rastafarian roots. One based off of pot smoking on the other hand...
I think that's more due to the fact that all the religions that people base theocracies off of. And anyone who starts a theocracy, when the history of theocracies seem to be nothing but failure and bad times, tends to be completely unreasonable and or megalomaniac.
I'm guessing if, by some odd circumstance, a reasonable person started a theocracy based on a non-crazy religion, that theocracy might work out okay. I'd love to see a pastafarian or rastafarian theocracy. From afar though. And sadly such an experiment would probably be invaded in some form or another by one of the more invasive religions.
(Also, their widely held belief that global warming can be combated by having more pirates might be somewhat worrisome if a pastafarian theocracy were to get a modern navy.)
I do, I think, and I'm not entirely convinced she didn't write the headline.
the Headline was clever
I thought so too. Along those lines, headlines will still have to be clever and catchy AFTER getting onto the first search page. To use the "Jon Stewart slams Glen Beck" example, if I was googling Jon Stewart, that boring headline isn't going to pull me in.
Basically headlines are going to still have to be clever and catchy, but also now include buzzwords, which they kind of already did.
I guess it's whoever spends the hundreds of millions of dollars to follow up on the infinitesimal chance that this will lead to something useful?
This is an entirely sensible approach to patents in this case. Therefore we can be absolutely sure that will not happen, at least not for those reasons.
Likelier answer: whoever spends the most on lawyers. May or may not be the same people who prove it's useful.
If he likes Halo, try modding for Marathon, the older Bungie fps game.
Noooo!!! I did that in high school and look where I am now: SLASHDOT!!!
Kidding. Marathon really did seem like a good learning ground. I had more fun on the community maps than on the included levels. Plus, they're free now, no investment required. Don't spend money right away on what may be a passing interest. I made a three room map and didn't have the patience to do more.
Exactly, and could someone please tell me how this gives the conclusion that it's a Chinese cyber espionage front? I mean, seriously?
Inside the black eggs were USB drives with google's search algorithms. It's sloppy editing not to include that in the article, but it's even sloppier espionage on the restaurant's part to advertise that fact on the menu.
And keep in mind, the government bailed out GM and other American car companies. To not share what they know with their investments when the other guys are? That would just be downright investing stupidly, even by government standards. Sure, questionable as far as ethics go, and maybe international trade, but when did those become concerns for governments?
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious... ...where does one obtain a Masters degree in Electronic Warfare?
I think if you convince the army you have a masters in electronic warfare, that's a masters in electronic warfare.
California legislature is anxious and eager to do anything that distracts them from the budget problem.
I'd say there's also a little of "journalists are anxious to cover stories about the california legislature that aren't 'old news' about the budget problems."
There's only so much you can say about it. There's not enough money in the budget. It's politically impossible to raise taxes. There's likely to be hell to pay for cutting any more spending (would you prefer to be voted out of office for slashing education or voted out for slashing law enforcement?) That's 90% of the news coming out of Sacramento summed up in 3 sentences. If I were a journalist covering the California legislature, I'd probably be writing a novel right about now.
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
As a scientist who went to a Kansas high school during the controversy you're probably referring to, I have to say the biggest effect is other scientists asking if they taught me evolution in high school (they did, but that's beside the point). For most scientists, high school did nothing to encourage and interest in science regardless of a liberal/conservative bias.
If the idiots on the school board decide not to require the teaching of evolution, your teacher in the classroom is probably going to teach it anyway. If you have a shitty high school science teacher who doesn't mention anything about evolution, you probably learned about evolution on your own when you were interested in dinosaurs as a kid. If not, you'll learn it in your introductory biology classes in undergrad. You'll come across it at some point. It's not like high school is the only place learning goes on.
I'm not saying we should give up and let the creationists win, nor should we let these nuts rewrite history. The truth should be taught in schools or else it's a complete waste of time. Still, it's helpful to realize that these idiots aren't going to effectively brainwash the masses by putting lies into education, because it doesn't work like that. Education is not just what is taught by the text book and teacher in a classroom.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
And just think, that's with our so-called liberal agenda in education. Without it? Here's hoping we won't see "Crusades 2035: taking back Europe in the name of capitalism"
progress for progress' sake is the dirty word. If it is not broken don't @#$% it up.
I reject that logic. Progress can be made on even the best performing government programs. We haven't had a successful terrorist attack on our airlines in a while, some would say that's proof that TSA is doing a good job and is not broken, so we shouldn't fix it. Others among us see TSA as an organization run by a bunch of idiots and it's only luck that the would-be terrorists so far have just been even dumber.
I have read lots of history and while I think the church-and-state arguments the Texas board makes are a little week, I can tell you that if you pickup the typical High School Civics book today there IS a progressive bias. I don't think its out of line to insists that books at least cover major political events like the Contract with America, the Goldwater movement in the 60s and not leaving kids with the impression Nixon started Vietnam, is out of line at all.
It's hard to demonstrate political bias, since obviously a lot of that is in relation to your personal standpoint. You can look at those things not being mentioned and see a "progressive bias." I look at those things not being mentioned as "The amount of history that you're actually going to put in a kid's head with a textbook is shockingly low and there's more important stuff that would need to be cut to make room."
I mean, what -are- the major outcomes of Contract with America? To play devil's advocate based entirely on a brief scanning of the wiki page (acknowledging again my ignorance):
gerrymandering, both of the architects taken down by scandals while their opponent overcame his scandal, feel-good but trivial reforms on welfare, and a tough on crime approach that largely failed?
(again, not saying that's all it was, I'm genuinely ignorant of this, devil's advocate here)
Anyway, while it's a matter of opinion whether or not there is a liberal bias, the texas pannel openly admitted they were moving it in a conservative direction intentionally. They say to correct it, but I'd prefer that they don't actually -set out- to put a bias in, and their justification for changing things is based more off what is important, not "Haha, we're in the majority now!"
At the very least, the rest of us who are being affected would have some say in the matter, as opposed to now, where a handful of fox news viewers has found a way to brainwash everyone's children.
Yes, we are often wrong, our fixes to complex systems we understand like our bodies and ecosystems often backfire. I'd say we have a worse track record with the things we do based off -no- evidence or foresight though. Smoking, for example, is worse for your health than the low fat low calorie diet. We were smoking before we realized it could be affecting our health.
What you seem to be suggesting is a little like saying to a smoker "Don't stop smoking to prevent respiratory problems, there are other medicines to deal with that." Instead of continuing on our current levels of carbon emissions and dealing with malaria and other problems with other quick fixes, we should try to prevent global warming in the first place, since we know that won't be very good. Not having to use DDT in our lattitude, sidestepping the issue of whether or not DDT is a miracle or a curse, is the smarter option.
BP is doing everything possible to fix the problem, while we sit on the sidelines and debate their ineffectiveness. I don't think that's really fair -- if we get into a car accident, we're quick to shrug it off as just that: an accident. Nobody's fault. We pick up the pieces and move on.
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard? No, I don't think they should. They're holding themselves to the same standard the average person would.
There's also the fact that one driver has momentary lapses in attention and judgment. That doesn't go for a large corporation. We can't pass this off as "They were distracted by a cool bird on the side of the road while building the thing." There was undoubtedly multiple people assesing risks of a blowout vs potential profit. They undoubtedly weighted blowout a lot less than anyone living on or making a living in the gulf would have.
And from a liability standpoint, there SHOULDN'T be a difference, but there is. You run into a car, you have to pay for it. BP blows up the gulf: they should pay for it. Except they won't.
They should be held to a higher standard both because the stakes are higher and because they -can- be better.
the natural human desire for privacy that has existed since the dawn of human evolution.
Getting a funny mental image of Adam and Eve detagging all their facebook photos with naughty bits in them after eating the apple.
News Feed:
Eve and The Serpent are now friends
Adam and Eve became fans of "Eating from the tree of knowledge" and "If one more person posts their cave drawings, I'll quit facebook"
Adam "LOL, apples R so GOOD"
Eve --> Adam: "where u at? Bring as many fig leafs as you can ASAP!"
Eve changed her profile picture
Adam and eve left "Garden of Eden" network.
Adam is OMFG PAIN SUCKS!!! I MISS THE PORN BUSH!!
Adam and Eve joined the group "2 strong for getting Adam and Eve back into the Garden of Eden"
We already knew this...
We didn't know why. I always assumed it was because overheard conversations are ALWAYS boring!
Here's a rule I'd like everyone to adopt: if you absolutely must be talking on a cell phone in public, make sure to spice up the conversation for anyone who has to listen. Here are some lines to throw in at random that will make it at least semi interesting:
-"How could you cheat on me with all those people?!? HOW?!?"
-"... now was that before or after you chopped up the body?"
-"Yes, that's right doctor, green, throbbing, and painful."
-"I could be wrong, I huffed a lot of gold paint just before I left."
-"This is indisputable proof that the incans had a primitive internet long before europeans came to this continent!"
-"I think I put my thong on backwards, it really hurts."
Sadly, no, 99% of the conversations I overhear don't involve anything more than he said she said I'll see you later do you want me to meet you there we just landed crap. It's just plain boring, people.
Which completely and totally removes any and all need to do a study.
If only they would have asked you first.
For those of you whose threshold for displayed comments is too low to show the AC's half of that conversation, the first part of that was "We already knew this." There, now that you know both sides of the discussion, it's not as annoying.
This sounds exactly like Jurassic Park, except replace Dinosaurs with Yeast and Frogs with E. Coli.
Need I explain what happens next?
Newman steals the bacteria (WHICH IS NOT E.COLI FYI!!!) and then a velociraptor eats Samuel L Jackson?
That would be a good readout that it is functional, and undoubtedly they did that already. Working with a single bacterium is I guess possible, but pretty much everyone just works with whole colonies.
They wouldn't have had much to screen from to see if they got the genome in had they not gotten a colony rather than a single cell.
Anyway, the reason "reproducing" isn't a good standard for defining life is there are many live things, such as mules, which aren't capable of reproducing, and some non-living things which are capable of reproducing to various degrees. For example fire spreads by catching other things on fire, and it's questionable whether prions are alive or not though they can reproduce.
I guess we should wait until the actual Science article comes out, but it looks like they basically synthesized an entire bacterial genome, as opposed to the normal way of having a bacteria copy it's own genome with it's own enzymes, and then they put it into a different bacterial strain.
Is that "making" a cell artificially? They didn't make most of the bacterial cell themselves, the bacteria did that. They didn't design the genome from scratch, they just copied an existing one that nature made and modified it a bit. I'm not sure that constitutes actually making a cell artificially. If you buy a mac at a store, print out the ones and zeros to make windows vista, manually retype them, make a boot disk, and install that on the mac and it worked, that would be an impressive feat, sure, but did you "make a completely new computer?" (Best comparison I could come up with, sorry about that in advance). I don't think this can be considered making life yet.
Second, is this "life?" Life seems to be impossible to define, but it's pretty certain that "genome was stitched together in a lab and inserted into a dummy cell" is unique to this thing, nothing else we'd call life has that feature. Does that disqualify it as life and make it something else?
To their credit, Venter doesn't seem to be claiming they made new life, but they are aiming for that eventually, and I'm curious as to what slashdot thinks about when we can actually say we've created artificial life.
If you're worried about malaria, it's not the temperature that should concern you, it's the irrational demonization of life saving chemicals like DDT.
And if you're wrong, and environmentalists are not completely wrong about global warming, whether or not DDT is bad, and everything else then what? Planning on being dead by then and have no children to care about?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise. The price of running your heater or AC will rise, a lot. And it's a regressive tax, like all consumption taxes.
If half the harms of global climate change come true, that's going to happen anyway. I'd hate to pay more for my amazon order, but I'd hate even more to catch malaria because it was warm enough now for it to thrive in my latitude.
(note that I have no idea how likely that effect of climate change is. I'd probably invest in some bug spray and gin and tonic... maybe that's not a bad thing...)
Cap and Trade is just a fancy phrase meaning "tax" anyway. I hate the verbal misdirection.
I hate the fact that calling it "cap and trade" actually makes it more likely to get passed than calling it a tax.
Being as volcanoes are responsible for an irrelevant amount of CO2, no one. Humanity produces several orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanoes. It's like suggesting that we tax squirrels for using the road while they cross the street.
Sure, but just for kicks, I'd like to see the IRS try to enforce taxes on both volcanoes and squirrels.
You do realise that the Rastafarian religion is based on black supremacy, right?
...
I indeed did not and hereby take back my endorsement of a rastafarian government. At least, one that is true to what you say are rastafarian roots. One based off of pot smoking on the other hand...
There is no such thing as a reasonable theocracy.
I think that's more due to the fact that all the religions that people base theocracies off of. And anyone who starts a theocracy, when the history of theocracies seem to be nothing but failure and bad times, tends to be completely unreasonable and or megalomaniac.
I'm guessing if, by some odd circumstance, a reasonable person started a theocracy based on a non-crazy religion, that theocracy might work out okay. I'd love to see a pastafarian or rastafarian theocracy. From afar though. And sadly such an experiment would probably be invaded in some form or another by one of the more invasive religions.
(Also, their widely held belief that global warming can be combated by having more pirates might be somewhat worrisome if a pastafarian theocracy were to get a modern navy.)
I have no idea who Taylor Momsen is
I do, I think, and I'm not entirely convinced she didn't write the headline.
the Headline was clever
I thought so too. Along those lines, headlines will still have to be clever and catchy AFTER getting onto the first search page. To use the "Jon Stewart slams Glen Beck" example, if I was googling Jon Stewart, that boring headline isn't going to pull me in.
Basically headlines are going to still have to be clever and catchy, but also now include buzzwords, which they kind of already did.
I guess it's whoever spends the hundreds of millions of dollars to follow up on the infinitesimal chance that this will lead to something useful?
This is an entirely sensible approach to patents in this case. Therefore we can be absolutely sure that will not happen, at least not for those reasons.
Likelier answer: whoever spends the most on lawyers. May or may not be the same people who prove it's useful.
If he likes Halo, try modding for Marathon, the older Bungie fps game.
Noooo!!! I did that in high school and look where I am now: SLASHDOT!!!
Kidding. Marathon really did seem like a good learning ground. I had more fun on the community maps than on the included levels. Plus, they're free now, no investment required. Don't spend money right away on what may be a passing interest. I made a three room map and didn't have the patience to do more.
Exactly, and could someone please tell me how this gives the conclusion that it's a Chinese cyber espionage front? I mean, seriously?
Inside the black eggs were USB drives with google's search algorithms. It's sloppy editing not to include that in the article, but it's even sloppier espionage on the restaurant's part to advertise that fact on the menu.
And keep in mind, the government bailed out GM and other American car companies. To not share what they know with their investments when the other guys are? That would just be downright investing stupidly, even by government standards. Sure, questionable as far as ethics go, and maybe international trade, but when did those become concerns for governments?