The cure for rapid aging (or late youth) is the transporter (1, 2, 3), psychic magic (4, 5), or nothing (6).
I think I've found all or almost all the episodes that deal with *rapid* age changes. The Bashir episode is questionable, as the aging only occurred in his mind. I can't think of any relevant Voyager or Enterprise episodes. Q's kid ages rapidly for Janeway, but that's sort of to be expected.... There are several episodes that take place partly in the future (the end of Enterprise; the DS9 episode with old Jake Sisko; the end of TNG; the end of Voyager; the icy planet crash landing episode of Voyager; Time's Arrow, kind of--Data's head at least ages 500 years in the course of the episode...), but those don't constitute rapid aging. Picard's hand ages rapidly in Timescape, but that's just one part of his body and doesn't require a "cure" like the other episodes I listed.
If I've missed any (even questionable ones), let me know:).
Note quite. Spock magics up an apparently adrenaline-based serum that undoes the rapid aging that some radiation exposure caused in that particular episode. As far as adrenaline itself is concerned, McCoy only says it was used as a radiation treatment in the past, and might be part of a cure for their predicament.
Yes, but that use isn't as just another Hebrew word. My point (which, to be fair, I didn't bother to make explicit whatsoever) is that neither the person who called "amen" a religious expression nor the person who called it "hebrew that means 'So let it be'" were correct. It is both a religious expression and part of two idioms [and moreover the idioms are based on an (often joking) appeal to the religious usage]. I just dislike it when people insult other people and make mistakes in their insult that were just as bad as the original mistake.
A few plausible plots come to mind. (1) A movie centered around someone's crisis of faith, where the final resolution is that they stop believing altogether. (2) Heaven/Hell fill up, and instead of overflowing (cliche!) they just shut their doors to new souls; no more afterlife folks! (3) Some thin plot where one side (atheists) war against the other and win, where the plot is just an excuse to hit the audience over the head with the belief that there is no afterlife. Granted, (1) wouldn't be that interesting alone, (2) is a strange sort of comedy that might be an Adam Sandler movie plot, and (3) is just silly--but, there you go.
Maybe your post was a joke. It really doesn't seem like it, though, so I'll assume it's not.
You do not care about all the raped children?
Obviously, not wanting to hear about pedophilia in the church yet again makes one not care about raped children. Flawless reasoning. Apparently I couldn't care less about the Holocaust either--what a load off my mind!
What does your continued outrage actually accomplish? What religious person is going to listen to your litany and say, "oh hey, I was wrong. Oops."? It also makes people defensive to be yelled at, regardless of where the truth of the matter lies. I suppose you can hope to recruit the non-religious to your view, but I don't see what that accomplishes either. The people you have a problem with are happily unaffected by your views because of your belligerence, the people who agree with your outrage... agree, and the people who just want to live their lives continue to wish you would shut up. Picking a single issue to champion would probably be more effective. That way it's not "you vs. religion" but instead "you vs. priest pedophilia". You might find a way to make some useful progress that way, too, when the issue is small enough.
Most people have enough to do with living their own lives and dealing with those immediately around them. Maybe it's heartless, and it's not optimal, but it's reality. If you want to change the world, you have to deal with that reality. Shouting at people so you can get an emotional release isn't enough and mostly makes people want to ignore you all the more. You make some very good points, by the way. Your view is incredibly one-sided and falls prey to the fallacy of "the enemy is pure evil", but still, the lack of questioning religion tends to foster is a terrible evil and the other things are awful as well. Your good points are just cast in the light of hatred to such a degree that my instincts strongly tell me to ignore them and latch on to the flaws instead while refusing to change my own positions.
Maybe I'm alone, but what I read was [big word] [big word] "I'm cynical" [big word]. How is a reflex needing frequent reinforcement also a primary urge? Or maybe the "urge" you're referring to is experienced by teachers/administrators/etc.? The grammar doesn't fit that interpretation, though. In any case, you have a valid point, but it's a bit overstated. Some students are really there to learn, and many teachers are really there to teach.
A better skill to teach is menu exploration. Find, Select All, Undo, Replace, and a zillion application-specific gems are in the menus, together with their shortcuts. An even better meta-skill is generic program exploration, with an emphasis on not screwing things up. When I encounter a new program for the first time, I always find the Settings/Preferences/Options and at least glance through them. If it's a type of program I'm not familiar with I definitely look through the menus. I right click places that might be right-clickable and explore the ensuing context menus, I try double clicking, I sometimes try control-clicking, and I generally see what the program does in response to standard inputs. Some people seem to think I have magical abilities when they watch me run a program I've never encountered before, but they just miss the conventions and tests that I don't. Most people are capable of picking up on these skills pretty quickly if they're given some examples and told what's going on.
Wrath 5-man tanking was fun for a while. I got very good at multiple group pulls, and being a long-time healer I was able to run my healers ragged without dying. Muahaha.
I question how widespread your issue is (and how well-informed the people who modded your post are...you were quite assertive, so maybe they latched on to that). It seems like the vast majority of players play for the max-level content. Heirlooms were introduced to take some of the tedium out of leveling a new character when you already have a max level one. Since a huge fraction of active players with max level characters level another, heirlooms were a way to cater to the game's most numerous player type.
I can understand heirlooms being annoying, since I leveled without them recently and would get outdone in dungeons by people with them, but I'm sure they only caused a small minority of players (not 1/12) to leave.
Your chronology is a little garbled. Here's what happened on the PvE side:
In Vanilla, raiding was not very accessible. You needed 40 players to do most raids, which was an organizational hassle, and most raid content was seen by only a few top guilds. The perfect example is Naxx: it was released at the end of Vanilla and was meant to give high level guilds something to do. I imagine less than 1% of the player base saw that content, which is unfortunate since it was huge and well-designed. Casual players either did poorly in the entry level raids or did lower-level 5-man content. Everything was new, so even the low level content was entertaining.
In Burning Crusade, raiding became a bit more accessible. Raids required either 25 or 10 players, and the entry level raid instance was a 10-man (much easier to organize). The transition to 25-man content was painful logistically for many guilds after they completed the first instance. More guilds got a good ways through the second (of three) raid tier. The third tier was completed by only a few high level guilds. Again, Blizzard released an extra high-level raid, Sunwell, at the end of the expansion that was seen by only a few top guilds, and completed honestly by even fewer. "Heroic" 5-mans were also introduced this expansion, but they were incredibly hard without raid gear. I'm not sure where they were supposed to fit on the casual/hardcore spectrum, though they did give raiders something to do between raids.
Along came Wrath of the Lich King, which made raids even more accessible. Every raid had 10 and 25 man versions. 10 was considered casual, and was tuned to be easier than 25. The entry level raid was a revamped version of Naxx (since almost nobody had seen it the first time anyway, reusing it was fine). The next tier was where Blizz first introduced optional hard modes, where you would kill the boss under more difficult circumstances for better loot. I imagine hard modes were introduced to prevent content from being wasted, which had already happened to the original Naxx and Sunwell, and to a lesser degree the other high-end raids in the previous expansions. With hard modes, high level guilds could have a challenge and low level guilds could kill the normal bosses, and everyone felt like they were progressing. Moreover, hard modes didn't require much work to add--extra testing and a few more mechanics, often quite simple ones like "boss hits 25% harder" or a timer. At the end of the expansion, Blizzard added a 5-man dungeon matchmaker system which automatically formed groups. It very much catered to casuals, though was convenient for everyone.
Now we're up to Cataclysm, the current expansion. Everyone thinks it caters to casuals, and it does. You get some nice buffs if you use the 5-man dungeon finder system, making a quick instance easy to set up for those without much time. Blizzard added a second tier of 5-man heroics, reusing old raid content to do so. When they recently released a second tier of raid content, they greatly reduced the difficulty of the previous tier with the stated goal of allowing pugs (random groups of people who generally don't know each other) to complete those raids. I believe their goal is for the vast majority of raiders to see the vast majority of content this time around, even if it means making things easier and easier until the end of the expansion.
There are many other things they've done to cater to both hardcore and casual (mostly casual) players, like various changes in loot distribution that make it much easier to get good gear with less time invested. 5-mans in Vanilla often took hours, while they take at most an hour now in Cataclysm, and usually much less. A thousand conveniences have been added to the game to make everyone happier and raiding less tedious (dual spec, no-aggro CC, raid marks, repair bots, mass rez,...the list goes on). But, after so many years, I think people are just getting tired of the same old thing. The game is technically far better than it was originally, but "the thrill is gone", or at least is going away.
"which one would you purchase for a friend to help them recommend books to you?"
I'm suppose to figure out which story I would buy for a friend so that they would be able to figure out my taste in books and recommend things I might like in the future? If I understood that correctly, that's pretty roundabout, and it still suffers from my example. It would be more than an imposition to expect a friend to read the Wheel of Time (or even the first book) just so they could know my taste in books. [For reference, the first book of that series is just over 300,000 words, the series itself is around 4,000,000 words, and the Bible is (from a random site I googled) around 800,000 words.]
I'm not very confident in my ability to rate sound systems, while I am confident in my ability to rate how much I liked a story, so I doubt that's a very apt analogy. Still, it would be interesting to hear how different methods of determining preference differ in this case. Your methods are
1. ask "would you pay for it"
2. ask "would you purchase it for a friend"
3. ask "which can you tolerate long-term"
4. ask "which can you live without"
2-4 seem pretty silly. I might love a book but not want to buy it for a friend (unless the friend was a stand-in for me, in which case you just have 1). For instance I wouldn't buy any of my friends the first Wheel of Time book, since it's such an incredibly long series. I could live without either spoiled endings or unspoiled endings; that would seem to give little useful information. I can tolerate even highly flawed things long-term, so that is also problematic.
Still, asking "would you pay for it" in addition to a 1-10 rating might be a good plan.
I was thinking the GGP's 45 minute boot time was on an arbitrary regular boot. Certainly I can understand intermittent long boot times for reasons like you've mentioned.
I don't know what "different vulnerability" means, so I'm not sure what that extra sentence adds. I have two interpretations: (1) a bug was introduced, patched, and all relevant code was rewritten in Vista, introducing the original error again; (2) two rather similar but somehow fundamentally different bugs were introduced, one in the 90's and one in the Vista rewrite. That's guesswork, though, and as far as I recall not backed up by the article.
Is it just me, or does it sound like the linked mini-essay was written by high schooler who isn't particularly good at English? For instance, it uses lots of too-short sentences like
We should bring Mozilla values to where people are living today. We should do so at multiple layers of Internet life. Some of these will be Gecko and Firefox based. Others may be available across browsers.
It's overly general to the point of saying almost nothing. I have almost no idea what an "open source, standards-based platform for universally accessible, decentralized, customized identity on the web" is, or what an "open source, standards-based engine for universally accessible, decentralized, customized, user-controlled management of personal information I create about myself" is. The numbered list rambles on almost to the point of incoherence. In the first item, I think the point is "maybe we can get this new stuff on the iOS, even if we haven't been able to get Gecko there". It takes 7 sentences to forget to actually make this point. The essay's grammar could also be improved in a couple of places, but I suppose the grammar checker caught most of those issues.
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes poor writers have great content hidden underneath the garbage they spew. I don't think that's the case here. Don't bother reading it.
Hah, that's hilarious. I wish I could think of more use cases for it.... Making one and seeing how people use it would be an interesting experiment at least.
Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to the people who corrected me simultaneously, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".
Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to all the people who corrected me at once, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".
Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to the various people who corrected me at once, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".
It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.
[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like "a blue horse is blue" or "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational". Usually the former example--which is essentially an error of redundancy--is the type "tautology" refers to in common speech, while the latter is used in formal logic.]
Slashdot Mirror
The cure for rapid aging (or late youth) is the transporter (1, 2, 3), psychic magic (4, 5), or nothing (6).
I think I've found all or almost all the episodes that deal with *rapid* age changes. The Bashir episode is questionable, as the aging only occurred in his mind. I can't think of any relevant Voyager or Enterprise episodes. Q's kid ages rapidly for Janeway, but that's sort of to be expected.... There are several episodes that take place partly in the future (the end of Enterprise; the DS9 episode with old Jake Sisko; the end of TNG; the end of Voyager; the icy planet crash landing episode of Voyager; Time's Arrow, kind of--Data's head at least ages 500 years in the course of the episode...), but those don't constitute rapid aging. Picard's hand ages rapidly in Timescape, but that's just one part of his body and doesn't require a "cure" like the other episodes I listed.
If I've missed any (even questionable ones), let me know :).
Note quite. Spock magics up an apparently adrenaline-based serum that undoes the rapid aging that some radiation exposure caused in that particular episode. As far as adrenaline itself is concerned, McCoy only says it was used as a radiation treatment in the past, and might be part of a cure for their predicament.
In my experience, urban areas are less religious than rural areas. Maybe that's an idiosyncrasy of the US and its history.
Yes, but that use isn't as just another Hebrew word. My point (which, to be fair, I didn't bother to make explicit whatsoever) is that neither the person who called "amen" a religious expression nor the person who called it "hebrew that means 'So let it be'" were correct. It is both a religious expression and part of two idioms [and moreover the idioms are based on an (often joking) appeal to the religious usage]. I just dislike it when people insult other people and make mistakes in their insult that were just as bad as the original mistake.
A few plausible plots come to mind. (1) A movie centered around someone's crisis of faith, where the final resolution is that they stop believing altogether. (2) Heaven/Hell fill up, and instead of overflowing (cliche!) they just shut their doors to new souls; no more afterlife folks! (3) Some thin plot where one side (atheists) war against the other and win, where the plot is just an excuse to hit the audience over the head with the belief that there is no afterlife. Granted, (1) wouldn't be that interesting alone, (2) is a strange sort of comedy that might be an Adam Sandler movie plot, and (3) is just silly--but, there you go.
Maybe your post was a joke. It really doesn't seem like it, though, so I'll assume it's not.
You do not care about all the raped children?
Obviously, not wanting to hear about pedophilia in the church yet again makes one not care about raped children. Flawless reasoning. Apparently I couldn't care less about the Holocaust either--what a load off my mind!
What does your continued outrage actually accomplish? What religious person is going to listen to your litany and say, "oh hey, I was wrong. Oops."? It also makes people defensive to be yelled at, regardless of where the truth of the matter lies. I suppose you can hope to recruit the non-religious to your view, but I don't see what that accomplishes either. The people you have a problem with are happily unaffected by your views because of your belligerence, the people who agree with your outrage... agree, and the people who just want to live their lives continue to wish you would shut up. Picking a single issue to champion would probably be more effective. That way it's not "you vs. religion" but instead "you vs. priest pedophilia". You might find a way to make some useful progress that way, too, when the issue is small enough.
Most people have enough to do with living their own lives and dealing with those immediately around them. Maybe it's heartless, and it's not optimal, but it's reality. If you want to change the world, you have to deal with that reality. Shouting at people so you can get an emotional release isn't enough and mostly makes people want to ignore you all the more. You make some very good points, by the way. Your view is incredibly one-sided and falls prey to the fallacy of "the enemy is pure evil", but still, the lack of questioning religion tends to foster is a terrible evil and the other things are awful as well. Your good points are just cast in the light of hatred to such a degree that my instincts strongly tell me to ignore them and latch on to the flaws instead while refusing to change my own positions.
When was the last time someone said amen to you and meant it as just another Hebrew word?
Maybe I'm alone, but what I read was [big word] [big word] "I'm cynical" [big word]. How is a reflex needing frequent reinforcement also a primary urge? Or maybe the "urge" you're referring to is experienced by teachers/administrators/etc.? The grammar doesn't fit that interpretation, though. In any case, you have a valid point, but it's a bit overstated. Some students are really there to learn, and many teachers are really there to teach.
A better skill to teach is menu exploration. Find, Select All, Undo, Replace, and a zillion application-specific gems are in the menus, together with their shortcuts. An even better meta-skill is generic program exploration, with an emphasis on not screwing things up. When I encounter a new program for the first time, I always find the Settings/Preferences/Options and at least glance through them. If it's a type of program I'm not familiar with I definitely look through the menus. I right click places that might be right-clickable and explore the ensuing context menus, I try double clicking, I sometimes try control-clicking, and I generally see what the program does in response to standard inputs. Some people seem to think I have magical abilities when they watch me run a program I've never encountered before, but they just miss the conventions and tests that I don't. Most people are capable of picking up on these skills pretty quickly if they're given some examples and told what's going on.
Wrath 5-man tanking was fun for a while. I got very good at multiple group pulls, and being a long-time healer I was able to run my healers ragged without dying. Muahaha.
I question how widespread your issue is (and how well-informed the people who modded your post are...you were quite assertive, so maybe they latched on to that). It seems like the vast majority of players play for the max-level content. Heirlooms were introduced to take some of the tedium out of leveling a new character when you already have a max level one. Since a huge fraction of active players with max level characters level another, heirlooms were a way to cater to the game's most numerous player type.
I can understand heirlooms being annoying, since I leveled without them recently and would get outdone in dungeons by people with them, but I'm sure they only caused a small minority of players (not 1/12) to leave.
Your chronology is a little garbled. Here's what happened on the PvE side:
In Vanilla, raiding was not very accessible. You needed 40 players to do most raids, which was an organizational hassle, and most raid content was seen by only a few top guilds. The perfect example is Naxx: it was released at the end of Vanilla and was meant to give high level guilds something to do. I imagine less than 1% of the player base saw that content, which is unfortunate since it was huge and well-designed. Casual players either did poorly in the entry level raids or did lower-level 5-man content. Everything was new, so even the low level content was entertaining.
In Burning Crusade, raiding became a bit more accessible. Raids required either 25 or 10 players, and the entry level raid instance was a 10-man (much easier to organize). The transition to 25-man content was painful logistically for many guilds after they completed the first instance. More guilds got a good ways through the second (of three) raid tier. The third tier was completed by only a few high level guilds. Again, Blizzard released an extra high-level raid, Sunwell, at the end of the expansion that was seen by only a few top guilds, and completed honestly by even fewer. "Heroic" 5-mans were also introduced this expansion, but they were incredibly hard without raid gear. I'm not sure where they were supposed to fit on the casual/hardcore spectrum, though they did give raiders something to do between raids.
Along came Wrath of the Lich King, which made raids even more accessible. Every raid had 10 and 25 man versions. 10 was considered casual, and was tuned to be easier than 25. The entry level raid was a revamped version of Naxx (since almost nobody had seen it the first time anyway, reusing it was fine). The next tier was where Blizz first introduced optional hard modes, where you would kill the boss under more difficult circumstances for better loot. I imagine hard modes were introduced to prevent content from being wasted, which had already happened to the original Naxx and Sunwell, and to a lesser degree the other high-end raids in the previous expansions. With hard modes, high level guilds could have a challenge and low level guilds could kill the normal bosses, and everyone felt like they were progressing. Moreover, hard modes didn't require much work to add--extra testing and a few more mechanics, often quite simple ones like "boss hits 25% harder" or a timer. At the end of the expansion, Blizzard added a 5-man dungeon matchmaker system which automatically formed groups. It very much catered to casuals, though was convenient for everyone.
Now we're up to Cataclysm, the current expansion. Everyone thinks it caters to casuals, and it does. You get some nice buffs if you use the 5-man dungeon finder system, making a quick instance easy to set up for those without much time. Blizzard added a second tier of 5-man heroics, reusing old raid content to do so. When they recently released a second tier of raid content, they greatly reduced the difficulty of the previous tier with the stated goal of allowing pugs (random groups of people who generally don't know each other) to complete those raids. I believe their goal is for the vast majority of raiders to see the vast majority of content this time around, even if it means making things easier and easier until the end of the expansion.
There are many other things they've done to cater to both hardcore and casual (mostly casual) players, like various changes in loot distribution that make it much easier to get good gear with less time invested. 5-mans in Vanilla often took hours, while they take at most an hour now in Cataclysm, and usually much less. A thousand conveniences have been added to the game to make everyone happier and raiding less tedious (dual spec, no-aggro CC, raid marks, repair bots, mass rez, ...the list goes on). But, after so many years, I think people are just getting tired of the same old thing. The game is technically far better than it was originally, but "the thrill is gone", or at least is going away.
"which one would you purchase for a friend to help them recommend books to you?"
I'm suppose to figure out which story I would buy for a friend so that they would be able to figure out my taste in books and recommend things I might like in the future? If I understood that correctly, that's pretty roundabout, and it still suffers from my example. It would be more than an imposition to expect a friend to read the Wheel of Time (or even the first book) just so they could know my taste in books. [For reference, the first book of that series is just over 300,000 words, the series itself is around 4,000,000 words, and the Bible is (from a random site I googled) around 800,000 words.]
2-4 seem pretty silly. I might love a book but not want to buy it for a friend (unless the friend was a stand-in for me, in which case you just have 1). For instance I wouldn't buy any of my friends the first Wheel of Time book, since it's such an incredibly long series. I could live without either spoiled endings or unspoiled endings; that would seem to give little useful information. I can tolerate even highly flawed things long-term, so that is also problematic.
Still, asking "would you pay for it" in addition to a 1-10 rating might be a good plan.
I was thinking the GGP's 45 minute boot time was on an arbitrary regular boot. Certainly I can understand intermittent long boot times for reasons like you've mentioned.
I'm ignorant. What could possibly take 45 minutes to do during a regular boot?
I don't know what "different vulnerability" means, so I'm not sure what that extra sentence adds. I have two interpretations: (1) a bug was introduced, patched, and all relevant code was rewritten in Vista, introducing the original error again; (2) two rather similar but somehow fundamentally different bugs were introduced, one in the 90's and one in the Vista rewrite. That's guesswork, though, and as far as I recall not backed up by the article.
The bug exists in Windows Vista, Server 2008, Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2, Microsoft said, but not in Windows XP or Server 2003.
We should bring Mozilla values to where people are living today. We should do so at multiple layers of Internet life. Some of these will be Gecko and Firefox based. Others may be available across browsers.
It's overly general to the point of saying almost nothing. I have almost no idea what an "open source, standards-based platform for universally accessible, decentralized, customized identity on the web" is, or what an "open source, standards-based engine for universally accessible, decentralized, customized, user-controlled management of personal information I create about myself" is. The numbered list rambles on almost to the point of incoherence. In the first item, I think the point is "maybe we can get this new stuff on the iOS, even if we haven't been able to get Gecko there". It takes 7 sentences to forget to actually make this point. The essay's grammar could also be improved in a couple of places, but I suppose the grammar checker caught most of those issues.
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes poor writers have great content hidden underneath the garbage they spew. I don't think that's the case here. Don't bother reading it.
I've often wondered if a smaller Congress would be better. Maybe another country has some experience with that.
Hah, that's hilarious. I wish I could think of more use cases for it.... Making one and seeing how people use it would be an interesting experiment at least.
Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to the people who corrected me simultaneously, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".
Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to all the people who corrected me at once, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".
Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to the various people who corrected me at once, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".
It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.
[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like "a blue horse is blue" or "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational". Usually the former example--which is essentially an error of redundancy--is the type "tautology" refers to in common speech, while the latter is used in formal logic.]