Like all things, most people have this ingrained belief in the black & white of things. I disagree completely. I think it's both. People get into gaming (all sorts) for various reasons. Different games appeal to different types, and for different reasons.
There are a lot of games out there where certain abilities of the player have large impacts: leadership plays a huge role in team games, especially team deathmatches where the team is all in one place. Allocation of resources plays a role here too, but also in various strategy games, not to mention good wargames. Lots of boardgames rely to a large degree on politics and persuasion, while others are based on figuring odds and strategies. It's a stimulating world for people who are interested enough and intelligent enough to look into the depths.
I'm a biologist, so I tend to see parallels with biology everywhere. There's been a lot of debate as to whether various characteristics are based on genetics or environment; most say that it's some combination of the two. I'd say that the situation with gamers is much the same. People get involved in these games for various reasons... those who stick with the games often do so because they enjoy them; some part of them resonates with the challenges of the game. The more they stick with it, the more it grows on them, and the more they learn to think or act to play the game. Leadership skills develop among some, strategic thinking among some, and hand-eye coordination among others.
Of course, some people are more apt to be leaders, and others are more dextrous... that's a matter of the person, the game can only help develop certain skills, not develop them out of whole cloth. No, games won't make you a leader, or a strategist; but like they say, "practice makes perfect." If you have the ability to think strategically, playing strategy games will help develop those skills. On the other hand, if you have no idea how to plan for the future, you won't do very well at these games, and either you won't continue to play them, or you'll get better very slowly.
In the martial arts analogy that keeps coming up, those who are interested in the spiritual aspects will focus on them, often choosing to study styles like Aikido, while those who are into the 'kick-ass' factor tend to go with styles like Ju-Jitsu or Kickboxing... most, however, go with Taekwondo or Karate, 'cause that's what's available.
Perhaps there are more 'intelligent' people playing games simply because it's an active, mental endeavor. Watching TV is passive... gaming requires thought, regardless of the type. Of course, this all depends on your definition of 'intelligent', which is harder to nail down than a good politician...
As for those studies, I dunno... I haven't read them. I'd like to see a study that tracks gamers from when they start gaming 'till they stop. Or at least divides them up by how long they've been gaming. If they're right, we should see a steady gain in intelligence... if I'm right, you won't seem much change. Of course, the flaws here are many: IQ ratings generally drop as you get older (flaw in the test design), and IQ doesn't rate things like gain in leadership skills, increased dexterity, or the ability to plan logistics...
Yeah... you know what? You're right. And while I'm at it, I should go in and have my penis removed too. We've been using this ancient means of procreation for waaay too long. I'll just stick to in vitro fertilization. Much more high tech and cutting edge... less messy too.
1) Palm Beach and Sarasota may both be high in retirees, but the demographics may still be different. Apparently, Palm Beach is heavy in elderly Jews, who tend to be democratic. Sarasota may be elderly but not Jewish. I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out.
2) Just because a Democrat approved the ballot design doesn't mean the design was correct. We're not talking about a business, we're talking about government... whole other can o'worms. Anyway, the argument carried by one of the lawsuits pending is that the ballot design is illegal based on Florida law, despite any other approval (has to do with a law requiring that you mark your choice to the right of the candidate's name... not the case in this design). Besides, this person's a politician, not a UI engineer. We've all seen horrible examples of UI despite the number of engineers in the field. How many UI people do you think work in ballot design???
3) These people did understand what was going on; they were able to make up their minds on who to vote for. They even managed to find their way to the polls. I haven't seen the polling booths, but I've heard reports that the polls were understaffed, underprepared and faced with high voter turnout. Getting proper instructions to hundreds of seniors when you yourself are probably a senior is not the easiest thing.
4) Sorry bud. I just checked the info:
Buchanan was not even a reform party candidate in '96. He tried for the Republican nomination and failed. Perot was the '96 Reform Party candidate. There's no way that the Reform numbers in '96 are comparable to '00. Perot was a moderate, who could be popular among the Palm Beach population. Buchanan has been anti-semitic... not something to go over well with a heavily Jewish district.
Don't go there... The fact is that, yes, your vote in this election didn't count for all that much. However, it could just have easily been Iowa or Wisconsin that the election hinged on.
Given different issues, it might have been Virginia that was split on the candidates. Virginia has a fair number of electoral votes. Had the big issue been something else... (sorry, I'm a bit ignorant about local Virginian issues) it might be your county that holds the key.
Yes, some states are more likely to be battleground states than others; this is due to their demographics. However, this doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count. Depending on the issues, it might, or it might be a pebble in a landslide.
Actually, I've heard that there was a similar incidence in Arizona awhile back during the McGovern election. It went to court, and it was ruled that the most equitable option was to double count the votes: count the vote towards both candidates. If this option is applied, it would mean that those 19,000 double votes would count for *both* Buchanan and Gore (I'm assuming at this point that this is the pair that all ballots were double voted for).
There's just one thing that keeps me from thinking like you do... From talking to people who are Libertarians, I've found that they're generally very smart, intelligent people. It really wouldn't suprise me if the Libertarian party was comprised of people who, on average, fall in the top 70% or so of the population, where intelligence is concerned. Of course you can do better than the gov't can when it comes to planning, financial or otherwise.
What I've come to realize is this: Take a moment, and think of the intelligence of the average American. Think of all the stupidity that's out there, and think about where that falls... probably fairly close to average. Then think of the definition of average. Assuming that intelligence in the population is more or less a standard bell curve, this means that a sizeable chunk of the population is *dumber* than average. Can you really expect these idiots to plan for themselves? Do you really think that they are capable of providing for themselves in an increasingly information-based economy?
The post you replied to was a little too inflammatory to get its point across, but the poster had the right idea. You, as an intelligent person, are *not* the type of person that makes up American society. It's unfortunate, but true. While you can do a better job of financial planning then the government, I'd say the government does a much better job of financial planning than the bulk of American citizens.
The question then becomes, do we say that these poor idiots are doomed to failure and poverty, or do we use taxpayer money to help them along... I say the latter. If you disagree here, then that's your right, and we go our seperate ways. But I think that this is the issue at heart.
Higher speeds? Not likely. However, the dinos most likely to be feathered (barring the theory that most theropods were feathered as juveniles... including T-Rex) are the raptors shown in Jurassic Park. Among other features, raptors have virtually identical wrist joints as modern birds. This allows them to perform a movement that we call, in birds, a flight stroke. If you add claws to the end of the wings, and take away the notion that the thing is generating lift (assuming that raptors had feathers, I seriously doubt these feathers were of the flight variety), what you're left with is something that looks like a two handed grab. Both arms swing out from the side, and snap together in front. It's been theorized (and I happen to agree) that the flight stroke originated in the attack pattern of the raptors. Instead of "immense and fearsome creatures flapping around like so many chickens", think of a bunch of raptors running around and pouncing on small mammals, large insects, and other small dinosaurs with both hands...
Also, as a note, velociraptors (the raptors named by Crichton in Jurassic Park) were not that large... they were about 4 feet long, not 9 feet, as in the film. The were the size of a large dog... However, shortly after the movie came out, paleontologists found fossils of a larger raptor, nearly matching the dimension of the ones in the movie. They're called 'Utahraptors', based on where they were found. Shoulda named 'em 'Movieraptors', or something similar... oh well.
While I agree with you, sometimes I feel like I need to pick a few nits... I also thought I'd provide a couple of explanations for that tiny population of non-biologists here on/.:)
1: These canals are called Haversian Canals. They're formed when bones grow. The faster the bones grow, the more canals there are. Lizards and other traditionally 'cold-blooded' animals don't grow as fast as mammals and birds, and thus have fewer canals. They do have them though... just fewer of 'em. And when snakes and crocs are kept in zoos and fed often (like once a week instead of the once a month as in the wild), they grow much faster, and have more Haversian Canals. Dinosaurs all have lots of canals, suggesting that they grew to full size very quickly (5-10 years). And we sure as hell didn't keep them in zoos... This kind of growth suggests high metabolism = warm blooded.
2: Birds are descendants of the Theropod dinos... most specifically, the line that created those raptors from Jurassic Park. Birds are warm blooded, and have 4-chambered hearts. Thus it's not unreasonable to believe that Dino's had the same. IIRC, there were also some finds that suggested that raptors had feathers (or some proto-feather type things). If you think that's wierd, think about this... An article published in a major scientific journal (I can't remember if it was Science or Nature...) reported that a paleontologist had found evidence that T-Rex had feathers as a juvenile...
3: Erect posture has nothing to do with it. It's a function of joint angles, not metabolism. Yes, it's correct that lizards actually use less energy moving with their legs jutting out than mammal quadrapeds do with their legs under them. However, upright generally means more speed. But crocs are cold-blooded, and actually can use a 'half-upright' posture, where they keep their front legs splayed, but their rear legs upright. Damn crocs always messing things up with that funky biology of theirs (They've got 3 1/2 chambers to their hearts too...). Yeah, there's a slight correlation here, but I don't think it's significant.
4: I've always been fond of this one. The argument here is that 'warm-blooded' predators require lots of food to survive and grow. In order for this to happen, there are generally lots more prey than predators. So, in the Permian (before warm-blooded critters existed), predators made up a much larger proportion of the total biomass. Dinosaurs, however, showed a much lower proportion, suggesting that they had high metabolisms.
As for the article itself, there have always been people arguing this one... it's nothing new. And yes, they're probably right that, in the absence of mitigating factors (special organs) sauropods couldn't raise their heads up. However, there are lots of options as far as mitigating factors go. Paleontologists have suggested similar organs as giraffes, secondary hearts in the neck (actually just muscle thickenings of the arterial wall that squeeze after the main heart does), and other stuff. It's all possible, and can't be ruled out.
Also, grass and flowers didn't appear until the late Cretaceous, long after the sauropods (brontosaurs, brachiosaurs, etc.) died off. The sauropods weren't swinging their necks around munching on grass. Why the hell would sauropods grow to such a large size to munch on scattered ferns?
Okay, get your head out of your ass and look around before you post utter stupidity. This "point" has been raised before, and everytime it gets the same answer: your vote does count, it chooses the electoral college members. Candidates for the Electoral College are chosen by the different political parties (this includes 3rd party candidates). Whoever wins a state gets to send their nominees to the Electoral College. If a 3rd party candidate wins a state, he sends his people to the Electoral College, where they will vote for him. If he wins enough states, then he will win the election. It's really that simple.
The other thing to remember is that the Presidential Election is not and never has been a popular election - It all comes down to winning states. That's the purpose the Electoral College serves. It makes sure that populous states don't have the ability to elect a President at the expense of minorities in less popular states. If that's not a good thing, then very little is. So, if a candidate wins a whole bunch of big states at the expense of pissing off a whole bunch of little states, then he loses the election, even if the majority of the population voted for him. It's called the Tyranny of the Majority. It's a bad thing, one that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and it's the reason we have the Electoral College.
Now, before you go nuts and start arguing that Electoral College members don't have to vote for their sponsors, let me point out that you're technically correct. They are under no real obligation to do so. OTOH, if a candidate is stupid enough to choose Electoral College nominees who won't vote for him, he doesn't deserve the Presidency in the first place. The only times in history that Electoral Collegiates have not voted for their candidate is when the election was already guaranteed, and they wanted to make a statement. They have *never* voted for the other candidate, nor have they ever done so when their vote would change the outcome.
I'm really getting tired of pointing this out (and I'm sure that others are too). Stop reading those conspiracy zines or whatever you're wasting your time with, and actually check the facts before you post.
Additionally, somewhere on/. awhile back, the subject came up of a site describing a mathematician who quantitatively determined how the Electoral College functions to increase your voting power. Anyone have that site?
Aahhh, the classic "Intelligent Design" argument. Unfortunately, it's a broken analogy: the problem is that, in your example with the hoofprints (or the watch, or whatever), you presuppose the existance of horses (or a watchmaker).
Let me ask you a couple of questions, though it might seem a bit silly at first: Do you believe in watchmakers? Do you think they exist? What about horses? When we see a watch in the sand, we know that that watch did not spontaneously assemble because we know that people make watches. Likewise, we know that horses exist and that they make hoofprints. When we see a hoofprint or a watch, we know what made it. We do not know that God makes life, and therefore, we cannot hold life on Earth to be proof of his existence.
When I'm walking down the beach and see a watch, I know that it was made by a watchmaker because I know watchmakers exist, and that they make watches. When I see life on Earth, I do not *know* that God made it, because I do not know that God exists or that he makes life. But the only example that you give of what God does is life on Earth (or so Creationism claims since life was created only on Earth). Does this circular logic bother you at all? You can't presuppose that God created life on Earth, and then offer life on Earth as proof that he is capable of doing it.
If you have some other proof that God exists and is capable of creating life, then I'd love to hear it. Then we'd have a debate over Creationism vs. Evolution on their merits.
I am not writing this argue for or against Creationism. I am simply writing to invalidate this analogy. It always comes up, and it always confuses people, and it pisses me the hell off. It's not valid...
Aside from the oddity inherent in the Founding Fathers building limits into the Constitution based on their deep knowledge of chimp behavior, I'd have the say that the age limits are there because of the perceived gain in wisdom/experience with age.
Other than that, I don't think that the trend you're seeing is all that strong... First off, the age requirement for President is 35. It's not that old... of course, the youngest president was Kennedy, and he was, IIRC, in his early 40's. There just aren't that many young people with the political connections to run for President. Perhaps that's a more important issue... Alexander, well, Alexander the Great died at 32 on a military campaign; I don't think he would've stopped for quite a while if he hadn't died of fever.
Of course, Edison wasn't at all a young man when he did the light bulb or many of his more successful inventions. As for war, well, the most devestating wars we have known were propagated not by the youth, but by the elders in politics.
I think that the young act idealistically due to a lack of world experience, and a lack of responsibilities. Tie down a college age revolutionary with a family, children, and a mortgage, and you'll see the idealism disappear quickly. With age, OTOH, comes experience (the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again), but more importantly, connections, friends, and support.
Oh, and as for age: you're older than I am... but not by much.:)
Though IANAL, I might be soon... Anyway, on we go...
The ironic thing is that F*cked Company IS in violation of various trademarks whose owners would have a legitimate right to complain, such as GoTo.com and eToys. THEIR logos remain intact and unparodied in the spoof page.
Actually, they're not... It's legal to use trademark's for identification. I can't remember the citing, but there was a case involving, I belive, Newsweek and the New Kids on the Block. Newsweek was allowed to use the Trademark "New Kids on the Block" because it's the only way to make a reference to that (poor excuse for a) band. On the same grounds, F*cked Company is allowed to use the trademark of the company they're charting. Otherwise, you couldn't make a news report about Microsoft w/o getting screwed. Clipping or otherwise modifying the logo doesn't mean jack.
OTOH, if F*cked Company is using the design from IdeaLab! to mimic the Fast Company, then there is the possibility of getting sued for Trademark infringement. It all depends on if the court sees it as satire or parody... If it's parodying the Fast Company site, then it's clear... if it's only using the design to make fun of other companies, then there is trouble. From what I know, it's both, and therefore probably okay, as the Fair Use should trump the trademark issue...
The Random Utinni
"Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Though IANAL,I'm considering it, and I've taken a couple of law courses (one on entertainment law...). Please hold back on any "Don't do it!!!" comments, unless you *are* a lawyer...
Anyway, from what I remember, *both* satire and parody are protected... however, when it ties into trademark issues, it's not quite as clear. You're allowed to use a trademark for the purposes of parody. In the classic example that's almost always used, you've got the 2Live Crew version of 'Pretty Woman'... They made fun of the Orbison 'Pretty Woman' song, using the tune but changing the lyrics to make it funny, and when it went to the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of 2Live Crew. (Yeah, I know the song is a copyright issue and not trademark, but it's still IP, and AFAIK, still legit)
Satire is different. You cannot use a trademark for satire... you cannot use the CBS (TV station for those not in the US) trademark to make fun of others through satire, for the obvious reason that it could be misunderstood... People could think that CBS is actually ridiculing the target. Granted, the line between parody and satire is pretty grey sometimes... that's why it often ends in court.
Anyway, back to FC... As long as they're using the IdeaLab! logo's to make fun of IdeaLab!, they're clear... If they're using the Idealab! design and logo to make fun of other companies, then they could be in trouble (I haven't had a chance to look at the sites yet... damn work). If they're doing both, then they're probably okay, as the fair use should hold.
Oh, and going to the libel/slander issue brought up with Firestone tires, you can say that they are shitty tires, but you can be legitimately sued for it. You'd lose unless you could prove your accusation to be correct. The way to think about it is to look at the extremes... If a company goes out and says that their competitor's product kills kids, the competitor could conceivably lose a lot of revenue. Libel allows to correct for this. If the product did kill kids, then it's no longer libel, and it's legal. Likewise, to say that Firestone has shitty tires could be deemed libelous, unless you could prove otherwise...
The Random Utinni
'Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?'
I thought that one of the great advantages of "the internet" and "free information" was that we no longer had to rely on media companies for information. What the hell am I posting to now??? Am I responding to a line of corporate BS right now? No. Online, I am free to get my information directly from AP and Reuters, free to get my analysis of news from Salon, Slashdot, wherever I want to. Are these sources biased? Yes... but less so in many ways than the news coming from some of these media corps.
The advantage of free media like what's posted on the internet is that there are virtually *no* barriers to entry. For those who haven't taken High School Econ, this means that virtually *anyone* can open a new media source. Write up your own analysis of the news and post it. If you're consistent, unbiased, and write well, you could well have the next big media center right there.
It's like the basic theme of Fight Club (sorry to those who haven't seen this incredible movie)... People have been so worried, picturing the leash that media has around our collective necks, that we don't realize we're the ones holding the leash... and the collar is around the media. Media companies make their money by getting us to watch their stuff. Don't watch it, and they scramble to find something that will interest you. If you make it clear that their brand of journalism or media does not interest you (or pisses you off), they'll change it. That we don't make an effort to do so effectively gives them free rein...
Just like with a boycott, it's not enough to simply abstain... we're not a large enough population to make a serious dent on our own. There are simply too many sheeple out there who don't realize that it's all biased. So, you can't just not watch the media... you need to come up with alternative sources of information... and let the media know what you're doing. Let them know you're no longer watching/reading them.
Re:I beg to differ....
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
This seems bassackwards to me. It's not *their* information on *their* terms; it's the other way around. The media is at our mercy here... the problem is simply that the media is smart, and the populace is very merciful. If the media churned out tons of crap music, they'd go out of business. They don't. They churn out lots of what people want, and they build on it. Just because you can't stand boy bands or Britney Spears doesn't mean that people don't want it... just not you.
Now, you're not alone in not liking teeny-bopper music; neither do I... but we're not alone. Our intelligence is *not* making you immune to media advertising, we simply don't like the music that others do. My cousin is an independant musician; he's really into blues and jazz. But when Hanson came out with Mmm-Bop way back when, he couldn't get it out of his head; he loved it. Did he succumb to media? The guy's a high-powered attorney; I don't think so. He just liked it, and he bought CD's.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of games out there where certain abilities of the player have large impacts: leadership plays a huge role in team games, especially team deathmatches where the team is all in one place. Allocation of resources plays a role here too, but also in various strategy games, not to mention good wargames. Lots of boardgames rely to a large degree on politics and persuasion, while others are based on figuring odds and strategies. It's a stimulating world for people who are interested enough and intelligent enough to look into the depths.
I'm a biologist, so I tend to see parallels with biology everywhere. There's been a lot of debate as to whether various characteristics are based on genetics or environment; most say that it's some combination of the two. I'd say that the situation with gamers is much the same. People get involved in these games for various reasons... those who stick with the games often do so because they enjoy them; some part of them resonates with the challenges of the game. The more they stick with it, the more it grows on them, and the more they learn to think or act to play the game. Leadership skills develop among some, strategic thinking among some, and hand-eye coordination among others.
Of course, some people are more apt to be leaders, and others are more dextrous... that's a matter of the person, the game can only help develop certain skills, not develop them out of whole cloth. No, games won't make you a leader, or a strategist; but like they say, "practice makes perfect." If you have the ability to think strategically, playing strategy games will help develop those skills. On the other hand, if you have no idea how to plan for the future, you won't do very well at these games, and either you won't continue to play them, or you'll get better very slowly.
In the martial arts analogy that keeps coming up, those who are interested in the spiritual aspects will focus on them, often choosing to study styles like Aikido, while those who are into the 'kick-ass' factor tend to go with styles like Ju-Jitsu or Kickboxing... most, however, go with Taekwondo or Karate, 'cause that's what's available.
Perhaps there are more 'intelligent' people playing games simply because it's an active, mental endeavor. Watching TV is passive... gaming requires thought, regardless of the type. Of course, this all depends on your definition of 'intelligent', which is harder to nail down than a good politician...
As for those studies, I dunno... I haven't read them. I'd like to see a study that tracks gamers from when they start gaming 'till they stop. Or at least divides them up by how long they've been gaming. If they're right, we should see a steady gain in intelligence... if I'm right, you won't seem much change. Of course, the flaws here are many: IQ ratings generally drop as you get older (flaw in the test design), and IQ doesn't rate things like gain in leadership skills, increased dexterity, or the ability to plan logistics...
Geez.
1) Palm Beach and Sarasota may both be high in retirees, but the demographics may still be different. Apparently, Palm Beach is heavy in elderly Jews, who tend to be democratic. Sarasota may be elderly but not Jewish. I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out.
2) Just because a Democrat approved the ballot design doesn't mean the design was correct. We're not talking about a business, we're talking about government... whole other can o'worms. Anyway, the argument carried by one of the lawsuits pending is that the ballot design is illegal based on Florida law, despite any other approval (has to do with a law requiring that you mark your choice to the right of the candidate's name... not the case in this design). Besides, this person's a politician, not a UI engineer. We've all seen horrible examples of UI despite the number of engineers in the field. How many UI people do you think work in ballot design???
3) These people did understand what was going on; they were able to make up their minds on who to vote for. They even managed to find their way to the polls. I haven't seen the polling booths, but I've heard reports that the polls were understaffed, underprepared and faced with high voter turnout. Getting proper instructions to hundreds of seniors when you yourself are probably a senior is not the easiest thing.
4) Sorry bud. I just checked the info:
Buchanan was not even a reform party candidate in '96. He tried for the Republican nomination and failed. Perot was the '96 Reform Party candidate. There's no way that the Reform numbers in '96 are comparable to '00. Perot was a moderate, who could be popular among the Palm Beach population. Buchanan has been anti-semitic... not something to go over well with a heavily Jewish district.
Given different issues, it might have been Virginia that was split on the candidates. Virginia has a fair number of electoral votes. Had the big issue been something else... (sorry, I'm a bit ignorant about local Virginian issues) it might be your county that holds the key.
Yes, some states are more likely to be battleground states than others; this is due to their demographics. However, this doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count. Depending on the issues, it might, or it might be a pebble in a landslide.
Actually, I've heard that there was a similar incidence in Arizona awhile back during the McGovern election. It went to court, and it was ruled that the most equitable option was to double count the votes: count the vote towards both candidates. If this option is applied, it would mean that those 19,000 double votes would count for *both* Buchanan and Gore (I'm assuming at this point that this is the pair that all ballots were double voted for).
What I've come to realize is this: Take a moment, and think of the intelligence of the average American. Think of all the stupidity that's out there, and think about where that falls... probably fairly close to average. Then think of the definition of average. Assuming that intelligence in the population is more or less a standard bell curve, this means that a sizeable chunk of the population is *dumber* than average. Can you really expect these idiots to plan for themselves? Do you really think that they are capable of providing for themselves in an increasingly information-based economy?
The post you replied to was a little too inflammatory to get its point across, but the poster had the right idea. You, as an intelligent person, are *not* the type of person that makes up American society. It's unfortunate, but true. While you can do a better job of financial planning then the government, I'd say the government does a much better job of financial planning than the bulk of American citizens.
The question then becomes, do we say that these poor idiots are doomed to failure and poverty, or do we use taxpayer money to help them along... I say the latter. If you disagree here, then that's your right, and we go our seperate ways. But I think that this is the issue at heart.
UCMP Raptor site
Also, as a note, velociraptors (the raptors named by Crichton in Jurassic Park) were not that large... they were about 4 feet long, not 9 feet, as in the film. The were the size of a large dog... However, shortly after the movie came out, paleontologists found fossils of a larger raptor, nearly matching the dimension of the ones in the movie. They're called 'Utahraptors', based on where they were found. Shoulda named 'em 'Movieraptors', or something similar... oh well.
1: These canals are called Haversian Canals. They're formed when bones grow. The faster the bones grow, the more canals there are. Lizards and other traditionally 'cold-blooded' animals don't grow as fast as mammals and birds, and thus have fewer canals. They do have them though... just fewer of 'em. And when snakes and crocs are kept in zoos and fed often (like once a week instead of the once a month as in the wild), they grow much faster, and have more Haversian Canals. Dinosaurs all have lots of canals, suggesting that they grew to full size very quickly (5-10 years). And we sure as hell didn't keep them in zoos... This kind of growth suggests high metabolism = warm blooded.
2: Birds are descendants of the Theropod dinos... most specifically, the line that created those raptors from Jurassic Park. Birds are warm blooded, and have 4-chambered hearts. Thus it's not unreasonable to believe that Dino's had the same. IIRC, there were also some finds that suggested that raptors had feathers (or some proto-feather type things). If you think that's wierd, think about this... An article published in a major scientific journal (I can't remember if it was Science or Nature...) reported that a paleontologist had found evidence that T-Rex had feathers as a juvenile...
3: Erect posture has nothing to do with it. It's a function of joint angles, not metabolism. Yes, it's correct that lizards actually use less energy moving with their legs jutting out than mammal quadrapeds do with their legs under them. However, upright generally means more speed. But crocs are cold-blooded, and actually can use a 'half-upright' posture, where they keep their front legs splayed, but their rear legs upright. Damn crocs always messing things up with that funky biology of theirs (They've got 3 1/2 chambers to their hearts too...). Yeah, there's a slight correlation here, but I don't think it's significant.
4: I've always been fond of this one. The argument here is that 'warm-blooded' predators require lots of food to survive and grow. In order for this to happen, there are generally lots more prey than predators. So, in the Permian (before warm-blooded critters existed), predators made up a much larger proportion of the total biomass. Dinosaurs, however, showed a much lower proportion, suggesting that they had high metabolisms.
As for the article itself, there have always been people arguing this one... it's nothing new. And yes, they're probably right that, in the absence of mitigating factors (special organs) sauropods couldn't raise their heads up. However, there are lots of options as far as mitigating factors go. Paleontologists have suggested similar organs as giraffes, secondary hearts in the neck (actually just muscle thickenings of the arterial wall that squeeze after the main heart does), and other stuff. It's all possible, and can't be ruled out.
Also, grass and flowers didn't appear until the late Cretaceous, long after the sauropods (brontosaurs, brachiosaurs, etc.) died off. The sauropods weren't swinging their necks around munching on grass. Why the hell would sauropods grow to such a large size to munch on scattered ferns?
The other thing to remember is that the Presidential Election is not and never has been a popular election - It all comes down to winning states. That's the purpose the Electoral College serves. It makes sure that populous states don't have the ability to elect a President at the expense of minorities in less popular states. If that's not a good thing, then very little is. So, if a candidate wins a whole bunch of big states at the expense of pissing off a whole bunch of little states, then he loses the election, even if the majority of the population voted for him. It's called the Tyranny of the Majority. It's a bad thing, one that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and it's the reason we have the Electoral College.
Now, before you go nuts and start arguing that Electoral College members don't have to vote for their sponsors, let me point out that you're technically correct. They are under no real obligation to do so. OTOH, if a candidate is stupid enough to choose Electoral College nominees who won't vote for him, he doesn't deserve the Presidency in the first place. The only times in history that Electoral Collegiates have not voted for their candidate is when the election was already guaranteed, and they wanted to make a statement. They have *never* voted for the other candidate, nor have they ever done so when their vote would change the outcome.
I'm really getting tired of pointing this out (and I'm sure that others are too). Stop reading those conspiracy zines or whatever you're wasting your time with, and actually check the facts before you post.
Some info on the Electoral College
Additionally, somewhere on /. awhile back, the subject came up of a site describing a mathematician who quantitatively determined how the Electoral College functions to increase your voting power. Anyone have that site?
Let me ask you a couple of questions, though it might seem a bit silly at first: Do you believe in watchmakers? Do you think they exist? What about horses? When we see a watch in the sand, we know that that watch did not spontaneously assemble because we know that people make watches. Likewise, we know that horses exist and that they make hoofprints. When we see a hoofprint or a watch, we know what made it. We do not know that God makes life, and therefore, we cannot hold life on Earth to be proof of his existence.
When I'm walking down the beach and see a watch, I know that it was made by a watchmaker because I know watchmakers exist, and that they make watches. When I see life on Earth, I do not *know* that God made it, because I do not know that God exists or that he makes life. But the only example that you give of what God does is life on Earth (or so Creationism claims since life was created only on Earth). Does this circular logic bother you at all? You can't presuppose that God created life on Earth, and then offer life on Earth as proof that he is capable of doing it.
If you have some other proof that God exists and is capable of creating life, then I'd love to hear it. Then we'd have a debate over Creationism vs. Evolution on their merits.
I am not writing this argue for or against Creationism. I am simply writing to invalidate this analogy. It always comes up, and it always confuses people, and it pisses me the hell off. It's not valid...
Other than that, I don't think that the trend you're seeing is all that strong... First off, the age requirement for President is 35. It's not that old... of course, the youngest president was Kennedy, and he was, IIRC, in his early 40's. There just aren't that many young people with the political connections to run for President. Perhaps that's a more important issue... Alexander, well, Alexander the Great died at 32 on a military campaign; I don't think he would've stopped for quite a while if he hadn't died of fever.
Of course, Edison wasn't at all a young man when he did the light bulb or many of his more successful inventions. As for war, well, the most devestating wars we have known were propagated not by the youth, but by the elders in politics.
I think that the young act idealistically due to a lack of world experience, and a lack of responsibilities. Tie down a college age revolutionary with a family, children, and a mortgage, and you'll see the idealism disappear quickly. With age, OTOH, comes experience (the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again), but more importantly, connections, friends, and support.
Oh, and as for age: you're older than I am... but not by much. :)
Though IANAL, I might be soon... Anyway, on we go...
The ironic thing is that F*cked Company IS in violation of various trademarks whose owners would have a legitimate right to complain, such as GoTo.com and eToys. THEIR logos remain intact and unparodied in the spoof page.
Actually, they're not... It's legal to use trademark's for identification. I can't remember the citing, but there was a case involving, I belive, Newsweek and the New Kids on the Block. Newsweek was allowed to use the Trademark "New Kids on the Block" because it's the only way to make a reference to that (poor excuse for a) band. On the same grounds, F*cked Company is allowed to use the trademark of the company they're charting. Otherwise, you couldn't make a news report about Microsoft w/o getting screwed. Clipping or otherwise modifying the logo doesn't mean jack.
OTOH, if F*cked Company is using the design from IdeaLab! to mimic the Fast Company, then there is the possibility of getting sued for Trademark infringement. It all depends on if the court sees it as satire or parody... If it's parodying the Fast Company site, then it's clear... if it's only using the design to make fun of other companies, then there is trouble. From what I know, it's both, and therefore probably okay, as the Fair Use should trump the trademark issue...
The Random Utinni
"Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Anyway, from what I remember, *both* satire and parody are protected... however, when it ties into trademark issues, it's not quite as clear. You're allowed to use a trademark for the purposes of parody. In the classic example that's almost always used, you've got the 2Live Crew version of 'Pretty Woman'... They made fun of the Orbison 'Pretty Woman' song, using the tune but changing the lyrics to make it funny, and when it went to the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of 2Live Crew. (Yeah, I know the song is a copyright issue and not trademark, but it's still IP, and AFAIK, still legit)
Satire is different. You cannot use a trademark for satire... you cannot use the CBS (TV station for those not in the US) trademark to make fun of others through satire, for the obvious reason that it could be misunderstood... People could think that CBS is actually ridiculing the target. Granted, the line between parody and satire is pretty grey sometimes... that's why it often ends in court.
Anyway, back to FC... As long as they're using the IdeaLab! logo's to make fun of IdeaLab!, they're clear... If they're using the Idealab! design and logo to make fun of other companies, then they could be in trouble (I haven't had a chance to look at the sites yet... damn work). If they're doing both, then they're probably okay, as the fair use should hold.
Oh, and going to the libel/slander issue brought up with Firestone tires, you can say that they are shitty tires, but you can be legitimately sued for it. You'd lose unless you could prove your accusation to be correct. The way to think about it is to look at the extremes... If a company goes out and says that their competitor's product kills kids, the competitor could conceivably lose a lot of revenue. Libel allows to correct for this. If the product did kill kids, then it's no longer libel, and it's legal. Likewise, to say that Firestone has shitty tires could be deemed libelous, unless you could prove otherwise...
The Random Utinni
'Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?'
Maybe somebody should hack it, and then copyright the code...
The advantage of free media like what's posted on the internet is that there are virtually *no* barriers to entry. For those who haven't taken High School Econ, this means that virtually *anyone* can open a new media source. Write up your own analysis of the news and post it. If you're consistent, unbiased, and write well, you could well have the next big media center right there.
It's like the basic theme of Fight Club (sorry to those who haven't seen this incredible movie)... People have been so worried, picturing the leash that media has around our collective necks, that we don't realize we're the ones holding the leash... and the collar is around the media. Media companies make their money by getting us to watch their stuff. Don't watch it, and they scramble to find something that will interest you. If you make it clear that their brand of journalism or media does not interest you (or pisses you off), they'll change it. That we don't make an effort to do so effectively gives them free rein...
Just like with a boycott, it's not enough to simply abstain... we're not a large enough population to make a serious dent on our own. There are simply too many sheeple out there who don't realize that it's all biased. So, you can't just not watch the media... you need to come up with alternative sources of information... and let the media know what you're doing. Let them know you're no longer watching/reading them.
Now, you're not alone in not liking teeny-bopper music; neither do I... but we're not alone. Our intelligence is *not* making you immune to media advertising, we simply don't like the music that others do. My cousin is an independant musician; he's really into blues and jazz. But when Hanson came out with Mmm-Bop way back when, he couldn't get it out of his head; he loved it. Did he succumb to media? The guy's a high-powered attorney; I don't think so. He just liked it, and he bought CD's.