What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins? I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on violence in this (American) culture. What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)? The only entities winning here are the corporations making money by selling to a larger audience. Meanwhile another generation of violence-exposed-to kids will turn into violence-loving adults. But anyway, the whole 'violent video games make people violent' argument aside, I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits. I fail to see how anyone 'wins' either.R rated movies can be sold to children. There is no law preventing this. There are conventions preventing this, adopted voluntarily by the stores. Other media are not in a different category. Substances are. And I think most people can observe a difference between chemical ingestion and media exposure.
If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. That seems like a winning situation to me. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.Those of us on the other side just prefer not to have free speech rights eroded. Parents still have plenty of control over what media their children are exposed to. If their ability to purchase the games is the gating factor on their exposure, you have a serious problem with how you're raising your children.
I think that's just a horribly designed system. Horribly designed system shock isn't exactly the same as future shock.:-) I mean, in the pencil and paper day, technically I could have designed a system that required you to allow the class councelor to jam the pencil through your hand to register for classes. It would have the human touch and everything, but it would still send you into shock, even if it was the medical trauma kind rather than the future kind.
Kids never have trouble with future shock. It's always the adults whose brains are less flexible in adopting new information processing strategies. When the kids of today hit 50, they'll be having future shock too. Unless of course we've found a way to fix the organic problems in the brain by then.
You missed the point. The point is that we need only compare our heat output to that which falls on the earth. For example, if we put out as much heat as falls on the earth from the sun, we can reasonably expect the average daily temperature to rise to deadly.
It's just fear. If they can doubt their beliefs, their whole worldview will come crumbling down. Having been in any religion long enough, they'll have seen someone kill themselves in a crisis of faith, and that's terrifying.
No, what would happen is that countries who can't afford to develop or buy fusion reactors would simply buy more oil, which would then be cheaper on account of the developed world using fusion. The Middle East would be getting their money from China, India, and Africa instead of Europe and America.
Once fusion is proven, and proven to be cheaper than oil (otherwise we'd still buy the cheaper oil), at least china and india will switch to fusion too. They have plenty of money to invest, just not to risk on an unproven technology.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Retger's peninsula explosion in 1997. But the government coverup has been so thorough on that one it's hard to even find an old geography book with the peninsula still showing.
Feel free to do a search if you'd like... there were kuroshin beggars out in droves about 1.5 years ago. Sounding pretty much exactly like the digg people do now. It's a bad sign for digg.
I have max karma. It's just true. I said the same thing back when the fading star was b4 and Kuroshin was trying to be the up and comer. Now Kuroshin is pretty much forgotten and digg wants the good readers. For whatever reason, the most desireable posters (and lets be fair: the least desireable too) stay with slashdot.
Solar input to the planet is on the order of 10^17 watt.
US generation is on the order of 10^12 already.
Multiply that by 10^3 to 10^5 when energy gets really cheap, and suddenly we're producing a significant fraction of the heat of the sun. That'll be plenty to keep the earth nice and toasty.
2. I presume that the initial reactor at least would be intended to meet Google's growing demand for power. Nuts to the rest of us.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to be in a bidding war for power with google. Let them use their own power, it'll keep the rest of the power cheap for the rest of us.
Seconded... 'Game' degrees are widely considered suspect in the gaming industry. Most game studios are going to give you much more respect with a regular CS masters and some good game development background on your resume, which you get by working on mods until you can get a game industry job.
This is one more step along the path that will allow the rich to finally do away with the poor. The rich need poor people to man their factories, and to protect them from other poor people. Soon robots will do both those jobs. Then you have to start wondering just how many crazy rich people it takes to really commit to that path.
Also, insert joke about robots taking old korean people's medicine here.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins? I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on violence in this (American) culture. What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)? The only entities winning here are the corporations making money by selling to a larger audience. Meanwhile another generation of violence-exposed-to kids will turn into violence-loving adults. But anyway, the whole 'violent video games make people violent' argument aside, I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits. I fail to see how anyone 'wins' either.R rated movies can be sold to children. There is no law preventing this. There are conventions preventing this, adopted voluntarily by the stores.
Other media are not in a different category. Substances are. And I think most people can observe a difference between chemical ingestion and media exposure. If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. That seems like a winning situation to me. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.Those of us on the other side just prefer not to have free speech rights eroded. Parents still have plenty of control over what media their children are exposed to. If their ability to purchase the games is the gating factor on their exposure, you have a serious problem with how you're raising your children.
I think that's just a horribly designed system. Horribly designed system shock isn't exactly the same as future shock. :-)
I mean, in the pencil and paper day, technically I could have designed a system that required you to allow the class councelor to jam the pencil through your hand to register for classes. It would have the human touch and everything, but it would still send you into shock, even if it was the medical trauma kind rather than the future kind.
You're 21?
My college had electronic registration when I registered in 1991.
The rest of your post made agreeable sense to me.
Kids never have trouble with future shock. It's always the adults whose brains are less flexible in adopting new information processing strategies. When the kids of today hit 50, they'll be having future shock too. Unless of course we've found a way to fix the organic problems in the brain by then.
You missed the point. The point is that we need only compare our heat output to that which falls on the earth. For example, if we put out as much heat as falls on the earth from the sun, we can reasonably expect the average daily temperature to rise to deadly.
Thanks for the flamebait. It was a reply to a question moron.
Parse it with the correct inflection:
"I (accept Jesus) (as a fucking cunt!)"
And just in case that wasn't helpful enough
"as a fucking cunt!, I accept Jesus "
It's just fear. If they can doubt their beliefs, their whole worldview will come crumbling down. Having been in any religion long enough, they'll have seen someone kill themselves in a crisis of faith, and that's terrifying.
Ouch, that's pretty self deprecating.
No, what would happen is that countries who can't afford to develop or buy fusion reactors would simply buy more oil, which would then be cheaper on account of the developed world using fusion. The Middle East would be getting their money from China, India, and Africa instead of Europe and America.
Once fusion is proven, and proven to be cheaper than oil (otherwise we'd still buy the cheaper oil), at least china and india will switch to fusion too. They have plenty of money to invest, just not to risk on an unproven technology.
Why get soaced when you can get yourself fully organic atom compression (ed).
Go Foac yourself!
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Retger's peninsula explosion in 1997. But the government coverup has been so thorough on that one it's hard to even find an old geography book with the peninsula still showing.
Feel free to do a search if you'd like ... there were kuroshin beggars out in droves about 1.5 years ago. Sounding pretty much exactly like the digg people do now. It's a bad sign for digg.
I have max karma. It's just true. I said the same thing back when the fading star was b4 and Kuroshin was trying to be the up and comer. Now Kuroshin is pretty much forgotten and digg wants the good readers. For whatever reason, the most desireable posters (and lets be fair: the least desireable too) stay with slashdot.
Much like Kuroshin before it, the sign of the end for Digg is when they start begging slashdot's community to come over for fresher news.
Slashdot is a discussion forum. The power here is not timeliness, it's the audience.
This year, I invested in pumpkins. They've been going up the whole month of October and I got a feeling they're going to peak right around January.
I think I'll go have a look at how my investment is doing.
Solar input to the planet is on the order of 10^17 watt.
R GY_POLICY/tables.htmlt
US generation is on the order of 10^12 already.
Multiply that by 10^3 to 10^5 when energy gets really cheap, and suddenly we're producing a significant fraction of the heat of the sun. That'll be plenty to keep the earth nice and toasty.
A few sources:
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budge
http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm
Cheap energy for everyone will make the planet warm, and not in the easy to fix way of releasing lots of greenhouse gases.
2. I presume that the initial reactor at least would be intended to meet Google's growing demand for power. Nuts to the rest of us.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to be in a bidding war for power with google. Let them use their own power, it'll keep the rest of the power cheap for the rest of us.
You're expecting to find overcharging patients with cancer for a hefty serving of false hope rewarding?
Seconded ... 'Game' degrees are widely considered suspect in the gaming industry. Most game studios are going to give you much more respect with a regular CS masters and some good game development background on your resume, which you get by working on mods until you can get a game industry job.
Mirrors are small and light, and only have to be shipped to mars orbit.
Nuclear reactors are big and heavy, and have to be landed.
I'm sorry, but moderated offtopic? Mod parent back up ...
Get 'em metamods.
This is one more step along the path that will allow the rich to finally do away with the poor. The rich need poor people to man their factories, and to protect them from other poor people. Soon robots will do both those jobs. Then you have to start wondering just how many crazy rich people it takes to really commit to that path.
Also, insert joke about robots taking old korean people's medicine here.
And yet, interestingly enough, there are in fact like 3 cars in the world that can go around 600mph.