It does give a specific upper limit, which some people passed, and having the upper limit different from some, but not others makes no sense from a design perspective.
Should we even live past that age - from a practical perspective?
We're already overpopulating the planet, not from a space to live perspective, but from a resources perspective.
We're already using resources faster than the planet can sustain them, and we will need the equivalent of two earths to sustain us in 2050.
And that's only talking about food. We've reached peak oil, and tar sands will only sustain us for so long (and pollute much more than crude oil ever did).
Starting to wonder if population control programs may not be our future. You can't have both old age and increasing amounts of births per person.
Very well, first of all, Gene Patents are valid and legal, due to landmark cases: Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office The most recent decision on this case is that patents can be held. The particular case I was referring to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children's_Hospital_Research_Institute
It depends on what you're shooting for. Trying to cram a story onto a game is bad.
But, I do love games that strive to tell a good story - Metal Gear Solid 4 comes to mind. Great game, but practically a very long movie.
Why not use the tools you have available to you to tell the story you want? 3D is here to stay, and, as has been shown by increasing usage in film, it's certainly capable of telling a good story.
I have some serious issues with their software distribution method. I'm seriously considering boycotting Windows 8 entirely - unless forced to use it.
The new metro interface is useless for desktops and laptops, and the one area where it would shine - tablets - is going to be crippled from my perspective.
Yes, but iTunes is doing the duplication. They give a master to iTunes, which then proceeds to make copies for each customer. Technically, it could fall under license rather than sale terms.
Boy do these copyright holders like to use specific terms when it benefits them best. Oh, no, you're not buying this, you're just licensing it.
But, when talking to the authors/musicians, they refer to them as sales. Well, then. We'll see how this goes, damn double standards.
It's either a sale or a license. If it's a sale, then it is protected by the first sale doctrine and I can sell/give it away so long as I destroy the original copy. Otherwise, it is a license and the songwriters and musicians get a higher share. You can't have it both ways.
The great zero challenge: $40 if you recover data off of this drive.
Seriously? The way you recover data off of a 'zeroed' hard drive is via looking at it via an EFM. That kind of equipment is expensive, why would you use it on a hard drive for such a trivial challenge put up by some random guy on the web?
Don't forget, as a publicly funded institution, they have to preserve their students' free speech rights as much as they are reasonably able. Arbitrarily blocking websites because they might be critical of the institution treads into censorship for the sake of censorship and likely violates their free speech rights.
Slashdot Mirror
It does give a specific upper limit, which some people passed, and having the upper limit different from some, but not others makes no sense from a design perspective.
Personally, I don't intend to live past the point where my body aches every single day and I begin to be reliant on others.
Hopefully, politics will have matured to the point to where I can request assistance in even that and not have the doctor branded a criminal.
Living for, say, 1000 years would cause you to take up 10x as much resources as you would have otherwise.
Meaning that, in the grand scheme of things, it is a bad tradeoff for sustainability.
Citations
On the food thing before anyone asks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/11/how-will-the-world-feed-itself
Peak Oil:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html
Tar sands:
http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-winners-urge-eu-leaders-back-tar-sands-110130470.html
Should we even live past that age - from a practical perspective?
We're already overpopulating the planet, not from a space to live perspective, but from a resources perspective.
We're already using resources faster than the planet can sustain them, and we will need the equivalent of two earths to sustain us in 2050.
And that's only talking about food. We've reached peak oil, and tar sands will only sustain us for so long (and pollute much more than crude oil ever did).
Starting to wonder if population control programs may not be our future. You can't have both old age and increasing amounts of births per person.
So, what was Jeanne Calment, a satanist?
Also, why doesn't *everyone* live that long? God said they could!
If Monsanto had their way, probably, yes.
Very well, first of all, Gene Patents are valid and legal, due to landmark cases:
Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
The most recent decision on this case is that patents can be held. The particular case I was referring to is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children's_Hospital_Research_Institute
You can even patent body parts - guy found that a hospital patented an unusual genetic quirk of his while studying his blood...
"a" church? Implying only one does that?
I feel like the image titled 'pale blue dot' does a better job of illustrating just how... small we are in the grand scheme of things.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png
Do a search on youtube for 'Pale Blue Dot' by carl sagan if you want to be humbled.
It depends on what you're shooting for. Trying to cram a story onto a game is bad.
But, I do love games that strive to tell a good story - Metal Gear Solid 4 comes to mind. Great game, but practically a very long movie.
Why not use the tools you have available to you to tell the story you want? 3D is here to stay, and, as has been shown by increasing usage in film, it's certainly capable of telling a good story.
You'll have to do with +1 insightful.
I have some serious issues with their software distribution method. I'm seriously considering boycotting Windows 8 entirely - unless forced to use it.
The new metro interface is useless for desktops and laptops, and the one area where it would shine - tablets - is going to be crippled from my perspective.
Oh, right, I forgot: this is the U.S., where your politicians can be bought and paid for.
Yes, but iTunes is doing the duplication. They give a master to iTunes, which then proceeds to make copies for each customer. Technically, it could fall under license rather than sale terms.
Boy do these copyright holders like to use specific terms when it benefits them best. Oh, no, you're not buying this, you're just licensing it.
But, when talking to the authors/musicians, they refer to them as sales. Well, then. We'll see how this goes, damn double standards.
It's either a sale or a license. If it's a sale, then it is protected by the first sale doctrine and I can sell/give it away so long as I destroy the original copy. Otherwise, it is a license and the songwriters and musicians get a higher share. You can't have it both ways.
Amending here, apparently, you can use a webdav client to talk to it (one is integrated in explorer), but the 50MB file size limit is still there.
The great zero challenge: $40 if you recover data off of this drive.
Seriously? The way you recover data off of a 'zeroed' hard drive is via looking at it via an EFM. That kind of equipment is expensive, why would you use it on a hard drive for such a trivial challenge put up by some random guy on the web?
And has a 50MB limit for filesizes and requires third party services to do so.
Don't forget, as a publicly funded institution, they have to preserve their students' free speech rights as much as they are reasonably able. Arbitrarily blocking websites because they might be critical of the institution treads into censorship for the sake of censorship and likely violates their free speech rights.
Honesty isn't a virtue in politics, it's a liability.
So, less for more.
(Yes, I know, different intended environments, but, still, why do you bring it up as a comparison - they're made for entirely different markets.)
You wouldn't be able to arbitrarily control the entire internet under the new model. How terrible.
Politicians don't want to tick off their funding sources, will do anything to score a cheap point.
This is a surprise to anyone, anymore?