and it seems like Facebook shut it down. What Facebook didn't shut down, though, are the groups "Fuck Israel and Jewish" and "Fuck Israel & Any One Join In "Fuck Islam"", and a fairly wide range of anti-Jewish and/or anti-anyone who doesn't support Islam groups. Good thing the axe only swings one way on this one, huh?
Well, if the original poster did not hit it right on the head, there should be an outrage by the parents that their filter isn't working because they've been performing weekly checks. Most parents won't know the difference though because they blindly allow some faceless corporation to do their parenting for them instead of using them as a tool for more effective parenting.
Seriously, people. Everyone here thinks that "thinking of the children" is a crappy excuse to take away our rights, but in this case it really is about the children! When I was 14 and wanted to masturbate, I had to actually close my eyes and imagine Sarah from Bio class in a short skirt with no panties on bending over as she drops her pen. Now it's just too easy for kids. They could get that image of Sarah (and MUCH more... oh so much more) just by spending a few minutes clicking on the computer. It's seriously ruining our children's imaginations. Without being able to close your eyes and envision naked girls with pinpoint accuracy, how will we expect our kids to grow up and solve problems in imaginative ways? So please, think of the children and make them work to get off.
Those things aren't that rare. My friend bought one for $300 bucks from Universal Studios (using his employee discount) and at the end sold it for $1500. Down payment on a house? Hardly. I'm sure for this guy having himself appear frozen in carbonite is a lot more valuable than the $1500 he could have gotten if he sold it.
and not to mention the fact that parents are often un-educated in sex education to begin with. Sure, they've had sex, but if you ask most parents about the proper prevention of various STDs, they won't know where to start besides "abstinence is the best policy" which doesn't work.
For instance, how do you see a trail as it winds over grassland and leads into the woods?...
You see it because that's what you've been evolved to see so that you can survive in that environment. We no longer live in that environment so a lot of those visual problems such as telling the weather through a skyline are not very relevant since there are complicated solutions for telling what the weather will be like days in advance. You might think that computers are idiot savants, but they're going to evolve into the environment that best suits them for survival - except they're not evolving through natural selection but intelligent design. The computers that don't do anything useful get trashed and the computers that are useful and better than the previous versions survive and get duplicated. They don't need to survive in the Savannah wilderness and never will, so why breed half of those traits that you've described into them? They only need to survive in our current environment and that's something they're doing very well at.
Games are unlikely to go down in price with in-game advertisements since games are increasing in production costs while staying roughly the same retail price they always were. So obviously, it's worth it for developers to try and find more revenue streams from the games - be it in-game advertising, or having monthly fees, or selling downloadable content.
The earth isn't so big compared to the rest of the solar system, and even compared to other planets in the solar system, but we're the only planet as far as we know that has life. So obviously, the spark that creates life is a rare occurrence. It doesn't seem unlikely at all that life hasn't occured in more than one place and more than one time on earth, since it's so rare to begin with.
are they even using earth's gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 Most of the time - no, they aren't. When there are realistic characters falling off something like the Titanic, then it's usually calculated at real-world physics because it has to look realistic, but when it's a CG character doing crazy stunts, then the animator just eyeballs it to make it look right, and then there are supervisors and directors that make the changes until the director's happy with it. Even when the background characters are calculated at real-world physics speeds, the director will still make changes to make it look good.
and when he lands, the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet.
Maybe this was a stylistic choice as to show the strength of his legs? He is a superhero afterall, and if you can buy that he can jump across building to building, why not buy that he doesn't crouch/sink like normal people?
Your arguments are kind of irrelevant, since we're talking about movies here. When a building explodes in a movie, it usually does so at half the speed for effect. Filmmakers have been using camera tricks and stunts to create a fake reality since the beginning of film, and there have been people complaining that it's just not realistic enough since about the same time. CG is just another tool for filmmakers to use to get their vision on screen. If you have a problem with Spiderman landing, it's not CGs fault. It's because that's how the director wanted it to look. There are plenty of examples of realistic CG that is completely seamless with the live action.
From the article: One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents.
It's in the same section as the beautiful people have daughters part - number 6, second paragraph in.
I'm not a mac fanboy and I'm definitely not getting an iPhone for awhile - if ever - but I'd still like to read about it. The iPhone is coming out in what? A week or 2? Having reviews of one of the most anticipated phones that's coming out very soon from one of the best loved computer companies is very friggin relevant on a tech news site. If you're tired of hearing about it, stop clicking on the damn link, cause it's something that I want to hear about.
How about people should be free to say whatever they like, as long as their actions don't encroach on other people's rights, freedoms, and safety? Posting pictures of kids being abused is an action - not a dialog - where the act hurts children.
regardless of his net worth, given how difficult it would be for everyone else.
given his net worth and in comparison to his peers and competitors of similar stature, it would be foolish to compare himself to "everyone else" when it comes to him not being able to get personal meetings with congressmen. If you want to have a qualms with this, take it up with the system he's trying to play in instead of the man himself.
Slashdot Mirror
and it seems like Facebook shut it down. What Facebook didn't shut down, though, are the groups "Fuck Israel and Jewish" and "Fuck Israel & Any One Join In "Fuck Islam"", and a fairly wide range of anti-Jewish and/or anti-anyone who doesn't support Islam groups. Good thing the axe only swings one way on this one, huh?
xkcd covered this topic
Spoken like someone who is not a parent.
Well, if the original poster did not hit it right on the head, there should be an outrage by the parents that their filter isn't working because they've been performing weekly checks. Most parents won't know the difference though because they blindly allow some faceless corporation to do their parenting for them instead of using them as a tool for more effective parenting.
Seriously, people. Everyone here thinks that "thinking of the children" is a crappy excuse to take away our rights, but in this case it really is about the children! When I was 14 and wanted to masturbate, I had to actually close my eyes and imagine Sarah from Bio class in a short skirt with no panties on bending over as she drops her pen. Now it's just too easy for kids. They could get that image of Sarah (and MUCH more... oh so much more) just by spending a few minutes clicking on the computer. It's seriously ruining our children's imaginations. Without being able to close your eyes and envision naked girls with pinpoint accuracy, how will we expect our kids to grow up and solve problems in imaginative ways? So please, think of the children and make them work to get off.
Those things aren't that rare. My friend bought one for $300 bucks from Universal Studios (using his employee discount) and at the end sold it for $1500. Down payment on a house? Hardly. I'm sure for this guy having himself appear frozen in carbonite is a lot more valuable than the $1500 he could have gotten if he sold it.
and not to mention the fact that parents are often un-educated in sex education to begin with. Sure, they've had sex, but if you ask most parents about the proper prevention of various STDs, they won't know where to start besides "abstinence is the best policy" which doesn't work.
For instance, how do you see a trail as it winds over grassland and leads into the woods?...
You see it because that's what you've been evolved to see so that you can survive in that environment. We no longer live in that environment so a lot of those visual problems such as telling the weather through a skyline are not very relevant since there are complicated solutions for telling what the weather will be like days in advance. You might think that computers are idiot savants, but they're going to evolve into the environment that best suits them for survival - except they're not evolving through natural selection but intelligent design. The computers that don't do anything useful get trashed and the computers that are useful and better than the previous versions survive and get duplicated. They don't need to survive in the Savannah wilderness and never will, so why breed half of those traits that you've described into them? They only need to survive in our current environment and that's something they're doing very well at.
Games are unlikely to go down in price with in-game advertisements since games are increasing in production costs while staying roughly the same retail price they always were. So obviously, it's worth it for developers to try and find more revenue streams from the games - be it in-game advertising, or having monthly fees, or selling downloadable content.
*MAYBE A SPOILER*
the movie was still inaccurate because in a part of the movie, a guy gets sucked into space and turns to ice in less than 30 seconds.
So we're the universe's spammers? That sucks.
how do you know it's the same people?
indeed. When I was running Peer Gaurdian, I got DOD requests all the time in XP. This is a non-story
But the earth is a big place.
The earth isn't so big compared to the rest of the solar system, and even compared to other planets in the solar system, but we're the only planet as far as we know that has life. So obviously, the spark that creates life is a rare occurrence. It doesn't seem unlikely at all that life hasn't occured in more than one place and more than one time on earth, since it's so rare to begin with.
I don't have to remember birthdays because my girlfriend does it for me.
are they even using earth's gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s2
Most of the time - no, they aren't. When there are realistic characters falling off something like the Titanic, then it's usually calculated at real-world physics because it has to look realistic, but when it's a CG character doing crazy stunts, then the animator just eyeballs it to make it look right, and then there are supervisors and directors that make the changes until the director's happy with it. Even when the background characters are calculated at real-world physics speeds, the director will still make changes to make it look good.
and when he lands, the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet.
Maybe this was a stylistic choice as to show the strength of his legs? He is a superhero afterall, and if you can buy that he can jump across building to building, why not buy that he doesn't crouch/sink like normal people?
Your arguments are kind of irrelevant, since we're talking about movies here. When a building explodes in a movie, it usually does so at half the speed for effect. Filmmakers have been using camera tricks and stunts to create a fake reality since the beginning of film, and there have been people complaining that it's just not realistic enough since about the same time. CG is just another tool for filmmakers to use to get their vision on screen. If you have a problem with Spiderman landing, it's not CGs fault. It's because that's how the director wanted it to look. There are plenty of examples of realistic CG that is completely seamless with the live action.
From the article:
One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents.
It's in the same section as the beautiful people have daughters part - number 6, second paragraph in.
The reaction would not be good. Humanity is not ready yet.
Alright everyone, back to your basements! Sanmarcos has decided that we're not ready for this information.
Does he touch on that before or after the trip to Cuba?
and then hold them accountable for preventing it from melting
But if it's ice, it's a lot harder to get at the oil than if it's melted and has a moderate climate.
their first responsibility should be to the human race.
Why's that?
Yeah, I didn't know about this new "Microsoft" company, but from the sound of it, they're an upstanding people-ready business.
I'm not a mac fanboy and I'm definitely not getting an iPhone for awhile - if ever - but I'd still like to read about it. The iPhone is coming out in what? A week or 2? Having reviews of one of the most anticipated phones that's coming out very soon from one of the best loved computer companies is very friggin relevant on a tech news site. If you're tired of hearing about it, stop clicking on the damn link, cause it's something that I want to hear about.
I just hope the videos make it to youTube
How about people should be free to say whatever they like, as long as their actions don't encroach on other people's rights, freedoms, and safety? Posting pictures of kids being abused is an action - not a dialog - where the act hurts children.
regardless of his net worth, given how difficult it would be for everyone else.
given his net worth and in comparison to his peers and competitors of similar stature, it would be foolish to compare himself to "everyone else" when it comes to him not being able to get personal meetings with congressmen. If you want to have a qualms with this, take it up with the system he's trying to play in instead of the man himself.