Re:What's a dead virus?
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
IIRC, extreme heat causes the protein shell to break up. Once this happens, you can take all the pieces and shove them into the body, and the immune system will recognize the whole virus in the future by learning from the fragments.
Square (and for that matter, most RPG makers) has(have) a long history of making their major femalecharacters into love starved twits (Lucca from Chrono Trigger, Kid from Chrono Cross, Terra and Celes from FF6, Mint from Tales of Phantasia, need I go on?).
I can't speak to Chrono Cross, because it was a godawful game (though I don't remember Kid being that bad - she was more of a, well, kid, than anything), or Tales of Phantasia, but as to the others..
Lucca in Chrono Trigger was anything but love-starved. Maybe she wanted some more attention from her father, but it doesn't mean she wasn't out in the world, blowing crap up. Marle was even better, actively running away from the palace and successfully taking care of herself. And Ayla was comic relief in a game that didn't have a whole lot. She was so far in prehistory it was beyond gender stereotyping, which was the point.
In FF6, Terra was dealing with the realization that she was totally and utterly alone as she was. The only one of her kind. The only people she could relate to were the Magitek knights, and Celes was a cold bitch, Kefka was crazy, so that Leo was the only one she could relate to. When he died, she went all gushy. Celes had a lot of the same problems, but took them very differently. Even though she got hung up on Locke, she wasn't love-starved.
Of course, if you really wanted to bring someone up that was bad, you would've pointed out Rosa in FFIV, or Rydia in FFIV, for that matter. There is also any female character in an FF game AFTER FFVI, and a few others.
No, no. As an example, Ernst Kummer is famous for the creation of ideal numbers, which were generalized by Dedekind into general ideals for a ring. From the link:
In 1843 Kummer, realising that attempts to prove Fermat's Last Theorem broke down because the unique factorisation of integers did not extend to other rings of complex numbers, attempted to restore the uniqueness of factorisation by introducing 'ideal' numbers. Not only has his work been most fundamental in work relating to Fermat's Last Theorem, since all later work was based on it for many years, but the concept of an ideal allowed ring theory, and much of abstract algebra, to develop.
This is not the only example of interesting math created by Fermat's Last Theorem, though it is certainly the most important.
Now, since Fermat's Last Theorem is solved, there is no reason to deal with all that anymore. So, all the interesting approaches to it that would've ultimately failed but created new things to study have also fallen by the wayside. Certainly, they might still be discovered, but it could take more time. Thus, he set math back a few decades.
Slightly misinformed. The 400 year long process of attempting to solve Fermat's Last Theorem created a lot of really interesting math. Actually solving it probably set math back a few decades.
Oddly, you picked one of the few modern, popular lightgun games that doesn't require a reload. If you'll remember, Time Crisis has the pedal which you push when you want to pop up and let go when you want to get down and reload.
What assholes.. I mean, can't they just stop trying to secure their systems and add more features? Then we could simply enjoy the boring, whitebread interface that they keep striving for and we would be able to forget about the security of our boxes.
I say we boycott Microsoft until they start making their systems less safe and more pretty!
This post brought to you by the letters P, A, R, O, D, and Y.
you have the right to do whatever you want with the cd. you have the right, in fact, to put the cd onto a turntable. however, the publisher has no compulsion to make that cd play on the turntable.
the publisher has the right to make their cd's however they want.
so, stick your cd in your turntable, in your computer, in your car stereo, or even in a cake, and demand, with your "rights" as a consumer, that the industry must make the cake play your music. it doesn't matter, because they are free to do what they want.
too true. there is no such thing as coercion, but there is the threat of murder, whether direct or indirect, which happens to be the only thing with which someone can be confronted from which one can not recover.
however, the threat of direct murder is a much more effective form of "coercion" than the threat of indirect murder. this is mostly because indirect murder is much less likely to happen.
what that implies is that the person threatening has an amazing amount of control over the person being threatened.
in your examples, the idea of controlling food and land also implies that you control the ability of that person to move. it also implies that you can control that person's access to "illegal" methods of production of food or finding shelter.
that amount of control is not found except in governments, which are already coercive, because they rule by implied threat of direct murder.
and, you grossly simplify capitalism, because you don't add that the person who owns the capital must necessarily make their job attractive to the person needing a job. else, there's no reason for that person to be at that job. it's a form of compromise, not coercion.
but - what it basically comes down to is that yes, both forms of coercion by threat of murder are immoral, but i find that the threat of indirect murder is much less prevalent as well as simply a companion to the threat of direct murder.
1) they were not forced to work there in the first place.
2) while some would claim that by subjecting themselves to this job, they made their choice and must be forced to live with the consequences. i do not hold to that. i believe that what you are describing is wrong. however - we should not sanction the corporation for taking advantage of those laws. we should be embargo'ing the hell out of that country for blatantly mistreating its citizens.
as to your last comment - i don't support the us gov in any way except monetarily, which i am literally forced to do, nor do i support the harm of innocent people. i do however find it telling that you don't support the 2nd or 1st amendment, with your criticism of guns and the branch davidians.
of course, your comment also totally ignores the economic issue, which is what i thought we were talking about.
it's the chic thing, to say that one hates globalization and the destruction of culture. to hate ms and mcdonald's and everything else that becomes big. it's part of the socialist mindset against the upper class which we are all indoctrinated with at some point in our lives.
but.
i love mcdonald's. i would love to see a mcdonald's on every street in the world, giving hamburgers out for $.60, everywhere. hell, if they were everywhere, they might even drop to $.50.
i love the ability to go somewhere, get 4 hamburgers for less than $3, and get them in less than 5 minutes.
i just love mcdonald's. it's amazingly convenient and easy for me. what other measure should i use?
from this paper about working conditions during the industrial revolution:
"Child Labor. Another qualitative argument brought forth by the pessimists is that children were forced to endure long hours of work in unhealthy conditions. Although the existence of child labor cannot be denied, it is clear that most pessimists have overstated both its magnitude and the effects on the health of the children involved. In fact, much of the evidence for the pessimist's case comes from the very famous, yet very inaccurate, reports from the government committees investigating the factory system. Almost all of the "condition of England" novels by Dickens, as well as the works of Engels and the Hammonds, have been in large part based on these committee reports (Jefferson, p. 189). Politically motivated and seriously defective, the evidence in these reports is marred by the fact that the doctors who testified against child labor in the factories had not even been in a factory and refused to testify under oath (Hutt, pp. 161-167). Moreover, the great improvement in mortality rates seems to indicate that either child labor was not extensive as before or was less harmful. Indeed, it was the great improvement in productivity instigated by the industrial revolution that has enabled Western societies to banish child labor."
coercion implies force, which you would realize if you knew anything about libertarian philosophy. what force is used to get these people to work 20 hour shifts? is the government going up to people with a gun and telling them to work, then giving them money besides?
there's always a choice. i refuse to believe that the *only* thing a person can do is to go into a sweatshop. it may not be a fair choice, mind you, but there's always some choice to be made.
and, a little note: they hate us because we're the rich, good-looking kid on the playground who is smart enough not to give his lunch away everyday to the kids who are too stupid to find their own money.
i've seen it. i've seen people with 5 starports pumping out carriers like there is no tomorrow. but then again, i've never *EVER* had to deal with a carrier fleet.
you know why?
because a pack of 12 wraiths will absolutely destroy a few carriers that are bunched around those starports, which will not have any detection, because they were stupid enough to devote their resources to carriers.
if they have detection, you take it out. then you destroy their carriers.
if you're sitting in your base, waiting for the carriers to come, then you deserve to get blasted by a large group of them. but - if you're proactive and always attacking, they'll never have more than 2 or 3 carriers at a time, and that's hardly scary.
the problem is that most people don't attack. if no one's attacking, and attacking well, then big units show up and destroy everything.
though, you're probably on bnet, which would explain everything.
but that's not the problem. all those other people out there are going to buy a computer, and since they're too stupid to build their own, they'll get xp and get passport.
secondly, those stupid people out there who are buying a product which will only fuck them over deserve it. if they can't build a computer, then they deserve to have whatever they can get, if they're willing to fork over the money.
i loved a post i saw that said "they're being forced to get xp because it's on new computers." of course, i don't see a microsoft squad dragging people into best buy, giving them a new comp, and showing them the register. then again, some people don't believe in choice.
but then xp will become the standard and microsoft will retain its monopoly. and, then i'll be forced to use it.
thirdly, even if it becomes the "standard," not everyone has to use it. use linux. work only for companies who use linux. tell people you work with to do so. if it means something to you, then work for it and don't go crying to the government to strike down big bad microsoft because it's hooking consumers.
that's another thing - people act as if microsoft has done something wrong. they are simply capitalizing on the uninformed, apathetic consumer. there are few windows zealots. there are many linux zealots. however, the windows marketing department is probably bigger, and they do more work in getting the flock to follow them. microsoft is a good company. linux is not a company - it's a movement. and a flailing movement at that. it has the potential to be so much, but no one is willing to do anything except throw insults.
i would argue that handguns are more often used to attack than to defend. therefore they are "evil". i suppose we should ban all of those.
and the united states army rarely defends its own self, and instead attacks many nations without provocation. (provocation being defined as an attack against the united states, not the "global community" which i think is bullshit) i suppose that they're "evil" and should be banned.
if a tool has even one utility for which it is used that is good, then the tool cannot be "evil," besides the fact that tools can't be evil in the first place.
tools can't be evil because an inanimate object, does not have a will of its own and depends on its user to create that will. also, because machine guns are illegal doesn't mean they are "evil." u.s. law utmost moral law.
another problem is if you're on dialup. you ever tried to stream over dialup? it's crappy as all hell.
of course, the people who can't afford broadband shouldn't be buying cd's anyways, i guess. stupid poor people wanting enjoyment and happiness... don't they know where they stand?
firstly, does pulling "rules" out of your ass often work to make you look insightful?
secondly, it is not the responsibility of a business to operate in the best interests of an employee. it is not the responsibility of a business to do anything - they are a free entity like any other. however, it makes sense that they please their customers. it make sense that they keep their workers happy. but they don't have a responsibility to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, extreme heat causes the protein shell to break up. Once this happens, you can take all the pieces and shove them into the body, and the immune system will recognize the whole virus in the future by learning from the fragments.
I can't speak to Chrono Cross, because it was a godawful game (though I don't remember Kid being that bad - she was more of a, well, kid, than anything), or Tales of Phantasia, but as to the others..
Lucca in Chrono Trigger was anything but love-starved. Maybe she wanted some more attention from her father, but it doesn't mean she wasn't out in the world, blowing crap up. Marle was even better, actively running away from the palace and successfully taking care of herself. And Ayla was comic relief in a game that didn't have a whole lot. She was so far in prehistory it was beyond gender stereotyping, which was the point.
In FF6, Terra was dealing with the realization that she was totally and utterly alone as she was. The only one of her kind. The only people she could relate to were the Magitek knights, and Celes was a cold bitch, Kefka was crazy, so that Leo was the only one she could relate to. When he died, she went all gushy. Celes had a lot of the same problems, but took them very differently. Even though she got hung up on Locke, she wasn't love-starved.
Of course, if you really wanted to bring someone up that was bad, you would've pointed out Rosa in FFIV, or Rydia in FFIV, for that matter. There is also any female character in an FF game AFTER FFVI, and a few others.
In 1843 Kummer, realising that attempts to prove Fermat's Last Theorem broke down because the unique factorisation of integers did not extend to other rings of complex numbers, attempted to restore the uniqueness of factorisation by introducing 'ideal' numbers. Not only has his work been most fundamental in work relating to Fermat's Last Theorem, since all later work was based on it for many years, but the concept of an ideal allowed ring theory, and much of abstract algebra, to develop.
This is not the only example of interesting math created by Fermat's Last Theorem, though it is certainly the most important.
Now, since Fermat's Last Theorem is solved, there is no reason to deal with all that anymore. So, all the interesting approaches to it that would've ultimately failed but created new things to study have also fallen by the wayside. Certainly, they might still be discovered, but it could take more time. Thus, he set math back a few decades.
Slightly misinformed. The 400 year long process of attempting to solve Fermat's Last Theorem created a lot of really interesting math. Actually solving it probably set math back a few decades.
Oddly, you picked one of the few modern, popular lightgun games that doesn't require a reload. If you'll remember, Time Crisis has the pedal which you push when you want to pop up and let go when you want to get down and reload.
I say we boycott Microsoft until they start making their systems less safe and more pretty!
This post brought to you by the letters P, A, R, O, D, and Y.
yeah - with five times the ejaculation volume, i don't think i'd be able to stop for a while either. ;)
penny arcade - there's an answer for everything
Behold the power of cheese.
you have the right to do whatever you want with the cd. you have the right, in fact, to put the cd onto a turntable. however, the publisher has no compulsion to make that cd play on the turntable.
the publisher has the right to make their cd's however they want.
so, stick your cd in your turntable, in your computer, in your car stereo, or even in a cake, and demand, with your "rights" as a consumer, that the industry must make the cake play your music. it doesn't matter, because they are free to do what they want.
wow... everyone who replied to this thread got mod'ed way up. even if it wasn't funny...
there were two guys using the vr machine, and they were peanuts in the sim, and one of them was assaulted!
*waits for mods*
can't hurt anyone but the legitimate businesses who have to pay out the ass for environmental regulations that do nothing.
i'm sure that's what you meant.
or not. we all know that big businesses are evil anyways.
too true. there is no such thing as coercion, but there is the threat of murder, whether direct or indirect, which happens to be the only thing with which someone can be confronted from which one can not recover.
however, the threat of direct murder is a much more effective form of "coercion" than the threat of indirect murder. this is mostly because indirect murder is much less likely to happen.
what that implies is that the person threatening has an amazing amount of control over the person being threatened.
in your examples, the idea of controlling food and land also implies that you control the ability of that person to move. it also implies that you can control that person's access to "illegal" methods of production of food or finding shelter.
that amount of control is not found except in governments, which are already coercive, because they rule by implied threat of direct murder.
and, you grossly simplify capitalism, because you don't add that the person who owns the capital must necessarily make their job attractive to the person needing a job. else, there's no reason for that person to be at that job. it's a form of compromise, not coercion.
but - what it basically comes down to is that yes, both forms of coercion by threat of murder are immoral, but i find that the threat of indirect murder is much less prevalent as well as simply a companion to the threat of direct murder.
so... coercion implies force, 99% of the time.
1) they were not forced to work there in the first place.
2) while some would claim that by subjecting themselves to this job, they made their choice and must be forced to live with the consequences. i do not hold to that. i believe that what you are describing is wrong. however - we should not sanction the corporation for taking advantage of those laws. we should be embargo'ing the hell out of that country for blatantly mistreating its citizens.
as to your last comment - i don't support the us gov in any way except monetarily, which i am literally forced to do, nor do i support the harm of innocent people. i do however find it telling that you don't support the 2nd or 1st amendment, with your criticism of guns and the branch davidians.
of course, your comment also totally ignores the economic issue, which is what i thought we were talking about.
it's the chic thing, to say that one hates globalization and the destruction of culture. to hate ms and mcdonald's and everything else that becomes big. it's part of the socialist mindset against the upper class which we are all indoctrinated with at some point in our lives.
but.
i love mcdonald's. i would love to see a mcdonald's on every street in the world, giving hamburgers out for $.60, everywhere. hell, if they were everywhere, they might even drop to $.50.
i love the ability to go somewhere, get 4 hamburgers for less than $3, and get them in less than 5 minutes.
i just love mcdonald's. it's amazingly convenient and easy for me. what other measure should i use?
move. look for a better life somewhere down the road.
of course, that's the risky road, but payoffs always come with risks.
"Child Labor. Another qualitative argument brought forth by the pessimists is that children were forced to endure long hours of work in unhealthy conditions. Although the existence of child labor cannot be denied, it is clear that most pessimists have overstated both its magnitude and the effects on the health of the children involved. In fact, much of the evidence for the pessimist's case comes from the very famous, yet very inaccurate, reports from the government committees investigating the factory system. Almost all of the "condition of England" novels by Dickens, as well as the works of Engels and the Hammonds, have been in large part based on these committee reports (Jefferson, p. 189). Politically motivated and seriously defective, the evidence in these reports is marred by the fact that the doctors who testified against child labor in the factories had not even been in a factory and refused to testify under oath (Hutt, pp. 161-167). Moreover, the great improvement in mortality rates seems to indicate that either child labor was not extensive as before or was less harmful. Indeed, it was the great improvement in productivity instigated by the industrial revolution that has enabled Western societies to banish child labor."
coercion implies force, which you would realize if you knew anything about libertarian philosophy. what force is used to get these people to work 20 hour shifts? is the government going up to people with a gun and telling them to work, then giving them money besides?
there's always a choice. i refuse to believe that the *only* thing a person can do is to go into a sweatshop. it may not be a fair choice, mind you, but there's always some choice to be made.
and, a little note: they hate us because we're the rich, good-looking kid on the playground who is smart enough not to give his lunch away everyday to the kids who are too stupid to find their own money.
that isn't the way it works. people are supposed to be supported by their government.
welfare for all, they say, but then there's no one to pick up the check.
i've seen it. i've seen people with 5 starports pumping out carriers like there is no tomorrow. but then again, i've never *EVER* had to deal with a carrier fleet.
you know why?
because a pack of 12 wraiths will absolutely destroy a few carriers that are bunched around those starports, which will not have any detection, because they were stupid enough to devote their resources to carriers.
if they have detection, you take it out. then you destroy their carriers.
if you're sitting in your base, waiting for the carriers to come, then you deserve to get blasted by a large group of them. but - if you're proactive and always attacking, they'll never have more than 2 or 3 carriers at a time, and that's hardly scary.
the problem is that most people don't attack. if no one's attacking, and attacking well, then big units show up and destroy everything.
though, you're probably on bnet, which would explain everything.
but that's not the problem. all those other people out there are going to buy a computer, and since they're too stupid to build their own, they'll get xp and get passport.
secondly, those stupid people out there who are buying a product which will only fuck them over deserve it. if they can't build a computer, then they deserve to have whatever they can get, if they're willing to fork over the money.
i loved a post i saw that said "they're being forced to get xp because it's on new computers." of course, i don't see a microsoft squad dragging people into best buy, giving them a new comp, and showing them the register. then again, some people don't believe in choice.
but then xp will become the standard and microsoft will retain its monopoly. and, then i'll be forced to use it.
thirdly, even if it becomes the "standard," not everyone has to use it. use linux. work only for companies who use linux. tell people you work with to do so. if it means something to you, then work for it and don't go crying to the government to strike down big bad microsoft because it's hooking consumers.
that's another thing - people act as if microsoft has done something wrong. they are simply capitalizing on the uninformed, apathetic consumer. there are few windows zealots. there are many linux zealots. however, the windows marketing department is probably bigger, and they do more work in getting the flock to follow them. microsoft is a good company. linux is not a company - it's a movement. and a flailing movement at that. it has the potential to be so much, but no one is willing to do anything except throw insults.
never consider a step of legislation the end. always consider where it could go.
not thinking ahead makes you look like a naive idiot. i'd rather look like a knee-jerk crackpot myself, if it helps keep me out of jail.
i would argue that handguns are more often used to attack than to defend. therefore they are "evil". i suppose we should ban all of those.
and the united states army rarely defends its own self, and instead attacks many nations without provocation. (provocation being defined as an attack against the united states, not the "global community" which i think is bullshit) i suppose that they're "evil" and should be banned.
if a tool has even one utility for which it is used that is good, then the tool cannot be "evil," besides the fact that tools can't be evil in the first place.
tools can't be evil because an inanimate object, does not have a will of its own and depends on its user to create that will. also, because machine guns are illegal doesn't mean they are "evil." u.s. law utmost moral law.
another problem is if you're on dialup. you ever tried to stream over dialup? it's crappy as all hell.
of course, the people who can't afford broadband shouldn't be buying cd's anyways, i guess. stupid poor people wanting enjoyment and happiness... don't they know where they stand?
this just keeps getting worse and worse.
firstly, does pulling "rules" out of your ass often work to make you look insightful?
secondly, it is not the responsibility of a business to operate in the best interests of an employee. it is not the responsibility of a business to do anything - they are a free entity like any other. however, it makes sense that they please their customers. it make sense that they keep their workers happy. but they don't have a responsibility to do so.