And the evolution of those eyes are determined by Environment * Ease of Evolution * Chance
We're 10x as sensitive to green as to red at least partially because when that photosensitive pigment evolved, our ancestors were forest dwellers (this happened relatively recently, only occurring in apes and certain monkeys). Our spectral peaks don't cover even a single power of two between them because it's harder to focus different wavelengths using the same lense. And the spectral territory we happened upon is where a high proportion of visible light occurs, because with a strong ozone layer and long lifespans(most pigments can't hold up to ionizing radiation), there's not much point trying to see in bloody UVA. The sky is blue, blood is red, and the plants are green-yellow-brown. These things needed to be fit into an omnivorous diurnal mammal, though our 'red' receptor is much less sensitive, because it peaks over the yellow portion in most people(Evolutionary advantage to resolving yellow grass and camo > evolutionary advantage to resolving blood).
Interestingly, color sensitivity is a highly polymorphic trait. It's possible that this is advantageous in itself, advantageous enough that carriers can deal with the occasionally colorblind result in exchange for the benefit - a population can easily shift environments entirely in only a few generations and retain excellent vision.
Re:Not sure it is a positive tradeoff
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
Okay.
And most of the problems of finding land for solar panels can be avoided by putting solar panels on the top of new high-rise buildings.
And most of the problems of finding parking for apartment dwellars can be avoided by putting parking spaces on the top of new high-rise buildings.
And most of the problems of finding places to dump garbage can be avoided by dumping garbage on the top of new high-rise buildings.
Whether you can do it and whether it actually accomplishes anything in relation to the problem are entirely seperate points in adult conversation - and when the former is fulfilled and the latter isn't, you are merely talking about theatrics. The Transportation Security Administration is an example of what happens when you forget this rule.
Of course high-rise roofs should be used for SOMETHING productive, but there's no shortage of rural land where you can institutionalize agriculture, rather than making it what can be at best an expensive hobby, on tiny rooftop plots. You can't grow enough beans on a rooftop greenhouse plot to feed the mouths of the window washers you will need to hire, much less anyone else.
Re:Not sure it is a positive tradeoff
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
In the general vicinity of 2-3 kilowatts of electricity per square meter is required to put out around the same amount of visible light as sunlight.
While this can be acceptable for the unique demands of America's biggest cash crop, Cannabis, it's not really viable for wheat or corn.
A shift to several-orders-of-magnitude cheaper greenhouses is more realistic and accomplishes most of what's been mentioned. Urbanizing agriculture rather than architecture is one of those ideas that's far, far dumber than it sounds, and makes the 'inventor' look like a complete idiot to anyone who can do high-school level math & research on agriculture.
It's brought up weekly in biofuel circles, and I watch the discussion go roughly the same every time - two or three pages of enthusiastic applause are followed by someone who can google "photosynthetic efficiency".
The roads are made well in excess of Roman standards. They just have trucks on them weighing up to twenty thousand pounds per axle. In winter climes, they have corrosive salt/sand mixtures poured on them and heavy equipment designed to scour the roads clear ripping off the top layer every so often.
Given light horse traffic and a maintenance worker armed with shears, a shovel, and a chainsaw every ten miles, the interstates could serve as viable roads indefinitely - until erosion of their surroundings caused the collapse of elevated/cliffside sections.
The processing into vegetable oil is a completely mature, low-energy process: simple mechanical pressing, ultrasonic agitation, and miner solvents are all used.
Transesterification of the vegetable oil is likewise a well-understood process, though it takes significant amounts (something like 10% of the energy content, IIRC) of alchohols, and is relatively slow. I've seen at least half a dozen new catalysts for transesterification which drastically speed the reaction, paper launch from the lab in the last year - metal oxides and high-surface-area nanoreactors.
Vegetable oil can be used as a pure fuel source in diesel engines, if it's preheated significantly and doesn't have to deal with cold weather. Transesterification into biodiesel brings the gel point and viscosity most of the way to diesel territory, though extreme-low-temperature performance can be an issue.
All this has been accomplished on an industrial level, but it's a very young industry, very private, and very tentative. If oil goes back to $20/barrel, the entire industry collapses overnight, like the one that formed after the last oil crash.
Soybeans are infact a horrible substance to make biodiesel out of - Rapeseed(canola) is the nearest comparable crop that's used, and it achieves 3x the yield per acre. Soya biodiesel is a huge PR project and a baseline demand load for the soya industry (see fuel ethanol coming from France's wine glut). Since Japan started buying whole soybeans instead of protein isolates a while ago, it's an unnecessary one.
Algae is promised to POTENTIALLY achieve 5000-20000 gallons per acre-year (Soybeans, 50, Rapeseed, 150) by the underfunded + now deceased Aquatic Species Program initiated after the first oilshock. This is a HIGHLY optimistic range, but even at 1/10 the lower bound, it's competitive with oil palms. Aquaculture of the ideal monocrop/ecosystem for maximal fatty-acid storage from photosynthesis in the easy-to-contaminate, hard-to-isolate micro-realm, on the other hand, is a work in process. We have tens of thousands of years of agricultural experience, and there are still agricultural science theses coming out.
Obviously. But do your "few half dozen" holes apply structurally to the paragraph that's being discussed, or to adaptations I have made to other subject matter?
This guy is abusing the commons by working within the rules given to him to gather up as much intellectual property as possible through predatory measures, without himself providing any good or service. He subtracts from the value of the internet.
Are all the people mentioned above careless in one way or another? Yes. That doesn't mean that the people who take advantage of carelessness aren't scumbags. It is not a justification. Especially where one of the rules given to him (same as the 419 scammers) is "don't piss off someone who's got lawyers to defend themselves against this extortion."
How is Jeff Bezos a scumbag? AFAIK, he's earning honest money. You can't even say it's unethical just because people were careless enough to allow 1-Click to go unpatented. It's their responsibility. He's just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in the corporate culture.
How are squatters scumbags? AFAIK, they're earning honest money. You can't even say they're unethical just because people were careless enough to leave their building windows unbarred. It's their responsibility. He's just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in the street culture.
How were the pioneers of the American West scumbags? AFAIK, they were earning honest money. You can't even say they're unethical just because Native Americans were careless enough to leave their property un-deeded. It's their responsibility. They were just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in the frontier culture.
How are Nigerian 419 scammers scumbags? AFAIK, they're earning honest money. You can't even say it's unethical just because people were careless enough to allow their due diligence in researching moneymaking opportunities to fail. They're just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in internet culture.
If you put it that way, you can explain away anything. The only reason I'm not continuing to more heinous things is that doing so would break certain laws. Though it would not be unethical, and I would only profit from the carelessness you showed in crafting your argument (which is your responsibility), I choose not to break Godwin's Law because it's the right thing to do. And natural hair wigs were too expensive right across the board in 1940, even for curly hair.
For once, this is a company that doesn't gauge you on the consumables.
They are sold in 350-packs for a penny a filter, and even then they can be reused. They are very thin and flatpacked into an stack the size of an 8oz sodacan.
If you havn't seen my other two disclaimers on the precise point of malaria...
substitute "40k more to drowning in Micronesia" or "40k more drought victims in India" or "40k more to desertification at the edge of the Sahara" for the phrase in question.
This is not about pinning down the numerous causes of a current health situation. Regardless of the fact that it is not exclusively a tropical disease, it is primarily a tropical disease. It stands to reason that creating tropical climates where they did not exist before will expand the spread of the disease.
I had three points, and none of them were really about malaria.
A) "Climate change can only help my country, so I support it," is a morally bankrupt argument, because it is a global phenomenon and its effects will be felt globally, very possibly with horrible consequences on those other than the nations debating a course of action. This stance is mentioned explicitly in TFA. This poses a moral dilemma for the world as a whole.
B) "Climate change will help my country" is far from a certainty, because we really don't know what will happen for sure. Recent extreme, sustained temperature anomalies in the arctic, and the expansion of greenhouse gasses, are really the only thing all climate scientists can agree on. Most agree that these things are scary.
C) "My country getting 1C hotter over the next hundred years - where's the harm?" is a raw misconception. Climate change is about CLIMATES CHANGING, and the extremes of that change are where it will be felt most. We don't know what will be desertified, what will be flooded (though coasts are probable), what will freeze or what will burn. We don't know where those extremes will be. But we do know that where they touch areas that populations depend on, those populations will have to adapt. If bread baskets across the world shut down, and new ones spring up in other places... that's a traumatic event, liable to cause wars at the very least, even if the total amount of arable land stays about the same. It can even be worked into the malaria/warming discussion - malaria outbreaks spreading over vast tracts that have seen no malaria in generations, and therefore have no resistance, could be much more disasterous than malaria staying in defined boundaries, even if the total area affected by malaria stays the same.
My use of Ethiopia as an example was hypothetical. Malaria is pandemic in much of the world's tropics. The existence of drug immunity and its effect on a particular epidemiological trend in the last two decades is not something I wish to challenge. However, anti-malarials are not something first world nations soak the environment with, or immunize with. You'll have to find an explanation other than drug resistance to explain why mosquitoes in Toronto are carrying West Nile Virus, but not Malaria.
40k fewer deaths to the flu, and 40k more to malaria in Ethiopia. Or 400k more to frostbite to Europe if the North Atlantic Gyre switches its course slightly.
The issue is not that it's gonna get hotter, damnit. It's that we're changing the world drastically in unpredictable ways. That means a mass exodus of people from the coasts, from the new deserts, from swampland that used to be permafrost. Global warming is a practical and moral issue for the world about whether they want to move a significant portion of their population, and everyone else's population, somewhere else, with all the horror that being forced off your land entails.
Says who? Online storefronts like Amazon have adapted to impulse buyers by throwing items they might want according to network analysis in their face, and they've done it quite well. So the page for Pulp Fiction will include a link/picture to Reservoir Dogs, rather than to Practical Magic, as it would on the shelf.
There are more ways to sell things on Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your business management philosophy.
This is harsh, but welcome to the reason people don't have kids in overdeveloped countries. Particularly 5 of them.
5 kids per couple is great when you need cheap farm labor and/or half of them won't survive to adulthood. Not so much when you're responsible for them, you need closet space, and you want to retire... ever.
"Professional thieves" will not be eliminated... but the hordes of casual shoplifters who think a fence is something that they have to jump over to escape the security guard occasionally, will be. It has the same effect as keeping empty boxes on the shelves and the merch behind locked glass - which is annoying and hopelessly impractical for a large department on something as diverse as DVDs.
OTOH... at this point it wouldn't be technically difficult to establish a theftproof print-on-demand DVD(or bluray) mastering system the size of a vending machine. The effort to protect Best Buy from shoplifters with high technology is... quaint... in the face of that threat. Even if it involves shirking off the store-experience-management consultants.
Maine is ranked 47th in coal consumption in the US. Maine gets only 4% of its electricity from coal. It burns 200 kilotons of coal to do this. Coal is approximately 0.2ppm mercury. That means in the general vicinity of 36kg of mercury are sent into the atmosphere annually. Assuming all this is deposited on topsoil, that means they need (assuming foreign windborne mercury is stopped at the border, and they only deal with domestic consumption) 120 000 000 000 cubic meters of soil to 'safely' contain it. Incase you're counting, that's a cube 5km to a side. Maine has 86,542 km of land area. That means that to safely contain just one year's mercury emissions, they would have to excavate their entire land area down to 1.4 meters.
"I claim that I pirate no music. In order to let you investigate my hard drive: The music I pirated is not in this folder, this folder, or this folder"
Furthermore, why? They could easily just sell all their US debt and send the US into hyperinflation. They don't desire to do this right now - but as soon as they have a domestic economy anywhere near our size and we present any sort of threat, they can easily cripple us in that regard without firing a shot or harming themselves in any way.
It had the first bots that you could play against for hours and not even notice you were offline. I havn't encountered a more convincingly human AI in the dozen FPS games I've played since, including UT 2k3(which probably means that the UT maps were just easier to code for).
It's the only game where you can feel yourself increasing in skill over the course of a few days of playtime, and ratchet up the difficulty a bit and get the same kill ratio, without feeling suddenly overwhelmed by perfectly aimed headshots.
The soldiers have been using the glow in the dark commercial version at least since house-to-house searches became a 'patrol' just after the invasion. While it may have originated with the special forces, it's been in WIDESPREAD use this entire war, according to enlisted friends' comments years ago. It's a frequent request for care packages - glow in the dark is preferred, but neon still shows up in any light.
Slashdot Mirror
And the evolution of those eyes are determined by Environment * Ease of Evolution * Chance
We're 10x as sensitive to green as to red at least partially because when that photosensitive pigment evolved, our ancestors were forest dwellers (this happened relatively recently, only occurring in apes and certain monkeys). Our spectral peaks don't cover even a single power of two between them because it's harder to focus different wavelengths using the same lense. And the spectral territory we happened upon is where a high proportion of visible light occurs, because with a strong ozone layer and long lifespans(most pigments can't hold up to ionizing radiation), there's not much point trying to see in bloody UVA. The sky is blue, blood is red, and the plants are green-yellow-brown. These things needed to be fit into an omnivorous diurnal mammal, though our 'red' receptor is much less sensitive, because it peaks over the yellow portion in most people(Evolutionary advantage to resolving yellow grass and camo > evolutionary advantage to resolving blood).
Interestingly, color sensitivity is a highly polymorphic trait. It's possible that this is advantageous in itself, advantageous enough that carriers can deal with the occasionally colorblind result in exchange for the benefit - a population can easily shift environments entirely in only a few generations and retain excellent vision.
Okay.
And most of the problems of finding land for solar panels can be avoided by putting solar panels on the top of new high-rise buildings.
And most of the problems of finding parking for apartment dwellars can be avoided by putting parking spaces on the top of new high-rise buildings.
And most of the problems of finding places to dump garbage can be avoided by dumping garbage on the top of new high-rise buildings.
Whether you can do it and whether it actually accomplishes anything in relation to the problem are entirely seperate points in adult conversation - and when the former is fulfilled and the latter isn't, you are merely talking about theatrics. The Transportation Security Administration is an example of what happens when you forget this rule.
Of course high-rise roofs should be used for SOMETHING productive, but there's no shortage of rural land where you can institutionalize agriculture, rather than making it what can be at best an expensive hobby, on tiny rooftop plots. You can't grow enough beans on a rooftop greenhouse plot to feed the mouths of the window washers you will need to hire, much less anyone else.
In the general vicinity of 2-3 kilowatts of electricity per square meter is required to put out around the same amount of visible light as sunlight.
While this can be acceptable for the unique demands of America's biggest cash crop, Cannabis, it's not really viable for wheat or corn.
A shift to several-orders-of-magnitude cheaper greenhouses is more realistic and accomplishes most of what's been mentioned. Urbanizing agriculture rather than architecture is one of those ideas that's far, far dumber than it sounds, and makes the 'inventor' look like a complete idiot to anyone who can do high-school level math & research on agriculture.
It's brought up weekly in biofuel circles, and I watch the discussion go roughly the same every time - two or three pages of enthusiastic applause are followed by someone who can google "photosynthetic efficiency".
The roads are made well in excess of Roman standards. They just have trucks on them weighing up to twenty thousand pounds per axle. In winter climes, they have corrosive salt/sand mixtures poured on them and heavy equipment designed to scour the roads clear ripping off the top layer every so often.
Given light horse traffic and a maintenance worker armed with shears, a shovel, and a chainsaw every ten miles, the interstates could serve as viable roads indefinitely - until erosion of their surroundings caused the collapse of elevated/cliffside sections.
The processing into vegetable oil is a completely mature, low-energy process: simple mechanical pressing, ultrasonic agitation, and miner solvents are all used.
Transesterification of the vegetable oil is likewise a well-understood process, though it takes significant amounts (something like 10% of the energy content, IIRC) of alchohols, and is relatively slow. I've seen at least half a dozen new catalysts for transesterification which drastically speed the reaction, paper launch from the lab in the last year - metal oxides and high-surface-area nanoreactors.
Vegetable oil can be used as a pure fuel source in diesel engines, if it's preheated significantly and doesn't have to deal with cold weather. Transesterification into biodiesel brings the gel point and viscosity most of the way to diesel territory, though extreme-low-temperature performance can be an issue.
All this has been accomplished on an industrial level, but it's a very young industry, very private, and very tentative. If oil goes back to $20/barrel, the entire industry collapses overnight, like the one that formed after the last oil crash.
Soybeans are infact a horrible substance to make biodiesel out of - Rapeseed(canola) is the nearest comparable crop that's used, and it achieves 3x the yield per acre. Soya biodiesel is a huge PR project and a baseline demand load for the soya industry (see fuel ethanol coming from France's wine glut). Since Japan started buying whole soybeans instead of protein isolates a while ago, it's an unnecessary one.
Algae is promised to POTENTIALLY achieve 5000-20000 gallons per acre-year (Soybeans, 50, Rapeseed, 150) by the underfunded + now deceased Aquatic Species Program initiated after the first oilshock. This is a HIGHLY optimistic range, but even at 1/10 the lower bound, it's competitive with oil palms. Aquaculture of the ideal monocrop/ecosystem for maximal fatty-acid storage from photosynthesis in the easy-to-contaminate, hard-to-isolate micro-realm, on the other hand, is a work in process. We have tens of thousands of years of agricultural experience, and there are still agricultural science theses coming out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel_production
Yes, a Godwin's Law disclaimer is itself a violation. That was kind of the joke.
And that particular corollary is a good 15 years old at least.
Obviously. But do your "few half dozen" holes apply structurally to the paragraph that's being discussed, or to adaptations I have made to other subject matter?
This guy is abusing the commons by working within the rules given to him to gather up as much intellectual property as possible through predatory measures, without himself providing any good or service. He subtracts from the value of the internet.
Are all the people mentioned above careless in one way or another? Yes. That doesn't mean that the people who take advantage of carelessness aren't scumbags. It is not a justification. Especially where one of the rules given to him (same as the 419 scammers) is "don't piss off someone who's got lawyers to defend themselves against this extortion."
How is Jeff Bezos a scumbag? AFAIK, he's earning honest money. You can't even say it's unethical just because people were careless enough to allow 1-Click to go unpatented. It's their responsibility. He's just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in the corporate culture.
How are squatters scumbags? AFAIK, they're earning honest money. You can't even say they're unethical just because people were careless enough to leave their building windows unbarred. It's their responsibility. He's just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in the street culture.
How were the pioneers of the American West scumbags? AFAIK, they were earning honest money. You can't even say they're unethical just because Native Americans were careless enough to leave their property un-deeded. It's their responsibility. They were just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in the frontier culture.
How are Nigerian 419 scammers scumbags? AFAIK, they're earning honest money. You can't even say it's unethical just because people were careless enough to allow their due diligence in researching moneymaking opportunities to fail. They're just making a profit off of other people's carelessness, which basically happens right across the board in internet culture.
If you put it that way, you can explain away anything. The only reason I'm not continuing to more heinous things is that doing so would break certain laws. Though it would not be unethical, and I would only profit from the carelessness you showed in crafting your argument (which is your responsibility), I choose not to break Godwin's Law because it's the right thing to do. And natural hair wigs were too expensive right across the board in 1940, even for curly hair.
For once, this is a company that doesn't gauge you on the consumables.
They are sold in 350-packs for a penny a filter, and even then they can be reused. They are very thin and flatpacked into an stack the size of an 8oz sodacan.
Not true.
H2O crystals can be turned up to 11.
If you havn't seen my other two disclaimers on the precise point of malaria...
substitute "40k more to drowning in Micronesia" or "40k more drought victims in India" or "40k more to desertification at the edge of the Sahara" for the phrase in question.
This is not about pinning down the numerous causes of a current health situation. Regardless of the fact that it is not exclusively a tropical disease, it is primarily a tropical disease. It stands to reason that creating tropical climates where they did not exist before will expand the spread of the disease.
I had three points, and none of them were really about malaria.
A) "Climate change can only help my country, so I support it," is a morally bankrupt argument, because it is a global phenomenon and its effects will be felt globally, very possibly with horrible consequences on those other than the nations debating a course of action. This stance is mentioned explicitly in TFA. This poses a moral dilemma for the world as a whole.
B) "Climate change will help my country" is far from a certainty, because we really don't know what will happen for sure. Recent extreme, sustained temperature anomalies in the arctic, and the expansion of greenhouse gasses, are really the only thing all climate scientists can agree on. Most agree that these things are scary.
C) "My country getting 1C hotter over the next hundred years - where's the harm?" is a raw misconception. Climate change is about CLIMATES CHANGING, and the extremes of that change are where it will be felt most. We don't know what will be desertified, what will be flooded (though coasts are probable), what will freeze or what will burn. We don't know where those extremes will be. But we do know that where they touch areas that populations depend on, those populations will have to adapt. If bread baskets across the world shut down, and new ones spring up in other places... that's a traumatic event, liable to cause wars at the very least, even if the total amount of arable land stays about the same. It can even be worked into the malaria/warming discussion - malaria outbreaks spreading over vast tracts that have seen no malaria in generations, and therefore have no resistance, could be much more disasterous than malaria staying in defined boundaries, even if the total area affected by malaria stays the same.
My use of Ethiopia as an example was hypothetical. Malaria is pandemic in much of the world's tropics. The existence of drug immunity and its effect on a particular epidemiological trend in the last two decades is not something I wish to challenge. However, anti-malarials are not something first world nations soak the environment with, or immunize with. You'll have to find an explanation other than drug resistance to explain why mosquitoes in Toronto are carrying West Nile Virus, but not Malaria.
I'm not exactly an expert, but I know where to find some.
False urban legend debunkings can spread just as virulently as urban legends. All it takes is gullible people who don't think to research things.
40k fewer deaths to the flu, and 40k more to malaria in Ethiopia. Or 400k more to frostbite to Europe if the North Atlantic Gyre switches its course slightly.
The issue is not that it's gonna get hotter, damnit. It's that we're changing the world drastically in unpredictable ways. That means a mass exodus of people from the coasts, from the new deserts, from swampland that used to be permafrost. Global warming is a practical and moral issue for the world about whether they want to move a significant portion of their population, and everyone else's population, somewhere else, with all the horror that being forced off your land entails.
Says who? Online storefronts like Amazon have adapted to impulse buyers by throwing items they might want according to network analysis in their face, and they've done it quite well. So the page for Pulp Fiction will include a link/picture to Reservoir Dogs, rather than to Practical Magic, as it would on the shelf.
There are more ways to sell things on Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your business management philosophy.
This is harsh, but welcome to the reason people don't have kids in overdeveloped countries. Particularly 5 of them.
5 kids per couple is great when you need cheap farm labor and/or half of them won't survive to adulthood. Not so much when you're responsible for them, you need closet space, and you want to retire... ever.
"Professional thieves" will not be eliminated... but the hordes of casual shoplifters who think a fence is something that they have to jump over to escape the security guard occasionally, will be. It has the same effect as keeping empty boxes on the shelves and the merch behind locked glass - which is annoying and hopelessly impractical for a large department on something as diverse as DVDs.
OTOH... at this point it wouldn't be technically difficult to establish a theftproof print-on-demand DVD(or bluray) mastering system the size of a vending machine. The effort to protect Best Buy from shoplifters with high technology is... quaint... in the face of that threat. Even if it involves shirking off the store-experience-management consultants.
Maine is ranked 47th in coal consumption in the US. Maine gets only 4% of its electricity from coal. It burns 200 kilotons of coal to do this. Coal is approximately 0.2ppm mercury. That means in the general vicinity of 36kg of mercury are sent into the atmosphere annually. Assuming all this is deposited on topsoil, that means they need (assuming foreign windborne mercury is stopped at the border, and they only deal with domestic consumption) 120 000 000 000 cubic meters of soil to 'safely' contain it. Incase you're counting, that's a cube 5km to a side. Maine has 86,542 km of land area. That means that to safely contain just one year's mercury emissions, they would have to excavate their entire land area down to 1.4 meters.
"I claim that I pirate no music. In order to let you investigate my hard drive: The music I pirated is not in this folder, this folder, or this folder"
Furthermore, why? They could easily just sell all their US debt and send the US into hyperinflation. They don't desire to do this right now - but as soon as they have a domestic economy anywhere near our size and we present any sort of threat, they can easily cripple us in that regard without firing a shot or harming themselves in any way.
Unreal Tournament.
It had the first bots that you could play against for hours and not even notice you were offline. I havn't encountered a more convincingly human AI in the dozen FPS games I've played since, including UT 2k3(which probably means that the UT maps were just easier to code for).
It's the only game where you can feel yourself increasing in skill over the course of a few days of playtime, and ratchet up the difficulty a bit and get the same kill ratio, without feeling suddenly overwhelmed by perfectly aimed headshots.
Which is why "this rating may change at play time" used on multiplayer games is ridiculous.
May as well rate your Crayons the same way.
I've got a Bucket of Truth up there. Not something you want to come on accidentally.
The soldiers have been using the glow in the dark commercial version at least since house-to-house searches became a 'patrol' just after the invasion. While it may have originated with the special forces, it's been in WIDESPREAD use this entire war, according to enlisted friends' comments years ago. It's a frequent request for care packages - glow in the dark is preferred, but neon still shows up in any light.