Actually, based on the critera given, SEGA only had half of the first mover advantage with the Dreamcast. Technologically it was superior to previous consoles, but SEGA had the somewhat recent failure of the Saturn - evidence that releasing superior technology first is not a guarantee of success. They did not have the requisite "confidence in the new platform from both the public and the industry". Instead, SEGA had a small cadre of devoted public and limited support from developers, while many more were willing to wait for the "second mover".
One advantage Microsoft has is that they have demonstrated a willingness to back their console with their bank - so there is more public and industry confidence that the new platfrom won't fail in the way the Dreamcast did. Also Microsoft has the money to buy developers and licenses as needed for the apparency of industry confidence. These may give it a better advantage than SEGA ever had.
============
As to someone else's comment about a Sony monopoly - never fear, Microsoft will not surrender even if it fails by some people's standards. Nintendo isn't likely to either, though it is becoming more and more of a niche gaming console than a serious contender for the top market-share.
I don't think you're following that idea very far. When do gamers get out into real life to see boobies? If more girls were gaming, wouldn't there be less boobies on display in real life? What kind of physical shape are a good number of gamers in? Are those the kind of boobies a gamer used to digital boobies is going to want to see in real life?
It's not about girls realizing how awesome games are. Some of us have been gaming for a long time (such as since the Atari 2600 came out). It's about a larger percentage of girls getting into games. Remember, too, that not everyone would be pleased with a 1:1 ratio - particularly if it meant less boobies in the games.
Depends on whether the customer base was that divided or not. I've shopped at both - mostly depending on which mall or shopping area I'm heading toward otherwise. If a large portion of their customer base is overlap, magazine subscriptions won't grow much. OTOH, if most gamers only shop at one or the other, then it may well grow.
==========
As to the Game Informer, I've gotten the GameStop card twice. I buy enough games in general, and used games specifically, to save a decent amount. The magazine is just extra fluff that cost me nothing with occasional tidbits of useful information (such as the expected release date on games). I don't care for most of their reviewers (too much effort put into trying to be funny) or the reviews they write. I do enjoy the pictures (while ignoring their juvenile captions).
I can easily understand the two million subscriber mark if they are counting everyone who has ever gotten one of the GameStop cards. If they only counted people who chose to subscribe and sent in a check... well, then I'd actually be impressed.
Try finding Devil May Cry 3 in the first week. It's a balance of the initial expected sales and the actual demand. Sometimes way less sell than were expected (>1 million pre-orders doesn't tell you how many were duplicates by people covering all the bases) and sometimes early demand is even better than planned.
It's also dependant on where you look and where in the country you are. When you live in a metropolitan area with populations over a million, games seem to sell out more often. Shop at EB Games and Gamestop and you'll find they routinely sell out - and never know how or when they'll get their next batch. Drive over to Toys 'R' Us and they might have a few copies sitting around. Ditto for Circuit City or Media Play or Fry's Electronics, which are not primarily game stores... so they sometimes have a few copies sitting around.
Pre-ordering a game is only necessary if 1) it has reached a certain level of hype, 2) you know the store you go to is likely to sell out, and 3) you absolutely must have it the first day.
Let me see if I get this straight. First of all, smart is being used to refer to people who have good short-term memory. Now, according to the study, smart people's test scores dropped to the same level as those not smart when they were under significant stress or pressure. Those who weren't smart didn't do any better or any worse.
My conclusion? A smart person will excel most of the time, but enough stress can drop them to average. Whoop-de-doo. Learn a few techniques to minimize stressful situations and, if you count as smart, you're way ahead of the crowd. Don't learn anything and the only time the crowd can catch up is when you're subjected to heavy pressures.
No, the ratings system has never had any force of law behind it. The ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) was established by a software industry trade association and is voluntary. It has been presented to Congress and praised, but nothing is formalized.
Keep in mind that the parents and adults who push for these laws are seldom concerned about their own kids getting hold of these games. They are positive that won't happen. However, they think that no moral, intelligent parent would ever buy anything with violence or sex in it for their children. There are a good number of parents who don't know or care what music their children listen to, what television shows they watch, what internet sites they access, and what video games they play. There are also parents who don't view violence and sex in entertainment as a massive evil - who are involved in the decision-making and who talk to their kids about what is represented in the games. To the parents who push for these laws, any parent whose kids play such games are the same: immoral, uncaring, irresponsible parents whose poor kids must be protected. Untrue and not logical, but a law is nothing more than an inconvenience to those of us who will buy the game for our kids anyway.
Very good point here. Add to this the fact that a malicious user who knows anything about the account owner will likely have a good idea of that person's common computer habits. For example, I tend to open WinAmp and stream music, open Firefox and check various comics then/., then play a game. If a malicious user opens WinAmp and hits play, opens Firefox and browses a few sits, then runs a game and minimizes it, he can now do all sorts of things without the computer algorithm getting suspicious. In fact, by maintaining the most common activities - say going to Firefox and going to the next bookmark every 5 minutes - my computer would be unlikely to suspect anything was amiss until it was too late.
Gak, as a woman gamer even I wouldn't find "sagging breasts" and "child bearing hips" attractive. The girl from Dark Alliance isn't ugly, even if these gals don't think she's pretty. Very cliche'd, but it really is true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
I don't think women getting a larger market share would stop games from marketing using sex or making games that include sex. That's like thinking that more women buying magazines will reduce the number of guy magazines. Women getting into games will simply provide support for developers and programmers who want to try different things - like an RPG with female heroes that doesn't focus on changing clothing or an FPS with female characters who dress and act like real military women do.
I have to agree that fansubs don't "disappear from the web" entirely. There are people who download fansubs with no intention of supporting the anime industry. However, don't lump all people together. Many of us do buy the DVDs - to the tune of thousands of dollars over a few years.
Everyone that I know who downloads Anime gives me the same speach about only downloading it because they can't get it in the US, and then when thier show comes to the US they certainly don't buy DVDs of them.
This says more about everyone you know than about fansubbing. Obviously I am not one of the people you know, but I believe I am representative of those people that respect both what fansubbers are doing and what the companies who license the series are doing.
I watched Witch Hunter Robin about halfway through via fansubs and now own the DVD box set. Even though Naruto has way more than 26 episodes, I know I'll have those box sets on my shelf eventually because I've watched the fansubs. In fact, I have over five shelves of anime - of which about 1/3 were watched first as fansubs. What about fansubs I choose not to buy? Those are the ones I watch a couple episodes of and delete.
"Why would I buy it I have it on my computer?"
Again, this says more about who you know. Those who chose to fansub and those who respect the tradition would never ask that. We accept that once a company has licensed the material to distribute in the U.S. the fansubs will stop being made. In fact, that licensing gives us someone to write to encouraging the quick release of the anime series here - which is primarily what we want.
You can quickly tell which camp someone belongs to by their reaction to the series getting licensed after a few episodes. Do they start following ADV, Geneon, or the other publisher's website for release dates? Or do they frantically search for a new source with illegal updates?
future cost of next-gen games, which in his opinion will likely stay as high as $50 and could perhaps fetch more on retail shelves.
I can already tell you that if every next-gen EA game comes out on the shelves at a $50+ price point, I'll simply turn to other games (or, more slyly, wait until the games appear used - in which case EA gets no profit out of the resale). They may hold certain niches, but they don't own the market... no matter what they have convinced themselves of or how many developers they buy out.
Let me clarify one thing - I place computer languages in a completely different realm than a spoken language. Studies have shown that a spoken language actually uses a distinct section of the brain. Learning to speak fluently in a second language takes the ability to build up a new section for that. (Two examples of this: 1) ask me a question in English when I am talking to someone in Spanish - I will probably answer in Spanish without realizing I have done so. 2) ask me whether I just watched an entire anime series in English or in Japanese with English subtitles and I would have to hear the voice actors because I can't tell a difference mentally.)
Learning a new computer language is very different. It typically relies on a general understanding of how computers work and what various styles of commands will do. (In fact, the people I know who learn computer languages easiest have all worked with machining languages.) Computer languages are often made up of or based upon regular spoken words that the person learning already knows (SORT, DIR for directory, LS for list, and so on) or are similar to another computer language (INT or INTEGER or some variation thereof in many languages).
It is for these reasons that I think age has very little to do with a coder's ability to learn a new computer language. I think the person's innate talent with computers, possibly based on mathematical or logical thinking, makes a huge amount of difference. Could a person in their 20's learn to program easier than a person in their 60's? Possibly. But I'm not so sure the age has as much to do with it as the familiarity with programming methodology - as in the ubiquitous flashing VCR clock.
I don't have research data or any such thing, but I'm not so sure this is age-group specific. There seems to be a cluster of people who cannot learn even the most simple, intuitive things on a computer. Obviously, no matter their age, computing is beyond them. Others seem to have a natural grasp for the basic concepts - the logic and mathematics and structure - that makes it easier to learn a new computer language. Being older may make it harder to shift to a completely different style of programming language - say from DOS to LISP. But, given a certain level of skills and inherent talent, any age group could learn a new programming language.
The more important factors are desire and motivation. Learning a new language just because some management-level hack thinks it will be the next great thing(tm) could make any age-group lag behind. Learning a new language because it resolves a lot of the issues and difficulties encountered in an already known language or because it is necessary for the project one wishes to work on makes age irrelevant.
Inflation for the year 2004 is given based on the Consumer Price Index from the Labor Department. Excluding energy and food, it was 2.2%. Housing alone was listed at 2.5% for the year and is included in the reported 2.2%. Energy is what caused the spike that averages overall inflation to 3.3% - alone it makes up for a 16.6% increase. With overall salaries (in all industries combined) making for only a 0.5% increase, most of us are paying more this year than last - and not earning enough to make up the difference. (Apologies in advance to those who aren't earning anything.)
What the study considers moderate drinking is on average no more than a single glass of wine (wine glass, not tumbler), a single bottle/can of beer, or a single shot or mixed drink containing no more than a shot's worth of alcohol in a day. That is moderation. The damage from exceeding that moderate level outweighs the benefits very quickly.
PS: Read a little bit more and you find out that the study was only done on a group of women (no men - just assumptions of equivalent or greater effect).
As I just responded to another post, I think the question "What about every other scientific theory?" is wholly valid. We really should be teaching the distinction between facts and accepted theories. This applies even to other subjects besides science.
because evolution offends a small group of religious zealots
The interesting thing here is that there is also a small group of zealots who are so opposed to the concept that any higher intelligence could have had a part in life that they blindly accept evolution without pushing to find the cracks and either break it or fix it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not Christian and have no belief in their God. However, I am not willing to blindly accept evolution as a fact. The two - being religious and not accepting evolution - are not identical. The fact that it was written carefully and that it was written by religious groups does not mean that religion is being injected into the field of science or the classroom. There is no attempt to force the teaching of religion - merely to state that evolution should not be taught as if it were infallible.
why it specifically targets a single feild of science,
Actually, I thought this very thing. Every branch of science contains much that is theoretical. What I learned in high school about elements is no longer accepted - even though it was taught as "fact". Even Einstein's General Relativity is still a theory. This could even be said to be true of other subjects. Huge chunks of ancient history are suppositions made based on archaeological discoveries. We aren't taught to be critical thinkers - we're taught to memorize important "facts" for later regurgitation.
All fine and dandy, except that evolution is about more than simple natural selection which stays within a single species. The theory of evolution is supposed to show how things moved from a molecular soup to single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms to all the many species we have today. Except it doesn't. It points to a skeleton of an Eophippus, a Mesophippus, a Miohippus, a Merychippus, a Pliohippus, and a modern horse and says they evolved over that sequence. However, every one of these evolutions is still catalogued as part of the horse species.
If we limit evolution to only those changes that are based on pre-existing variance in a species, then we must call our selective breeding of dogs evolution in action and drop the claims that everything (all species) evolved from single-celled organisms.
That's funny, because the issue of Discover Magazine that arrived in my mailbox sometime in the last week says on the cover "Scientists at Michigan State Prove Evolution Works".
No surprise there. Every new biological discovery seems to be heralded in these magazines as "new proof of evolution" or "evolution at work". Even when other reputable scientists dispute the findings, or even if the proof turns out to only show that a specific test worked, these kinds of headlines show up.
Now that you know what the word "theory" actually means
Theory, the word, actually has multiple meanings - leading to much of the confusion. Take a look at Merriam-Webster. You'll find "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another", "abstract thought : SPECULATION", "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", and "an unproved assumption" -- each of which puts a different flavor to the discussion. Notice that NONE of the definitions given implies that a theory is a fact. The closest ones state "plausible or scientifically acceptable" and "hypothesis assumed".
The important definitions of fact are "something that has actual existence" and "an actual occurence". Evolution is an assumed occurence based on the relationships between different life-forms. It doesn't ever point to an actual occurence - it points to two separate facts (actual fossils that can be dated) and infers an occurence between them. The actual occurence is not known - in fact, many books on evolution say "we don't know how this happened, but x evolved into y as you can see by..." So how did evolution work? Some say radiation-damaged genes, others refer to chaos theory, others say that isn't important. That last is the most foolish, because what is the theory of evolution without an explanation of how it really works.
The key distinction the groups who pushed for those stickers are trying to make is that while many believe evolution "may, for all practical purposes, be treated as a fact", it is not a fact. To their dismay (though they will seldom admit this), this is equally true of their own theories (translate as religious beliefs). To everyone's dismay, this is the case with many things we believe to be fact. Einstein's theories are still just that - theories. Two thousand years from now humanity may learn that they were radically incomplete and our insistence on teaching them as fact prevented us from entering entire fields of knowledge.
==============
As a side note, I think this federal judge - if he actually claimed that the sticker attempted to inject religion into state materials - may have made it easier for this to be appealed. The sticker was written very carefully and makes no mention of religion. Nowhere does it mention the Bible, Christ, Christianity, creation, or anything religious. In fact, if you were to show that sticker to any person who knew nothing about the controversy here and that the opponents of evolution theory are religious, they wouldn't necessarily connect religion. They could suspect a renegade group of scientists. By calling the sticker religious the judge reveals a clear bias and picking of sides rather than an impartial consideration.
Ah, but the court spokesman's quote says "They were making general comments to the people on[sic] line, referring to them as "peasants," which actually fits what the pair describes. I think it was more likely these guys were grandstanding each time a lawyer walked past - making comments about the "kings" and the "peasants" intentionally loud enough to be heard by both.
The fact that they were saying the punch line "in unison" (this by their own admission) makes me suspect they were deliberately telling these jokes to try to create a situation - not to innocently pass the time while waiting in line.
Obviously it was not just a single lawyer who complained - I seriously doubt the court spokesman is lying when he says they were warned several times to stop being disruptive. That just fuels my suspicion that they were being loud and annoying (not just to the "kings" but also to the "peasants").
Finally, one last thing I found of interest - why was the guy five ahead of them in line a lawyer if all the lawyers were kings parading past the peasants. Sounds like these guys don't know court procedure. For example - jurors in ongoing cases are sometimes given badges to be able to enter the courthouse without repeatedly going through security lines.
If you read the article, try to discover what is actually fact. Notice how no uninvolved people were interviewed - we only have the statements of the pair and a court official. Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way. The majority of that article is little better than editorializing - filling in with opinion where facts are lacking.
I think this is why the reviews I like best incorporate both. I definitely want to know how smoothly the control scheme works or the length of load times. However, I also want to know if the game was fun and involving.
I never rely on a single reviewer. When I'm dealing with a new reviewer (one I haven't read before), I try to look at how they rated various games I already own. Do their impressions match mine or are they a complete opposite? What is their bar of excellence? What kinds of games do they seem to prefer? It's just like movie reviews - where we like to know that the special effects were "WOW", but we also want to know the reviewer had a good time and would watch it again.
is the companion robotic creatures. A couple of the dinosaur-like ones set to be aggressive could be funny to watch interact. Wonder how robosapien would control three or four aggressive roboraptors.:)
Actually, I'm about a third of the way into "A Theory of General Relativity" now. I have no semesters of college level mathematics - only through geometry in school and some learning from trig and calculus books on my own time. While containing complex mathematical equations, Einstein is very good about clarifying each step of what he is doing. In fact, based on some of what I've learned about him, his ideas preceded their own mathematical proofs -- he had to work out the math to prove his point not to think of it. If anything, it is the other theories that he refers to which I've had to go learn to understand what he's saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. But the advantage wasn't enough.
Actually, based on the critera given, SEGA only had half of the first mover advantage with the Dreamcast. Technologically it was superior to previous consoles, but SEGA had the somewhat recent failure of the Saturn - evidence that releasing superior technology first is not a guarantee of success. They did not have the requisite "confidence in the new platform from both the public and the industry". Instead, SEGA had a small cadre of devoted public and limited support from developers, while many more were willing to wait for the "second mover".
One advantage Microsoft has is that they have demonstrated a willingness to back their console with their bank - so there is more public and industry confidence that the new platfrom won't fail in the way the Dreamcast did. Also Microsoft has the money to buy developers and licenses as needed for the apparency of industry confidence. These may give it a better advantage than SEGA ever had.
============
As to someone else's comment about a Sony monopoly - never fear, Microsoft will not surrender even if it fails by some people's standards. Nintendo isn't likely to either, though it is becoming more and more of a niche gaming console than a serious contender for the top market-share.
I don't think you're following that idea very far. When do gamers get out into real life to see boobies? If more girls were gaming, wouldn't there be less boobies on display in real life? What kind of physical shape are a good number of gamers in? Are those the kind of boobies a gamer used to digital boobies is going to want to see in real life?
It's not about girls realizing how awesome games are. Some of us have been gaming for a long time (such as since the Atari 2600 came out). It's about a larger percentage of girls getting into games. Remember, too, that not everyone would be pleased with a 1:1 ratio - particularly if it meant less boobies in the games.
Depends on whether the customer base was that divided or not. I've shopped at both - mostly depending on which mall or shopping area I'm heading toward otherwise. If a large portion of their customer base is overlap, magazine subscriptions won't grow much. OTOH, if most gamers only shop at one or the other, then it may well grow.
... well, then I'd actually be impressed.
==========
As to the Game Informer, I've gotten the GameStop card twice. I buy enough games in general, and used games specifically, to save a decent amount. The magazine is just extra fluff that cost me nothing with occasional tidbits of useful information (such as the expected release date on games). I don't care for most of their reviewers (too much effort put into trying to be funny) or the reviews they write. I do enjoy the pictures (while ignoring their juvenile captions).
I can easily understand the two million subscriber mark if they are counting everyone who has ever gotten one of the GameStop cards. If they only counted people who chose to subscribe and sent in a check
Try finding Devil May Cry 3 in the first week. It's a balance of the initial expected sales and the actual demand. Sometimes way less sell than were expected (>1 million pre-orders doesn't tell you how many were duplicates by people covering all the bases) and sometimes early demand is even better than planned.
... so they sometimes have a few copies sitting around.
It's also dependant on where you look and where in the country you are. When you live in a metropolitan area with populations over a million, games seem to sell out more often. Shop at EB Games and Gamestop and you'll find they routinely sell out - and never know how or when they'll get their next batch. Drive over to Toys 'R' Us and they might have a few copies sitting around. Ditto for Circuit City or Media Play or Fry's Electronics, which are not primarily game stores
Pre-ordering a game is only necessary if 1) it has reached a certain level of hype, 2) you know the store you go to is likely to sell out, and 3) you absolutely must have it the first day.
Let me see if I get this straight. First of all, smart is being used to refer to people who have good short-term memory. Now, according to the study, smart people's test scores dropped to the same level as those not smart when they were under significant stress or pressure. Those who weren't smart didn't do any better or any worse.
My conclusion? A smart person will excel most of the time, but enough stress can drop them to average. Whoop-de-doo. Learn a few techniques to minimize stressful situations and, if you count as smart, you're way ahead of the crowd. Don't learn anything and the only time the crowd can catch up is when you're subjected to heavy pressures.
No, the ratings system has never had any force of law behind it. The ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) was established by a software industry trade association and is voluntary. It has been presented to Congress and praised, but nothing is formalized.
Keep in mind that the parents and adults who push for these laws are seldom concerned about their own kids getting hold of these games. They are positive that won't happen. However, they think that no moral, intelligent parent would ever buy anything with violence or sex in it for their children. There are a good number of parents who don't know or care what music their children listen to, what television shows they watch, what internet sites they access, and what video games they play. There are also parents who don't view violence and sex in entertainment as a massive evil - who are involved in the decision-making and who talk to their kids about what is represented in the games. To the parents who push for these laws, any parent whose kids play such games are the same: immoral, uncaring, irresponsible parents whose poor kids must be protected. Untrue and not logical, but a law is nothing more than an inconvenience to those of us who will buy the game for our kids anyway.
They might be referring to Mech Warrior 4: Mercenaries, but I don't know because I won't register to read NYT articles.
Very good point here. Add to this the fact that a malicious user who knows anything about the account owner will likely have a good idea of that person's common computer habits. For example, I tend to open WinAmp and stream music, open Firefox and check various comics then /., then play a game. If a malicious user opens WinAmp and hits play, opens Firefox and browses a few sits, then runs a game and minimizes it, he can now do all sorts of things without the computer algorithm getting suspicious. In fact, by maintaining the most common activities - say going to Firefox and going to the next bookmark every 5 minutes - my computer would be unlikely to suspect anything was amiss until it was too late.
Gak, as a woman gamer even I wouldn't find "sagging breasts" and "child bearing hips" attractive. The girl from Dark Alliance isn't ugly, even if these gals don't think she's pretty. Very cliche'd, but it really is true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
I don't think women getting a larger market share would stop games from marketing using sex or making games that include sex. That's like thinking that more women buying magazines will reduce the number of guy magazines. Women getting into games will simply provide support for developers and programmers who want to try different things - like an RPG with female heroes that doesn't focus on changing clothing or an FPS with female characters who dress and act like real military women do.
I have to agree that fansubs don't "disappear from the web" entirely. There are people who download fansubs with no intention of supporting the anime industry. However, don't lump all people together. Many of us do buy the DVDs - to the tune of thousands of dollars over a few years.
Everyone that I know who downloads Anime gives me the same speach about only downloading it because they can't get it in the US, and then when thier show comes to the US they certainly don't buy DVDs of them.
This says more about everyone you know than about fansubbing. Obviously I am not one of the people you know, but I believe I am representative of those people that respect both what fansubbers are doing and what the companies who license the series are doing.
I watched Witch Hunter Robin about halfway through via fansubs and now own the DVD box set. Even though Naruto has way more than 26 episodes, I know I'll have those box sets on my shelf eventually because I've watched the fansubs. In fact, I have over five shelves of anime - of which about 1/3 were watched first as fansubs. What about fansubs I choose not to buy? Those are the ones I watch a couple episodes of and delete.
"Why would I buy it I have it on my computer?"
Again, this says more about who you know. Those who chose to fansub and those who respect the tradition would never ask that. We accept that once a company has licensed the material to distribute in the U.S. the fansubs will stop being made. In fact, that licensing gives us someone to write to encouraging the quick release of the anime series here - which is primarily what we want.
You can quickly tell which camp someone belongs to by their reaction to the series getting licensed after a few episodes. Do they start following ADV, Geneon, or the other publisher's website for release dates? Or do they frantically search for a new source with illegal updates?
future cost of next-gen games, which in his opinion will likely stay as high as $50 and could perhaps fetch more on retail shelves.
... no matter what they have convinced themselves of or how many developers they buy out.
I can already tell you that if every next-gen EA game comes out on the shelves at a $50+ price point, I'll simply turn to other games (or, more slyly, wait until the games appear used - in which case EA gets no profit out of the resale). They may hold certain niches, but they don't own the market
Let me clarify one thing - I place computer languages in a completely different realm than a spoken language. Studies have shown that a spoken language actually uses a distinct section of the brain. Learning to speak fluently in a second language takes the ability to build up a new section for that. (Two examples of this: 1) ask me a question in English when I am talking to someone in Spanish - I will probably answer in Spanish without realizing I have done so. 2) ask me whether I just watched an entire anime series in English or in Japanese with English subtitles and I would have to hear the voice actors because I can't tell a difference mentally.)
Learning a new computer language is very different. It typically relies on a general understanding of how computers work and what various styles of commands will do. (In fact, the people I know who learn computer languages easiest have all worked with machining languages.) Computer languages are often made up of or based upon regular spoken words that the person learning already knows (SORT, DIR for directory, LS for list, and so on) or are similar to another computer language (INT or INTEGER or some variation thereof in many languages).
It is for these reasons that I think age has very little to do with a coder's ability to learn a new computer language. I think the person's innate talent with computers, possibly based on mathematical or logical thinking, makes a huge amount of difference. Could a person in their 20's learn to program easier than a person in their 60's? Possibly. But I'm not so sure the age has as much to do with it as the familiarity with programming methodology - as in the ubiquitous flashing VCR clock.
I don't have research data or any such thing, but I'm not so sure this is age-group specific. There seems to be a cluster of people who cannot learn even the most simple, intuitive things on a computer. Obviously, no matter their age, computing is beyond them. Others seem to have a natural grasp for the basic concepts - the logic and mathematics and structure - that makes it easier to learn a new computer language. Being older may make it harder to shift to a completely different style of programming language - say from DOS to LISP. But, given a certain level of skills and inherent talent, any age group could learn a new programming language.
The more important factors are desire and motivation. Learning a new language just because some management-level hack thinks it will be the next great thing(tm) could make any age-group lag behind. Learning a new language because it resolves a lot of the issues and difficulties encountered in an already known language or because it is necessary for the project one wishes to work on makes age irrelevant.
Inflation for the year 2004 is given based on the Consumer Price Index from the Labor Department. Excluding energy and food, it was 2.2%. Housing alone was listed at 2.5% for the year and is included in the reported 2.2%. Energy is what caused the spike that averages overall inflation to 3.3% - alone it makes up for a 16.6% increase. With overall salaries (in all industries combined) making for only a 0.5% increase, most of us are paying more this year than last - and not earning enough to make up the difference. (Apologies in advance to those who aren't earning anything.)
What the study considers moderate drinking is on average no more than a single glass of wine (wine glass, not tumbler), a single bottle/can of beer, or a single shot or mixed drink containing no more than a shot's worth of alcohol in a day. That is moderation. The damage from exceeding that moderate level outweighs the benefits very quickly.
PS: Read a little bit more and you find out that the study was only done on a group of women (no men - just assumptions of equivalent or greater effect).
As I just responded to another post, I think the question "What about every other scientific theory?" is wholly valid. We really should be teaching the distinction between facts and accepted theories. This applies even to other subjects besides science.
because evolution offends a small group of religious zealots
The interesting thing here is that there is also a small group of zealots who are so opposed to the concept that any higher intelligence could have had a part in life that they blindly accept evolution without pushing to find the cracks and either break it or fix it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not Christian and have no belief in their God. However, I am not willing to blindly accept evolution as a fact. The two - being religious and not accepting evolution - are not identical. The fact that it was written carefully and that it was written by religious groups does not mean that religion is being injected into the field of science or the classroom. There is no attempt to force the teaching of religion - merely to state that evolution should not be taught as if it were infallible.
why it specifically targets a single feild of science,
Actually, I thought this very thing. Every branch of science contains much that is theoretical. What I learned in high school about elements is no longer accepted - even though it was taught as "fact". Even Einstein's General Relativity is still a theory. This could even be said to be true of other subjects. Huge chunks of ancient history are suppositions made based on archaeological discoveries. We aren't taught to be critical thinkers - we're taught to memorize important "facts" for later regurgitation.
All fine and dandy, except that evolution is about more than simple natural selection which stays within a single species. The theory of evolution is supposed to show how things moved from a molecular soup to single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms to all the many species we have today. Except it doesn't. It points to a skeleton of an Eophippus, a Mesophippus, a Miohippus, a Merychippus, a Pliohippus, and a modern horse and says they evolved over that sequence. However, every one of these evolutions is still catalogued as part of the horse species.
If we limit evolution to only those changes that are based on pre-existing variance in a species, then we must call our selective breeding of dogs evolution in action and drop the claims that everything (all species) evolved from single-celled organisms.
That's funny, because the issue of Discover Magazine that arrived in my mailbox sometime in the last week says on the cover "Scientists at Michigan State Prove Evolution Works".
..." So how did evolution work? Some say radiation-damaged genes, others refer to chaos theory, others say that isn't important. That last is the most foolish, because what is the theory of evolution without an explanation of how it really works.
No surprise there. Every new biological discovery seems to be heralded in these magazines as "new proof of evolution" or "evolution at work". Even when other reputable scientists dispute the findings, or even if the proof turns out to only show that a specific test worked, these kinds of headlines show up.
Now that you know what the word "theory" actually means
Theory, the word, actually has multiple meanings - leading to much of the confusion. Take a look at Merriam-Webster. You'll find "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another", "abstract thought : SPECULATION", "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", and "an unproved assumption" -- each of which puts a different flavor to the discussion. Notice that NONE of the definitions given implies that a theory is a fact. The closest ones state "plausible or scientifically acceptable" and "hypothesis assumed".
The important definitions of fact are "something that has actual existence" and "an actual occurence". Evolution is an assumed occurence based on the relationships between different life-forms. It doesn't ever point to an actual occurence - it points to two separate facts (actual fossils that can be dated) and infers an occurence between them. The actual occurence is not known - in fact, many books on evolution say "we don't know how this happened, but x evolved into y as you can see by
The key distinction the groups who pushed for those stickers are trying to make is that while many believe evolution "may, for all practical purposes, be treated as a fact", it is not a fact. To their dismay (though they will seldom admit this), this is equally true of their own theories (translate as religious beliefs). To everyone's dismay, this is the case with many things we believe to be fact. Einstein's theories are still just that - theories. Two thousand years from now humanity may learn that they were radically incomplete and our insistence on teaching them as fact prevented us from entering entire fields of knowledge.
==============
As a side note, I think this federal judge - if he actually claimed that the sticker attempted to inject religion into state materials - may have made it easier for this to be appealed. The sticker was written very carefully and makes no mention of religion. Nowhere does it mention the Bible, Christ, Christianity, creation, or anything religious. In fact, if you were to show that sticker to any person who knew nothing about the controversy here and that the opponents of evolution theory are religious, they wouldn't necessarily connect religion. They could suspect a renegade group of scientists. By calling the sticker religious the judge reveals a clear bias and picking of sides rather than an impartial consideration.
Ah, but the court spokesman's quote says "They were making general comments to the people on[sic] line, referring to them as "peasants," which actually fits what the pair describes. I think it was more likely these guys were grandstanding each time a lawyer walked past - making comments about the "kings" and the "peasants" intentionally loud enough to be heard by both.
The fact that they were saying the punch line "in unison" (this by their own admission) makes me suspect they were deliberately telling these jokes to try to create a situation - not to innocently pass the time while waiting in line.
Obviously it was not just a single lawyer who complained - I seriously doubt the court spokesman is lying when he says they were warned several times to stop being disruptive. That just fuels my suspicion that they were being loud and annoying (not just to the "kings" but also to the "peasants").
Finally, one last thing I found of interest - why was the guy five ahead of them in line a lawyer if all the lawyers were kings parading past the peasants. Sounds like these guys don't know court procedure. For example - jurors in ongoing cases are sometimes given badges to be able to enter the courthouse without repeatedly going through security lines.
If you read the article, try to discover what is actually fact. Notice how no uninvolved people were interviewed - we only have the statements of the pair and a court official. Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way. The majority of that article is little better than editorializing - filling in with opinion where facts are lacking.
I think this is why the reviews I like best incorporate both. I definitely want to know how smoothly the control scheme works or the length of load times. However, I also want to know if the game was fun and involving.
I never rely on a single reviewer. When I'm dealing with a new reviewer (one I haven't read before), I try to look at how they rated various games I already own. Do their impressions match mine or are they a complete opposite? What is their bar of excellence? What kinds of games do they seem to prefer? It's just like movie reviews - where we like to know that the special effects were "WOW", but we also want to know the reviewer had a good time and would watch it again.
is the companion robotic creatures. A couple of the dinosaur-like ones set to be aggressive could be funny to watch interact. Wonder how robosapien would control three or four aggressive roboraptors. :)
Actually, I'm about a third of the way into "A Theory of General Relativity" now. I have no semesters of college level mathematics - only through geometry in school and some learning from trig and calculus books on my own time. While containing complex mathematical equations, Einstein is very good about clarifying each step of what he is doing. In fact, based on some of what I've learned about him, his ideas preceded their own mathematical proofs -- he had to work out the math to prove his point not to think of it. If anything, it is the other theories that he refers to which I've had to go learn to understand what he's saying.