Elite was a flight/trade simulator. I love the game myself. It's far from an RPG (IMHO) because the entire time I played it I never really felt the need to conduct myself like the captain of a space cruiser. I felt it was a video game with a bit of meat that made it worth playing for hours at a time. Anyway...
So how is that different from 95% of the CRPGs out there? Although it didn't involve any dialogue, in some ways, Frontier felt more like actual roleplaying that some so-called computer RPGs.
This is the problem with this whole subset of games (RPGs that is); little, if any, require any real roleplaying. I like to play "rpgs", both on the PC and pen and paper, but I never really roleplay.
Although I've seen some pretty good roleplaying in some pen-n-paper RPG sessions, I get the impression that some of the best roleplaying actually takes place in play-by-email RPGs. They're more verbal and a lot less "hanging out with friends and having a laugh".
That said, Placescape: Torment was absolutely brilliant. Best CRPG ever, and possibly the only one deserving of the name "Roleplaying Game".
Most monarchies are de facto democratic, but not de jure such. The UK, for example, runs as a democracy on a day to day basis, but officially the Queen has fairly extensive powers she can exercise as her personal prerogative, which she by custom exercises only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government. Thus the Queen acts as the figurehead carrying out decisions made democratically... but this is entirely a conventional arrangement.
The UK is not "most monarchies". It's very unusual compared to other European monarchies, where the monarch is granted only extremely limited political power by the constitution (if any at all; I bet Sweden isn't the only country where the kind has no official power whatsoever). In Netherland, for example, the queen only has the power to appoint an "informator" or "formator" who's job it is to try to form a new government. But parliament always has the final word. In Belgium, new laws have to be signed by the kind, but their previous king once refused to sign a law, so Belgium became a republic for a day in order to accept that law.
All these monarchs get their power from the coonstitution, and it is only parliament that has the power to change that constitution. Whatever power the monarchs have is extremely limited, and the real power is in the hands of the democratically elected parliament or the government appointed by that parliament.
The UK really is the odd one out among European monarchies, unless you want to look at tiny principalities like Monaco and Liechtenstein, which are not democratic at all, as far as I know.
Actually, gravity, like evolution, is an observed phenomenon. The theory of gravity (or, nowadays, the theory of general relativity) explains that phenomenon, like the theory of evolution explains evolution.
The theory of general relativity explains gravity better than Newton's theory of gravity did, just like the modern theory of evolution explains evolution better than Darwin's theory did. (Although the modern theory of evolution is basically a massive expansion and refined of the old theory, whereas Einstein's general rellativity was a much more revolutionary new theory of gravity.)
No it isn't. It's the definition. It's how every good scientist since Karl Popper (and many from before his time) use the word "theory". It's the basis of science.
Interesting.. Darwin didn't consider his own theory "true science".
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."--*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
You do realise that Darwin lived 150 years ago, do you? A lot has happened since then. A lot of predictions by the theory of evolution have been proven to be true. The mechanism that encodes the inherited traits that Darwin speculated about (DNA) had been discovered. Predictions that weren't true, have lead to refinements of the theory that made more accurate predictions. Many "missing links" aren't missing anymore. In Darwin's time there was plenty of room for doubt, but now, 150 years later, there simply isn't anymore. It's as scientific and well-supported as relativity and quantum mechanics.
Evolution is the biggest scientific con ever foisted on mankind.
Actually, it's one of the best supported scientific theories ever.
I'm NOT talking about natural selection, which makes perfect sense, but evolution; ie beneficial mutation
To say you can randomly mutate something orders of magnitude more complex than an o/s, and add globs of functionality to it over huge expanses of time without increasing functional entropy is absurd.
The ratio of beneficial to non beneficial mutation is hugely in favour of increasing disorder.
But the theory of evolution explains that perfectly. There's not just mutation. Mutation on its own wouldn't help a bit. The thing is that beneficial mutations give its owner an increased chance of survival and reproduction, whereas a harmful mutation decreased that same chance of survival and reproduction. That's what natural selection is. Reproduction spreads those surviving beneficial genes through the population, and after a long period of time, that population will have a slightly different genome than it had thousands of generations before.
Now suppose that those thousands of generations ago, this population got completely seperated from another population that originally belonged to the same species. Because of the seperation, no new mutations surviving in our population make it to the other population, and no new mutation from the other population can end up in our population. This means that the genetic makeup of the other population drifts in a different direction than that of our population, and eventually, the differences will get so big that members of one population won't be able to produce fertile offspring with members of the other population anymore. That's the moment when they are different species.
Thus you would expect biological systems to slowly degrade in the long term, which is exactly what we see. Genetic diseases reducing functionality but not mortality.
Of a single individual, yes. But single individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve, and they get improved functionality until they're as perfectly adapted for their environment as possible. Or when they're competing with annother population that's better adapted for that environment, they die out.
Being a republic is irrelevant to the question if the US is a democracy or not. Many republics are very democratic, others are not. Many monarchies are also democracies. Few are not.
In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word 'evolution' is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to 'emerge,' 'arise,' or 'spread' rather than 'evolve.'
"Evolution" is a big, vague word. It's about big changes through accummulated small changes, selected from genetic diversity caused by mutations, through environmental factors, and spread through reproduction. In the case of this kind of resistance (note that I haven't read TFA, so I could be talking out of my ass here), I get the impression that the resistance is already present, but the non-resistant population gets wiped out and the resiistants thrive because they don't suffer competition from the non-resistants anymore. It's only a small part of evolution.
Ofcourse if scientists explicitly avoid the word "evolution" to avoid controversy, that's just stupid in many different ways. But there are many cases when the word "evolution" is to vague to describe something related to evolution.
If you keep the two articles next to each other, you get a nice comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Pthreads are apparently more elegant and easier to understand, but also more strict, while win32 threads are more lenient when you're not quite sure what's going on. In pthreads, there's only one way to start as new thread, in win32 there's more than one way. Undoubtedly each with its own advantages, but you do have to know the difference. As for persistence of signals, there's apparently two ways to do it, again each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
They both have one major disadvantage, though: They're different from the other, which undoubtedly makes it harder to port some code.
The "European stance" (not applicable in more market-oriented states like Ireland, I suspect) ignores this reality, thus chopping incentives for innovation off at the knees.
I don't know much about Ireland, but is it really that much more market-oriented than the rest of Europe? The entire EU is one big open-market-worshipping cabal. Except for agriculture, for some stupid reason (but I believe the US is exactly the same there).
Your stance will restrict innovation to large, established, conservative companies, and create a disincentive for the entry of small businesses
On the contrary. It's software patents that restrict innovation to established companies, because they hold all the important patents and can afford the legal fees to defend them. Innovation in software is not possible without making use of existing patents, and if software patents are upheld, that means big companies can use their patents to stifle innovation by small companies. Fortunately most software patents aren't being wielded like this at the moment, but that time could come, if we're not careful. Ofcourse when it does, more people will realise how much software patents actually hurt innovation, and vote against such patents. So careless lawsuits for patent infringement could lead the big players to accidentally destroy the legal power of their patents, which just might be happening in this case. Would be cool if it did.
No idea what brand they are. I just get them cheap at the supermarket or ikea. They're nothing special, but I'm veery happy about them. I like them a lot better than the incandescents I had ages ago.
Once your actions effect the lives of others, you are no longer free to act. It is part of the social contract that we all agree to in this society.... I used to be quite libertarian, and think the way you do. Unfortunately, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
Actually, your position looks exactly like what's considered libertarian around here (Netherlands). Do what you like, but as soon as you damage other people's environment, knowingly hurt their health insurance, use up their fossil fuel reserve, etc, you have to pay them for it. Otherwise it's just the right of the most anti-social.
However, I will NEVER put CFLs in my living room (it has halogen tracklights anyway), kitchen, bedroom or bath until they produce one that gives off light that doesn't look like the bleakest day in February in Canada. I want the light to look natural and comfortable. I want to be bathed in the light of the warmest summer day as viewed from a comfortably shaded (but not dark) location. CFLs don't cut it yet. Since this is where the industry is headed though... I hope they will make moves towards creating decent CFLs that won't require filters or other bizarre tricks.
Where do you live, that CFLs are so bad there? I've got almost nothing but CFLs in my home for years now (I've got two halogens that I rarely use because the light can be a bit harsh at times), and they give a very pleasant light. You'd need to hold a gun to my head to make me go back to incandescents.
True AI has been at least 30 years away for the past 50 years. It's an open question as to whether or not we can ever really get there, or if getting there is even desirable.
If you mean Strong AI, then most serious researchers have long abandoned that goal. The past 50 years have mostly taught us how complex intelligence really is, and that we still have no good definition of the concept. And as long as we don't know what intelligence in humans really is, how can we create it in computers?
Instead, most researchers are focusing on small, limited aspects of intelligence, like the ability to interpret sounds (including speech), images (handwriting, or following a road in the rain), playing chess, medical or other diagnosis, translation, etc. Many of those are here already in some form of another. We'll see a lot more of this in the near future. But if you want Daneel Olivaw, I'm afraid you'll need a couple of centuries patience.
We're intelligent beings, we haven't colonized any other planets. So.. we must not exist.
There, I solved the fanciful paradox of bundled assumptions.
That's not how the paradox works. We simply haven't been around for long enough to colonise space. If there are other civilisations out there, chances are that some of them have been around for millions of years. Why haven't they conquered the galaxy yet? Colonising space takes time that we haven't had yet. But if noobody has had that time yet, then why? Are we the first? Did everybody else kill themselves? Did they find something more interesting than colonising space? (YouTube perhaps, as someone else mentioned? MMORPGS?)
Perhaps it is neither luck nor doom. Perhaps a Prime Directive-like philosophy is dominant throughout the galaxy, and everyone else has agreed simply to respect us and leave us alone until WE learn to communicate with THEM (using, say, some simple, immediate form of information exchange via a dimension our crude physics has not yet conceived).
I consider that lucky. It means they have been able to conquer us (or colonise or planet before the first human even evolved), but decided to be nice and leave us alone for whatever reason. And convince any other civilisations to leave us alone as well. On the whole, I consider it unlikely enough to count it as luck.
I think it is possible that nobody uses EM to communicate because EM sucks for communication.
Why SETI hasn't found anything yet is very easy too explain without invoking Fremi's paradox. EM broadcast signals simply don't get very far through interstellar space. We wouldn't be able to detect earth's broadcast signals from even a single lightyear away. SETI is counting on someone beaming powerful focused signals directly at us, which is kinda unlikely if they don't even know we're here. SETI is a shot in the dark, and I'm not at all it hasn't found anything, even if the gallaxy is teeming with alien civilisations.
In other words, it has taken primates some-odd half a million years to evolve into humans capable of inventing devices that can decipher energy waves from space. It has taken the Earth some 200 million years (from early life to humans) to evolve life on this scale. Assuming other planets have roughly the same time scale, we can only assume those planets inside a 200 (give or take a 100) million lightyear radius contains no life.
You're forgetting the age of the earth and the age of the universe. The universe was already over 10 billion years old before earth came into existence. Even if every other earth-like planet really needs at least 4.5 billion years too evolve an advanced civilisation, I still don't see why such a planet couldn't have formed one or two billion years before earth has.
The odds are really simple: if the evolution of intelligent civilisations is likely, then some of those must have a multi-million year headstart on us. Why aren't they here? The possibilities are limited:
Our evolution is sufficiently unlikely that we are one of the first (someone has to be, after all),
It's completely impossible to colonise other solar systems,
Advanced civilisations that are aggressive enough to colonise space are too aggressive to not wipe themselves out before they get there,
Somebody is protecting us/has quarantined us/is keeping us isolated for whatever reason.
Could be there's a few other options, but basically they all boil down to: we're incredibly lucky, or we're doomed.
I can't accept the thinking that a sufficiently advanced race would feel it was neccessary to go out and conquer the galaxy, which pretty much blows this theory out of the water.
It doesn't. All that is required is that a sufficiently advanced race might feel it necessary to conquer the galaxy. If sufficiently advanced civilisations are common enough, at least one of them will. The fact that none of them has conquered us yet, does tell us something about the frequency of advanced civilisations and their willingness to conquer the galaxy.
I agree with this parent post. It's pretty silly to assume that "if spacefaring civilizations exist, they should have colonized the ENTIRE galaxy by now." What about evolution time? Time to develop technology? Time to establish colonies? etc etc etc...
If another civilization was even dramatically ahead of ours with regards to technology, they could have started, what, 10,000 years ago? 20? Think that's enough time to colonize THE ENTIRE GALAXY??? Come on...
Think 20 million years. Or 200. Or billions, even. 10,000 years is not being dramatically ahead, that's being barely older than we are.
Consider the enormous timescale of evolution. Earth has existed for about 4.6 billion years. Compared to that, a few million years is nothing. What if the meteor that killed the dinosaurs had arrived a few million years earlier? Or later? Why did evolution take a billion years to get cells past the prokariotic stage? Could that have happened a few million years faster? Or is that step so unlikely that most planets never make it?
Furthermore, consider the age of the universe. The universe is about 3 times as old as the earth. Why couldn't an earth-like planet have appeared 5 or 6 billion years ago? There are good reasons why such a planet can't have appeared 14 billion years ago, but what about 7? That'd give any civilisation arrising on that planet an immediate 2 billion year headstart on us.
Is that enough to conquer the galaxy? If it isn't, nothing is.
The beauty is, if you solve any NPC problem you solve them all, by definition. So, Mr. Smarty Pants, if your Sudoku solver is good enough to solve any grid in polynomial time, please show the rest of us, as you've just cracked every encryption scheme invented to date.
Even quantum encryption schemes? (The fact that you can't use it yet doesn't mean is hasn't been invented yet.)
"Others falsely accused her of being associated with IBM."
Doesn't sound like the NPOV wikipedia usually requires. This should have been phrased as "Others have accused her of being associated with IBM, but so far this hasn't been proven."
Until quite recently, there was a mirror of Apache's maven repository on playboy.com. We found out because someone on the Apache/Cocoon mailinglist complained that his employer blocked access to a randomly assigned mirror.
we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence.
Innocence shouldn't need to be proven. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.
Also lead to an increase in pedestrian fatalities from being hit by cars, because with people less likely to die in a car crash, they started driving more recklessly, thus more pedestrians getting hit by cars.
Traffic would probably be a lot safer if the airbag in the steering wheel was replaced by a sharp steel spike.
Why is this a low blow? Is there something fundamentally wrong with young girls or their games? Is there something wrong with me if a young girl happens to like the same TV show as I do?
Or is the problem that old men who like this game are now seen as old men who pretend to be young girls?
Slashdot Mirror
So how is that different from 95% of the CRPGs out there? Although it didn't involve any dialogue, in some ways, Frontier felt more like actual roleplaying that some so-called computer RPGs.
Although I've seen some pretty good roleplaying in some pen-n-paper RPG sessions, I get the impression that some of the best roleplaying actually takes place in play-by-email RPGs. They're more verbal and a lot less "hanging out with friends and having a laugh".
That said, Placescape: Torment was absolutely brilliant. Best CRPG ever, and possibly the only one deserving of the name "Roleplaying Game".
The UK is not "most monarchies". It's very unusual compared to other European monarchies, where the monarch is granted only extremely limited political power by the constitution (if any at all; I bet Sweden isn't the only country where the kind has no official power whatsoever). In Netherland, for example, the queen only has the power to appoint an "informator" or "formator" who's job it is to try to form a new government. But parliament always has the final word. In Belgium, new laws have to be signed by the kind, but their previous king once refused to sign a law, so Belgium became a republic for a day in order to accept that law.
All these monarchs get their power from the coonstitution, and it is only parliament that has the power to change that constitution. Whatever power the monarchs have is extremely limited, and the real power is in the hands of the democratically elected parliament or the government appointed by that parliament. The UK really is the odd one out among European monarchies, unless you want to look at tiny principalities like Monaco and Liechtenstein, which are not democratic at all, as far as I know.
Actually, gravity, like evolution, is an observed phenomenon. The theory of gravity (or, nowadays, the theory of general relativity) explains that phenomenon, like the theory of evolution explains evolution.
The theory of general relativity explains gravity better than Newton's theory of gravity did, just like the modern theory of evolution explains evolution better than Darwin's theory did. (Although the modern theory of evolution is basically a massive expansion and refined of the old theory, whereas Einstein's general rellativity was a much more revolutionary new theory of gravity.)
No it isn't. It's the definition. It's how every good scientist since Karl Popper (and many from before his time) use the word "theory". It's the basis of science.
You do realise that Darwin lived 150 years ago, do you? A lot has happened since then. A lot of predictions by the theory of evolution have been proven to be true. The mechanism that encodes the inherited traits that Darwin speculated about (DNA) had been discovered. Predictions that weren't true, have lead to refinements of the theory that made more accurate predictions. Many "missing links" aren't missing anymore. In Darwin's time there was plenty of room for doubt, but now, 150 years later, there simply isn't anymore. It's as scientific and well-supported as relativity and quantum mechanics.
Actually, it's one of the best supported scientific theories ever.
But the theory of evolution explains that perfectly. There's not just mutation. Mutation on its own wouldn't help a bit. The thing is that beneficial mutations give its owner an increased chance of survival and reproduction, whereas a harmful mutation decreased that same chance of survival and reproduction. That's what natural selection is. Reproduction spreads those surviving beneficial genes through the population, and after a long period of time, that population will have a slightly different genome than it had thousands of generations before.
Now suppose that those thousands of generations ago, this population got completely seperated from another population that originally belonged to the same species. Because of the seperation, no new mutations surviving in our population make it to the other population, and no new mutation from the other population can end up in our population. This means that the genetic makeup of the other population drifts in a different direction than that of our population, and eventually, the differences will get so big that members of one population won't be able to produce fertile offspring with members of the other population anymore. That's the moment when they are different species.
Of a single individual, yes. But single individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve, and they get improved functionality until they're as perfectly adapted for their environment as possible. Or when they're competing with annother population that's better adapted for that environment, they die out.
Being a republic is irrelevant to the question if the US is a democracy or not. Many republics are very democratic, others are not. Many monarchies are also democracies. Few are not.
"Evolution" is a big, vague word. It's about big changes through accummulated small changes, selected from genetic diversity caused by mutations, through environmental factors, and spread through reproduction. In the case of this kind of resistance (note that I haven't read TFA, so I could be talking out of my ass here), I get the impression that the resistance is already present, but the non-resistant population gets wiped out and the resiistants thrive because they don't suffer competition from the non-resistants anymore. It's only a small part of evolution.
Ofcourse if scientists explicitly avoid the word "evolution" to avoid controversy, that's just stupid in many different ways. But there are many cases when the word "evolution" is to vague to describe something related to evolution.
If you keep the two articles next to each other, you get a nice comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Pthreads are apparently more elegant and easier to understand, but also more strict, while win32 threads are more lenient when you're not quite sure what's going on. In pthreads, there's only one way to start as new thread, in win32 there's more than one way. Undoubtedly each with its own advantages, but you do have to know the difference. As for persistence of signals, there's apparently two ways to do it, again each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
They both have one major disadvantage, though: They're different from the other, which undoubtedly makes it harder to port some code.
I don't know much about Ireland, but is it really that much more market-oriented than the rest of Europe? The entire EU is one big open-market-worshipping cabal. Except for agriculture, for some stupid reason (but I believe the US is exactly the same there).
On the contrary. It's software patents that restrict innovation to established companies, because they hold all the important patents and can afford the legal fees to defend them. Innovation in software is not possible without making use of existing patents, and if software patents are upheld, that means big companies can use their patents to stifle innovation by small companies. Fortunately most software patents aren't being wielded like this at the moment, but that time could come, if we're not careful. Ofcourse when it does, more people will realise how much software patents actually hurt innovation, and vote against such patents. So careless lawsuits for patent infringement could lead the big players to accidentally destroy the legal power of their patents, which just might be happening in this case. Would be cool if it did.
No idea what brand they are. I just get them cheap at the supermarket or ikea. They're nothing special, but I'm veery happy about them. I like them a lot better than the incandescents I had ages ago.
Actually, your position looks exactly like what's considered libertarian around here (Netherlands). Do what you like, but as soon as you damage other people's environment, knowingly hurt their health insurance, use up their fossil fuel reserve, etc, you have to pay them for it. Otherwise it's just the right of the most anti-social.
Where do you live, that CFLs are so bad there? I've got almost nothing but CFLs in my home for years now (I've got two halogens that I rarely use because the light can be a bit harsh at times), and they give a very pleasant light. You'd need to hold a gun to my head to make me go back to incandescents.
If you mean Strong AI, then most serious researchers have long abandoned that goal. The past 50 years have mostly taught us how complex intelligence really is, and that we still have no good definition of the concept. And as long as we don't know what intelligence in humans really is, how can we create it in computers?
Instead, most researchers are focusing on small, limited aspects of intelligence, like the ability to interpret sounds (including speech), images (handwriting, or following a road in the rain), playing chess, medical or other diagnosis, translation, etc. Many of those are here already in some form of another. We'll see a lot more of this in the near future. But if you want Daneel Olivaw, I'm afraid you'll need a couple of centuries patience.
That's not how the paradox works. We simply haven't been around for long enough to colonise space. If there are other civilisations out there, chances are that some of them have been around for millions of years. Why haven't they conquered the galaxy yet? Colonising space takes time that we haven't had yet. But if noobody has had that time yet, then why? Are we the first? Did everybody else kill themselves? Did they find something more interesting than colonising space? (YouTube perhaps, as someone else mentioned? MMORPGS?)
I consider that lucky. It means they have been able to conquer us (or colonise or planet before the first human even evolved), but decided to be nice and leave us alone for whatever reason. And convince any other civilisations to leave us alone as well. On the whole, I consider it unlikely enough to count it as luck.
Why SETI hasn't found anything yet is very easy too explain without invoking Fremi's paradox. EM broadcast signals simply don't get very far through interstellar space. We wouldn't be able to detect earth's broadcast signals from even a single lightyear away. SETI is counting on someone beaming powerful focused signals directly at us, which is kinda unlikely if they don't even know we're here. SETI is a shot in the dark, and I'm not at all it hasn't found anything, even if the gallaxy is teeming with alien civilisations.
You're forgetting the age of the earth and the age of the universe. The universe was already over 10 billion years old before earth came into existence. Even if every other earth-like planet really needs at least 4.5 billion years too evolve an advanced civilisation, I still don't see why such a planet couldn't have formed one or two billion years before earth has.
The odds are really simple: if the evolution of intelligent civilisations is likely, then some of those must have a multi-million year headstart on us. Why aren't they here? The possibilities are limited:
Could be there's a few other options, but basically they all boil down to: we're incredibly lucky, or we're doomed.
It doesn't. All that is required is that a sufficiently advanced race might feel it necessary to conquer the galaxy. If sufficiently advanced civilisations are common enough, at least one of them will. The fact that none of them has conquered us yet, does tell us something about the frequency of advanced civilisations and their willingness to conquer the galaxy.
Think 20 million years. Or 200. Or billions, even. 10,000 years is not being dramatically ahead, that's being barely older than we are.
Consider the enormous timescale of evolution. Earth has existed for about 4.6 billion years. Compared to that, a few million years is nothing. What if the meteor that killed the dinosaurs had arrived a few million years earlier? Or later? Why did evolution take a billion years to get cells past the prokariotic stage? Could that have happened a few million years faster? Or is that step so unlikely that most planets never make it?
Furthermore, consider the age of the universe. The universe is about 3 times as old as the earth. Why couldn't an earth-like planet have appeared 5 or 6 billion years ago? There are good reasons why such a planet can't have appeared 14 billion years ago, but what about 7? That'd give any civilisation arrising on that planet an immediate 2 billion year headstart on us.
Is that enough to conquer the galaxy? If it isn't, nothing is.
Even quantum encryption schemes? (The fact that you can't use it yet doesn't mean is hasn't been invented yet.)
From het wikipedia entry:
Doesn't sound like the NPOV wikipedia usually requires. This should have been phrased as "Others have accused her of being associated with IBM, but so far this hasn't been proven."
Until quite recently, there was a mirror of Apache's maven repository on playboy.com. We found out because someone on the Apache/Cocoon mailinglist complained that his employer blocked access to a randomly assigned mirror.
Innocence shouldn't need to be proven. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.
Traffic would probably be a lot safer if the airbag in the steering wheel was replaced by a sharp steel spike.
Why is this a low blow? Is there something fundamentally wrong with young girls or their games? Is there something wrong with me if a young girl happens to like the same TV show as I do?
Or is the problem that old men who like this game are now seen as old men who pretend to be young girls?