So the real story is that Jell-O is funding universities to study how they can literally move product into the monkey world - whether by advertising or whoring. Devious.
Of course, it does. I know this is a *slightly* different question, but it has already largely been asked a long time ago. Almost a decade ago, researches at Yale were studying monkeys learning to use money. They taught them to use currency to buy fruit and jello. They then discovered that monkeys would use money to buy favors. And not long after that, they discovered that the females would start prostituting themselves to the males, in return for money and then they would use the money to go buy treats for themselves, after the sex.
It would only seem entirely logical that they would, therefore, have similar reactions to sex used in "marketing".
Really? Where are all the headshots and giant personal webspaces full of photographs and cloying "look at me!" for all the journalists in the gaming industry, otherwise? The ONLY people who do this are the slew of people who are "geeks" and "gaming journalists" only as a stepping stone. They don't give a shit about geeks or gaming, except that it's where they were able to find some space to put their words, byline, and a photo or a show they could put their voice or face on.
Here's an example (and I didn't know what was on these people's websites, before I went to visit them to link here - I just picked some names that are well known or that I've come across in other podcasts and venues):
Notice a difference? There seems to be a set of geeks who are geeks. They're in it for the reasons you and I are into geeky stuff. The other people? You'd have a hard time telling (through the AskMen interviews, swimsuit spreads, pages full of headshots, etc) they had anything to do with geek stuff and the minute someone gives them a chance to be on camera or writing in a magazine somewhere that isn't related to geek stuff, you know they're going to be all over it. (Though Chobot supposedly is a "respected journalist", but again, I'd have a hard time taking anyone seriously for whom most of the initial googling just results in self-promotion and swimsuit spreads - male or female).
Jeff Gerstman is one of the biggest names in game journalism/reviewing/etc these days. A big, dopey, average geek. Does geek stuff. Loves geek stuff. Has geek cred. No headshots, no sexy poses, no licking hardware to get ratings. Same for most of the other real geek people out there. But then you have the handful (like that Blair Herter guy who works for G4 and used to work for MTV and used to be on some reality show) who clearly couldn't give two shits about geek anything, except that it's a springboard for him to possibly get some sort of other work later on.
This stuff is even more skeezy than all those people who joined the IT industry a decade ago, not because they give a fuck about it, but because they had to pick *something* and they heard all this hype about "yo, dawg, I know a job you can do that totally pays, dawg". And, as a result, you now have an industry that is still full of a lot of people who treat it like they were shoe salesmen. No particular interest. It pays the bills.
Agreed. Despite what navel-gazing corners of the internet have tried to convince ourselves, the only people who think geeks are cool are geeks. The average person still thinks of "geek" as a derogatory term. Just a few years ago, I referred to myself as "such a geek" for something ridiculous I had done and the goth girl I was seeing at the time looked sympathetically at me and said (in all sincerity) that I wasn't a geek and I shouldn't be so hard on myself. It was like I had slammed my head against the wall repeatedly while saying "I'm such a loser! I'm SUCH a loser!" and she felt compelled to assure me that I was not this terrible thing I was calling myself.
Of course, the number of people who currently self-identify as geeks is large enough that it can still help someone have a career if they ride the wave just the right way and at the right time (and especially if they have breasts - it seems to work for every female who has ever been on G4TV, for example).
What I really love is when someone (typically a female, it seems, but not always) makes a big deal about how they're such a geek or how much they love video games. Some are actual video game "journalists" or "commentators". However, when you visit their twitter or facebook or website, you see that it's plastered with nothing but headshots and photos of themselves. Usually professionally done. Sometimes the photos make up like two thirds of the page. A pathetic attempt to ride "geek" or "videogames" to internet (and eventually television or other medium) stardom. It really kind of irks me, though I guess I just don't give a fuck in the overall scheme. Just really sad.
It happens when people in government have direct relation to or stake in the success of the industries that produce these items and therefore push their purchase by and installation in as many locations as possible.
---------- Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has been criticized for heavily promoting full-body scanners while not always fully disclosing that he is a lobbyist for one of the companies that makes the machines.[115][116] Other full-body scanner lobbyists with Government connections include:[117]
former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank
former assistant administrator for policy at the TSA, Chad Wolf
Kevin Patrick Kelly, "a former top staffer to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee"
Former Senator Al D'Amato ----------
Even if you bought into the bullshit about the scanners being safe (despite little or no testing), doesn't it seem a little obvious that something was up when they wouldn't let TSA employees were those little radiation badges that change color to indicate when you've had too much exposure?
In my view, I'm tired of hearing "child durp durp" and "mother durp durp durp" or "nun durp durp" and "elderly woman durp". Apparently we only care to protect the liberties of people who aren't young and middle aged adult males. Everyone else, it's a shocking catastrophe. And not because of civil liberties, but because we're a bunch of prudes.
I'd rather see media focusing on how this is disgusting, not because it involves going into the undergarments of an elderly person, child, mentally disabled person, veteran, wheelchair bound person, or religious person, but because it's abhorrent that they're treating ANY citizen that way. Period.
Of all the email that ever comes to your inbox on gmail, I think Google is most certain that this one piece of email that you sign up for (I've never used daily deals and as a result have never received an email about it) and is sent from themselves to someone on their own gmail service through their own filters is most certainly legitimate and maybe a priority message by default (you know, since it's time sensitive... regarding a DAILY deal).
Strangely enough, there was a long thread about Aspergers on a gaming forum just last week in which a few people repeatedly refered to it as "Asbergers".
Seriously. If a forum for communication was responsible for the crimes of its users, Rob Malda would be in prison on like 8,000 counts of child molestation.
I'm not saying that there aren't symptoms which can be severe enough together to deserve a diagnosis and some sort of effort to mitigate them for certain people, but all these people saying "well, gosh, I was awkward when I was in high school; now I know why" and therefore diagnosing themselves with Aspergers are just being dumb asses. People are different. Some are weird. Some are awkward. And in high school, pretty much EVERYONE was awkward. Hell, for the rest of life most people are kind of awkward.
There is this sick desire to label everyone who deviates from a specific and fine line of normality as having something wrong with them (treatable, of course!) and for everyone who deviates even slightly from the "norm" to be diagnosed. It's just messed up.
I don't intend my comments to apply to the few people who actually suffer from real and actual severe cases of legitimate Aspergers and have been diagnosed as such. Just the people who sickly cling to things like ADD, Aspergers, seasonal affective disorder, and whatever else they can think of to both differentiate themselves as unique and . . . explain why they have always felt different.
Most people would go to well in prison. I'd probably seriously consider suicide if I was looking at doing time in a place where I had to be the bitch of one prison gang or another just to survive, live in a cell the size of a bathroom stall, and have absolutely no freedom.
Oh - also - MOST people don't like new routines or environments.
I doubt that had anything to do with aspergers. Sounds like the person was just a douche. Everything I've gathered from the barrage of media attention (and slashdot attention) on this over the years has made it pretty clear that Aspergers is to Autism what beige is to pitch-black. People wanting to make it popular often like to suggest that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and many others of their group have Aspergers. They're of sound mind the same way you and I are
Here. Go look at a list of the symptoms (you don't have to hit on them all to be diagnosable). Tell me the a good chunk of the list doesn't apply to at least 80% of the people you know. It's ridiculous.
Listen, you son of a bitch. You're supposed to be SUFFERING from this. We came up with the list of symptoms and added it to the DSM and made doctors and schools aware of it and wrangled the media into it. The least you can do is show that you appreciate this by SUFFERING and wanting to be like everyone else. You ungrateful prick!
Agreed. I don't mean to dismiss Aspergers, because I know that there are some people that it actually applies to and who are actually impacted (to some degree) by symptoms of it. Like the inability to discern certain social and facial/emotional cues. However, since it first became a "thing" a few years ago, 90% of everyone on every geek oriented website has self-diagnosed themselves with it. You can set your clock by it, too. Post anything about it at any time and anywhere and a flock of people claiming that they're "pretty sure they have it" will arise. With such evidence as "I am kind of socially awkward sometimes" and "I get really obsessed with certain things" or "I am super detail oriented". (I've heard very few descriptions of Aspergers as anything other than just being different. Basically, if you weren't Mr. Outgoing, on the glee squad, and interested in football -- you have Aspergers.... of course, if you're outgoing and a social butterfly and interested in sports, you're probably going to be diagnosed as "suffering" from something else).
Aspergers is one of those things put in the DSM so loosely that pretty much anyone could theoretically be diagnosed with it. Sort of the same way most people read a horoscope and say "wow, how do they know me so well?!". What I don't get is the whole appeal of "wanting to have it". Some people seem so eager to claim they have Asperger's that you'd think it gave you a nine inch dick.
In this particular instance, it's actually a bit sickening. The impression I'm given from story after story after never-fucking-ending story about Aspergers is that it has nearly no impact on those that have it (which kind of makes it seem pointless to be a "thing" that has to be "diagnosed", right?). I mean, the people we're always given examples as "probably having Aspergers" are Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg and the like. Wow, what a terrible affliction. So it makes most people extremely intelligent, socially-awkward, wealthy successes . . . and this guy a criminal?
He might as well claim to be suffering from "seasonal affective disorder" (otherwise known to normal people as FUCKING WINTER).
First of all, it is so small that it wouldn't even hit the earth, so the entire analogy is goofy.
If the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere — a fine spectacle, but harmless.
An asteroid would have to be thousands of feet to create a nuclear winter. I'm sure it could be reasonably smaller and still destroy all life on Earth. The one that may have wiped out the dinosaurs was apparently about 42,000 feet. Whatever it was that hit Tunguska is suspected to have been a couple hundred feet. The asteroids expected to pass near earth this century We have one about 1,000 feet coming in 2029 that (if it hit) would be 65,000 times more powerful than the nuke dropped on Hiroshima.
Worrying about something so small as this is just silly and, frankly, anything that won't wipe out an entire city is fairly insignificant, as far as I'm concerned. I'm thinking about the real threats out there that we couldn't give a shit about, because our society is more concerned with having a pothole filled than a disaster averted (or they're all too busy eagerly hoping for Armageddon, so their goofy prophecies can be "fulfilled").
I punched in what numbers I could find on this object and if it were to hit the earth, it would be "barely audible" even within one mile (5dB). The object has to be significantly larger to even form a crater of any kind. All you'll end up with are small fragments that hit all over an area. I suck at math, but I suspect that with as little of the Earth that is actual land mass and then the even smaller percentage of that which is populated, the odds of even one fragment hitting a populated area are extremely small. It's not like a 25ft or 50ft object is going to hit and burst into fragments directly over a metro area. (I mean, possible, sure, but extremely unlikely).
I only really played around with porous and dense objects hitting earth; not a body of water. The couple quick checks I did on it hitting water (depending on depth, of course) show that it would have to hit really close to shore (within a few miles) to have any real impact on the shoreline.
Right, because a golf ball that is about 1/150th the size of a human is exactly like hitting something (say, the Earth) with something that is 1/50,000,000th the size of it. The earth getting hit with a 25 foot object at fast speed is probably less like getting hit in the nuts with a golf ball and more like getting hit in the upper arm by a spec of sand.
It's just a matter of time before they straight out sell skill points or a boost to skill point training speed.
As for the rage over this. Most people may not quite understand the culture of EVE. Though it has extremes in all directions, it has always been a great exception to every other MMO out there. Hell, even every other developer out there. If ever there was a company and an MMO with ambition, dedication, and respect for players, it was EVE. Regardless of what the reality of their changes are or will be, it is very easy to see how any changes toward the dark side can be perceived as a very real and very upsetting backstab. Especially for people who have spent many of the last eight years of EVE playing it, building corporations, building alliances, building communities. Like they began saying awhile ago "EVE IS REAL". And so are the feelings of betrayal and frustration.
It's sad that Slashdot put this story up. What more do they need to make this obviously not a leaked video? If it was "leaked" by someone with a camera phone, how did they get feed from the overhead camera? And how would the guy not see the people in the back with their cameras over their heads recording it? *sigh*
The sad thing is, this isn't a slashvertisement. It's just stupidity.:/
It would seem to me that if it were classified as fair use, then one could use any photograph for any purpose they like, as long as they save it as a 256 or 64 or 32 color GIF. That is, essentially, what is being done in this depiction, visually.
Actually, because wikipedia uses an image of the album cover in representation of that album cover the same way Amazon would use it or a music reviewer would use it. They are not using it to represent a separate item that is for sale.
Sorry, but it is not that pixelated. It has a long way to go before it would be pixelated to the point that it wouldn't be recognized for what it is and at that point, it would not serve the intended point to the person using it as the tribute cover art. It's like saying that "HOPE" version of Obama is different, because "you would never recognize it as the original photo, because the real Obama is not actually red and blue!".
As to an argument for why the photographer has the rights for a fifty year old picture? Well, the argument is pretty simple, probably. The law says so. The image was taken in 1959 and copyright law says he has copyright on it for 95-120 years or his life plus 70 years, whichever comes first.
As to an argument as to how that implementation of copyright law is just, I have no idea. There are reams of debate and justification written over the decision and I don't particularly agree with any of it or current copyright law, but it would seem to me that the photographer is entirely within his rights under the law.
Slashdot Mirror
So the real story is that Jell-O is funding universities to study how they can literally move product into the monkey world - whether by advertising or whoring. Devious.
Does sex sell for monkeys the way it does humans?
Of course, it does. I know this is a *slightly* different question, but it has already largely been asked a long time ago. Almost a decade ago, researches at Yale were studying monkeys learning to use money. They taught them to use currency to buy fruit and jello. They then discovered that monkeys would use money to buy favors. And not long after that, they discovered that the females would start prostituting themselves to the males, in return for money and then they would use the money to go buy treats for themselves, after the sex.
It would only seem entirely logical that they would, therefore, have similar reactions to sex used in "marketing".
Really? Where are all the headshots and giant personal webspaces full of photographs and cloying "look at me!" for all the journalists in the gaming industry, otherwise? The ONLY people who do this are the slew of people who are "geeks" and "gaming journalists" only as a stepping stone. They don't give a shit about geeks or gaming, except that it's where they were able to find some space to put their words, byline, and a photo or a show they could put their voice or face on.
Here's an example (and I didn't know what was on these people's websites, before I went to visit them to link here - I just picked some names that are well known or that I've come across in other podcasts and venues):
Jeff Gerstmann (giantbomb):
http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/
Justin Mcelroy (Joystiq)
http://justinmcelroy.wordpress.com/
Garnett Lee (shacknews)
Couldn't even find an actual personal website.
N'gai Croal (newsweek, now consultant for industry)
Couldn't find an actual personal website.
Jessica Chobot (IGN, etc)
Couldn't find a personal webpage. Just lots of half naked photos, spreads in maxim, etc.
Andrea Renee (Calicanis' stupid TWiT clone network):
http://www.andrearene.com/
Notice a difference? There seems to be a set of geeks who are geeks. They're in it for the reasons you and I are into geeky stuff. The other people? You'd have a hard time telling (through the AskMen interviews, swimsuit spreads, pages full of headshots, etc) they had anything to do with geek stuff and the minute someone gives them a chance to be on camera or writing in a magazine somewhere that isn't related to geek stuff, you know they're going to be all over it. (Though Chobot supposedly is a "respected journalist", but again, I'd have a hard time taking anyone seriously for whom most of the initial googling just results in self-promotion and swimsuit spreads - male or female).
Jeff Gerstman is one of the biggest names in game journalism/reviewing/etc these days. A big, dopey, average geek. Does geek stuff. Loves geek stuff. Has geek cred. No headshots, no sexy poses, no licking hardware to get ratings. Same for most of the other real geek people out there. But then you have the handful (like that Blair Herter guy who works for G4 and used to work for MTV and used to be on some reality show) who clearly couldn't give two shits about geek anything, except that it's a springboard for him to possibly get some sort of other work later on.
This stuff is even more skeezy than all those people who joined the IT industry a decade ago, not because they give a fuck about it, but because they had to pick *something* and they heard all this hype about "yo, dawg, I know a job you can do that totally pays, dawg". And, as a result, you now have an industry that is still full of a lot of people who treat it like they were shoe salesmen. No particular interest. It pays the bills.
Agreed. Despite what navel-gazing corners of the internet have tried to convince ourselves, the only people who think geeks are cool are geeks. The average person still thinks of "geek" as a derogatory term. Just a few years ago, I referred to myself as "such a geek" for something ridiculous I had done and the goth girl I was seeing at the time looked sympathetically at me and said (in all sincerity) that I wasn't a geek and I shouldn't be so hard on myself. It was like I had slammed my head against the wall repeatedly while saying "I'm such a loser! I'm SUCH a loser!" and she felt compelled to assure me that I was not this terrible thing I was calling myself.
Of course, the number of people who currently self-identify as geeks is large enough that it can still help someone have a career if they ride the wave just the right way and at the right time (and especially if they have breasts - it seems to work for every female who has ever been on G4TV, for example).
What I really love is when someone (typically a female, it seems, but not always) makes a big deal about how they're such a geek or how much they love video games. Some are actual video game "journalists" or "commentators". However, when you visit their twitter or facebook or website, you see that it's plastered with nothing but headshots and photos of themselves. Usually professionally done. Sometimes the photos make up like two thirds of the page. A pathetic attempt to ride "geek" or "videogames" to internet (and eventually television or other medium) stardom. It really kind of irks me, though I guess I just don't give a fuck in the overall scheme. Just really sad.
It happens when people in government have direct relation to or stake in the success of the industries that produce these items and therefore push their purchase by and installation in as many locations as possible.
----------
Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has been criticized for heavily promoting full-body scanners while not always fully disclosing that he is a lobbyist for one of the companies that makes the machines.[115][116] Other full-body scanner lobbyists with Government connections include:[117]
former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank
former assistant administrator for policy at the TSA, Chad Wolf
Kevin Patrick Kelly, "a former top staffer to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee"
Former Senator Al D'Amato
----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner#Full-body_scanner_lobbyists
Even if you bought into the bullshit about the scanners being safe (despite little or no testing), doesn't it seem a little obvious that something was up when they wouldn't let TSA employees were those little radiation badges that change color to indicate when you've had too much exposure?
In my view, I'm tired of hearing "child durp durp" and "mother durp durp durp" or "nun durp durp" and "elderly woman durp". Apparently we only care to protect the liberties of people who aren't young and middle aged adult males. Everyone else, it's a shocking catastrophe. And not because of civil liberties, but because we're a bunch of prudes.
I'd rather see media focusing on how this is disgusting, not because it involves going into the undergarments of an elderly person, child, mentally disabled person, veteran, wheelchair bound person, or religious person, but because it's abhorrent that they're treating ANY citizen that way. Period.
Yeah, I don't get the concern.
Of all the email that ever comes to your inbox on gmail, I think Google is most certain that this one piece of email that you sign up for (I've never used daily deals and as a result have never received an email about it) and is sent from themselves to someone on their own gmail service through their own filters is most certainly legitimate and maybe a priority message by default (you know, since it's time sensitive... regarding a DAILY deal).
Strangely enough, there was a long thread about Aspergers on a gaming forum just last week in which a few people repeatedly refered to it as "Asbergers".
Actually, there's not currently any evidence that he did "the crime".
Seriously. If a forum for communication was responsible for the crimes of its users, Rob Malda would be in prison on like 8,000 counts of child molestation.
Being weird isn't a medical condition.
I'm not saying that there aren't symptoms which can be severe enough together to deserve a diagnosis and some sort of effort to mitigate them for certain people, but all these people saying "well, gosh, I was awkward when I was in high school; now I know why" and therefore diagnosing themselves with Aspergers are just being dumb asses. People are different. Some are weird. Some are awkward. And in high school, pretty much EVERYONE was awkward. Hell, for the rest of life most people are kind of awkward.
There is this sick desire to label everyone who deviates from a specific and fine line of normality as having something wrong with them (treatable, of course!) and for everyone who deviates even slightly from the "norm" to be diagnosed. It's just messed up.
I don't intend my comments to apply to the few people who actually suffer from real and actual severe cases of legitimate Aspergers and have been diagnosed as such. Just the people who sickly cling to things like ADD, Aspergers, seasonal affective disorder, and whatever else they can think of to both differentiate themselves as unique and . . . explain why they have always felt different.
What does that have to do with aspergers?
Most people would go to well in prison. I'd probably seriously consider suicide if I was looking at doing time in a place where I had to be the bitch of one prison gang or another just to survive, live in a cell the size of a bathroom stall, and have absolutely no freedom.
Oh - also - MOST people don't like new routines or environments.
I doubt that had anything to do with aspergers. Sounds like the person was just a douche. Everything I've gathered from the barrage of media attention (and slashdot attention) on this over the years has made it pretty clear that Aspergers is to Autism what beige is to pitch-black. People wanting to make it popular often like to suggest that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and many others of their group have Aspergers. They're of sound mind the same way you and I are
Here. Go look at a list of the symptoms (you don't have to hit on them all to be diagnosable). Tell me the a good chunk of the list doesn't apply to at least 80% of the people you know. It's ridiculous.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/tc/aspergers-syndrome-symptoms
Listen, you son of a bitch. You're supposed to be SUFFERING from this. We came up with the list of symptoms and added it to the DSM and made doctors and schools aware of it and wrangled the media into it. The least you can do is show that you appreciate this by SUFFERING and wanting to be like everyone else. You ungrateful prick!
Agreed. I don't mean to dismiss Aspergers, because I know that there are some people that it actually applies to and who are actually impacted (to some degree) by symptoms of it. Like the inability to discern certain social and facial/emotional cues. However, since it first became a "thing" a few years ago, 90% of everyone on every geek oriented website has self-diagnosed themselves with it. You can set your clock by it, too. Post anything about it at any time and anywhere and a flock of people claiming that they're "pretty sure they have it" will arise. With such evidence as "I am kind of socially awkward sometimes" and "I get really obsessed with certain things" or "I am super detail oriented". (I've heard very few descriptions of Aspergers as anything other than just being different. Basically, if you weren't Mr. Outgoing, on the glee squad, and interested in football -- you have Aspergers.... of course, if you're outgoing and a social butterfly and interested in sports, you're probably going to be diagnosed as "suffering" from something else).
Aspergers is one of those things put in the DSM so loosely that pretty much anyone could theoretically be diagnosed with it. Sort of the same way most people read a horoscope and say "wow, how do they know me so well?!". What I don't get is the whole appeal of "wanting to have it". Some people seem so eager to claim they have Asperger's that you'd think it gave you a nine inch dick.
In this particular instance, it's actually a bit sickening. The impression I'm given from story after story after never-fucking-ending story about Aspergers is that it has nearly no impact on those that have it (which kind of makes it seem pointless to be a "thing" that has to be "diagnosed", right?). I mean, the people we're always given examples as "probably having Aspergers" are Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg and the like. Wow, what a terrible affliction. So it makes most people extremely intelligent, socially-awkward, wealthy successes . . . and this guy a criminal?
He might as well claim to be suffering from "seasonal affective disorder" (otherwise known to normal people as FUCKING WINTER).
First of all, it is so small that it wouldn't even hit the earth, so the entire analogy is goofy.
If the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere — a fine spectacle, but harmless.
An asteroid would have to be thousands of feet to create a nuclear winter. I'm sure it could be reasonably smaller and still destroy all life on Earth. The one that may have wiped out the dinosaurs was apparently about 42,000 feet. Whatever it was that hit Tunguska is suspected to have been a couple hundred feet. The asteroids expected to pass near earth this century We have one about 1,000 feet coming in 2029 that (if it hit) would be 65,000 times more powerful than the nuke dropped on Hiroshima.
Worrying about something so small as this is just silly and, frankly, anything that won't wipe out an entire city is fairly insignificant, as far as I'm concerned. I'm thinking about the real threats out there that we couldn't give a shit about, because our society is more concerned with having a pothole filled than a disaster averted (or they're all too busy eagerly hoping for Armageddon, so their goofy prophecies can be "fulfilled").
I punched in what numbers I could find on this object and if it were to hit the earth, it would be "barely audible" even within one mile (5dB). The object has to be significantly larger to even form a crater of any kind. All you'll end up with are small fragments that hit all over an area. I suck at math, but I suspect that with as little of the Earth that is actual land mass and then the even smaller percentage of that which is populated, the odds of even one fragment hitting a populated area are extremely small. It's not like a 25ft or 50ft object is going to hit and burst into fragments directly over a metro area. (I mean, possible, sure, but extremely unlikely).
Here, you can punch in numbers on this and other objects hitting earth, yourself: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/
I only really played around with porous and dense objects hitting earth; not a body of water. The couple quick checks I did on it hitting water (depending on depth, of course) show that it would have to hit really close to shore (within a few miles) to have any real impact on the shoreline.
Right, because a golf ball that is about 1/150th the size of a human is exactly like hitting something (say, the Earth) with something that is 1/50,000,000th the size of it. The earth getting hit with a 25 foot object at fast speed is probably less like getting hit in the nuts with a golf ball and more like getting hit in the upper arm by a spec of sand.
It's just a matter of time before they straight out sell skill points or a boost to skill point training speed.
As for the rage over this. Most people may not quite understand the culture of EVE. Though it has extremes in all directions, it has always been a great exception to every other MMO out there. Hell, even every other developer out there. If ever there was a company and an MMO with ambition, dedication, and respect for players, it was EVE. Regardless of what the reality of their changes are or will be, it is very easy to see how any changes toward the dark side can be perceived as a very real and very upsetting backstab. Especially for people who have spent many of the last eight years of EVE playing it, building corporations, building alliances, building communities. Like they began saying awhile ago "EVE IS REAL". And so are the feelings of betrayal and frustration.
It's sad that Slashdot put this story up. What more do they need to make this obviously not a leaked video? If it was "leaked" by someone with a camera phone, how did they get feed from the overhead camera? And how would the guy not see the people in the back with their cameras over their heads recording it? *sigh*
The sad thing is, this isn't a slashvertisement. It's just stupidity. :/
It would seem to me that if it were classified as fair use, then one could use any photograph for any purpose they like, as long as they save it as a 256 or 64 or 32 color GIF. That is, essentially, what is being done in this depiction, visually.
Actually, because wikipedia uses an image of the album cover in representation of that album cover the same way Amazon would use it or a music reviewer would use it. They are not using it to represent a separate item that is for sale.
Sorry, but it is not that pixelated. It has a long way to go before it would be pixelated to the point that it wouldn't be recognized for what it is and at that point, it would not serve the intended point to the person using it as the tribute cover art. It's like saying that "HOPE" version of Obama is different, because "you would never recognize it as the original photo, because the real Obama is not actually red and blue!".
As to an argument for why the photographer has the rights for a fifty year old picture? Well, the argument is pretty simple, probably. The law says so. The image was taken in 1959 and copyright law says he has copyright on it for 95-120 years or his life plus 70 years, whichever comes first.
As to an argument as to how that implementation of copyright law is just, I have no idea. There are reams of debate and justification written over the decision and I don't particularly agree with any of it or current copyright law, but it would seem to me that the photographer is entirely within his rights under the law.
Yes, and clearly it was an inaccurate statement.
Unless he was offering "should" as an opinion, which is entirely unclear from his or her comment.