Well if they're looking for that, then they should also be testing people by having them play non-violent but still frustrating games, otherwise what are they basing it on?
Also another point, I've thrown many controllers while playing non-violent games, because I have nothing to take it out on. If I get frustrated in a violent game, instead of throwing the controller, I can respawn and throw a grenade at what I am actually frustrated at.
You also have to take into account the land shifting. When you're looking at the large amount of time it's going to take for the water to rise a significant amount, the land it's going to be covering is going to be different. If the land smushes together and becomes higher, we'll have less area to live on, but that less area will last longer, if it flattens out, we'll havbe more land to live on, but we'll be waste deep in water.
Unless you're just concerned with how high the water is rising, I'm guessing you're interested in it covering land.
From the article: [i]The relationship between height and earnings was particularly strong in sales and management but was also present in less social occupations such as engineering, accounting and computer programming, the study found.[/i]
Maybe they had a contest at the local elementary school to design the pictures to put on the stones. I wouldn't put it past humans, did you see the pictures we put on those sun dials being sent to Mars?
"Alright guys, this is how the test goes, you're gonna get in the shuttle, and we're gonna launch, if you die and the shuttle explodes, then that means it didn't work. Hop on board!"
What do you call someone who used to buy things from you, but then stopped buying them from you? Would you call that person a customer? Probably not.
I don't think the RIAA filing law suits on people was a very good idea at all, I'm just pointing out that a lot of people are making very weak points.
Why does everyone think that military research is bad? Sure the atom bomb is a little bit of an overkill, but don't you think we learned a lot from actually splitting the atom? Also, most advances in military weaponry actually decreases casualties. If the government wants to blow up a building, it's going to launch explosives until it's gone, even if it takes out innocent bystanders and unthreatening buildings. So scientists make more accurate missiles, so there is less damage to unintended targets.
You also ignore the point of funding. Scientists can't put their knowledge to true good without money, and who has money? The government. By running through the governments motions their knowledge is put to good use. You can not tell what the scientist's intent is, but you can clearly tell what it is with politicians. I don't see how you can compare their morals.
"Also I have a theory that the stupid drawings actually WERE done by kids. They probably had some contest or something. Remember, Nye is into educating kids and thus probably wanted to involve them at some level."
Ah, wonderful theory Sherlock, now shall we put it to the test by actually reading the fucking article?
Someone needs to tell those kids how shitty of artists they are. I've never even attempted to learn how to draw well, and I could sure as hell come up with better pictures than those.
When you read these don't think "Strength: Acquires and retains information quickly... hm... I can acquire and retain information pretty quick..." or "Weakness: Difficulty accepting the illogical-such as feelings, traditions, or matters to be taken on faith.... hm... yeah, I'm not so great at understanding those." Think in terms of extremes. People tend to self diagnose themselves because they subconcioussly look at words like "quickly" and "difficulty," and then set them equal to their own abilitys, since there really isn't a clear defintion of how quick is "quickly" or how much trouble is "difficulty."
That was in different times. Today the artists are discovered by corporations and those with money, their art is adopted by the rich, and they in turn make money. My point is, the Government does not need to dump money into art, culture starved people with money will. I didn't by any means mean that the artists are always poor, it's just that if it is good, it will be recognized by someone. Did any of the music I listed need Government funding?
The government should put more money towards research, because it benefits society more than the art, which will flourish regardless.
You're missing the point, putting the money into art is a waste, because whether or not we put money into it, art is still going to flourish. History also shows that a lot of our culture springs out of those without money anyways(so really to support art we should be taking money from people =p.
Look at music: The blues and jazz (which directly influenced rock and roll) came from African Americans in poverty, rap came out of the "ghettos," punk rock came out of the English poverty. You could even say country came out of the lone cowboys in the west, but that may be stretching it.
And how often do you hear about starving artists? Repression is good breeding grounds for expression.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if they're looking for that, then they should also be testing people by having them play non-violent but still frustrating games, otherwise what are they basing it on? Also another point, I've thrown many controllers while playing non-violent games, because I have nothing to take it out on. If I get frustrated in a violent game, instead of throwing the controller, I can respawn and throw a grenade at what I am actually frustrated at.
You also have to take into account the land shifting. When you're looking at the large amount of time it's going to take for the water to rise a significant amount, the land it's going to be covering is going to be different. If the land smushes together and becomes higher, we'll have less area to live on, but that less area will last longer, if it flattens out, we'll havbe more land to live on, but we'll be waste deep in water. Unless you're just concerned with how high the water is rising, I'm guessing you're interested in it covering land.
Well at least we've got a few hundred millenia to prepare, and a two hour documentary to know what to expect.
From the article: [i]The relationship between height and earnings was particularly strong in sales and management but was also present in less social occupations such as engineering, accounting and computer programming, the study found.[/i]
and "In Soviet Russia, giant stones arrange YOU" as well as "I for one welcome our ancient Druid overlords."
Maybe they had a contest at the local elementary school to design the pictures to put on the stones. I wouldn't put it past humans, did you see the pictures we put on those sun dials being sent to Mars?
In Soviet Russia, old jokes get sick of YOU!
Don't you mean, in the former Soviet Russia?
I'm sorry, I'm not quite grasping that, can you convert that to VW Bugs of heat for me?
That's not just any wood, it's space wood!
"Alright guys, this is how the test goes, you're gonna get in the shuttle, and we're gonna launch, if you die and the shuttle explodes, then that means it didn't work. Hop on board!"
"Scientists have announced tantalising hints that the Universe is actually relatively small"
Relative to...? Apparently our the Universe pales in comparison to the relatively large the Universes.
What do you call someone who used to buy things from you, but then stopped buying them from you? Would you call that person a customer? Probably not. I don't think the RIAA filing law suits on people was a very good idea at all, I'm just pointing out that a lot of people are making very weak points.
Why does everyone think that military research is bad? Sure the atom bomb is a little bit of an overkill, but don't you think we learned a lot from actually splitting the atom? Also, most advances in military weaponry actually decreases casualties. If the government wants to blow up a building, it's going to launch explosives until it's gone, even if it takes out innocent bystanders and unthreatening buildings. So scientists make more accurate missiles, so there is less damage to unintended targets. You also ignore the point of funding. Scientists can't put their knowledge to true good without money, and who has money? The government. By running through the governments motions their knowledge is put to good use. You can not tell what the scientist's intent is, but you can clearly tell what it is with politicians. I don't see how you can compare their morals.
God forbid you use Mozilla for e-mail (or any other e-mail client) and Opera for browsing.
"Also I have a theory that the stupid drawings actually WERE done by kids. They probably had some contest or something. Remember, Nye is into educating kids and thus probably wanted to involve them at some level." Ah, wonderful theory Sherlock, now shall we put it to the test by actually reading the fucking article?
And had also developed time machines to learn the languages of the future.
Someone needs to tell those kids how shitty of artists they are. I've never even attempted to learn how to draw well, and I could sure as hell come up with better pictures than those.
When you read these don't think "Strength: Acquires and retains information quickly... hm... I can acquire and retain information pretty quick..." or "Weakness: Difficulty accepting the illogical-such as feelings, traditions, or matters to be taken on faith.... hm... yeah, I'm not so great at understanding those." Think in terms of extremes. People tend to self diagnose themselves because they subconcioussly look at words like "quickly" and "difficulty," and then set them equal to their own abilitys, since there really isn't a clear defintion of how quick is "quickly" or how much trouble is "difficulty."
Can anyone clue me in on how they get the finger prints from bodies that were buried from times as far back as the Roman Empire's rule?
Or for the slashdotters after 35 years.
Well if they can find a way to put it on a cell phone the feasibility and efficiency will be ignored.
That was in different times. Today the artists are discovered by corporations and those with money, their art is adopted by the rich, and they in turn make money. My point is, the Government does not need to dump money into art, culture starved people with money will. I didn't by any means mean that the artists are always poor, it's just that if it is good, it will be recognized by someone. Did any of the music I listed need Government funding? The government should put more money towards research, because it benefits society more than the art, which will flourish regardless.
You're missing the point, putting the money into art is a waste, because whether or not we put money into it, art is still going to flourish. History also shows that a lot of our culture springs out of those without money anyways(so really to support art we should be taking money from people =p. Look at music: The blues and jazz (which directly influenced rock and roll) came from African Americans in poverty, rap came out of the "ghettos," punk rock came out of the English poverty. You could even say country came out of the lone cowboys in the west, but that may be stretching it. And how often do you hear about starving artists? Repression is good breeding grounds for expression.
Posted like a true AC, where people who know him can't call him out.