Yes, you'd think that most people are smart enough to not do stuff where they could end up in jail, but about 1% of the population of the USA _is_ currently in jail. You'd think that most people are sane enough, but 0.4 to 0.6 of the population are schizophrenic. You'd think that most people are nice enough to their fellow human, but about 1 in 30 qualifies as sociopath, and 1 in 100 as outright complete psychopath.
Your argument is based on false assumptions. First of all, you say 1% of citizens (residents) are in jail as if that somehow disqualifies "most". You then go on to give more of these minimals and expect us to be afraid of 1% as if it's 99%. Sounds to me like you're one of the 1% of people who are paranoid of everything.
Secondly, 1% of the population might be in jail, or have been in jail, but the number of companies that later employ those who are likely to commit fraud and gives them access to that information are few and far between. Also, those who are in jail don't generally have access to that kind of information, and there are a lot of people who come out of jail unwilling to recommit. They are not a statistically insignificant number. 1%? that's statistically insignificant.
I know what you're thinking already, too! "Just wait 'til you have your identity/credit card number stolen!" Ya know what? I work in an industry where credit cards are used for two-thirds of all transactions every day. Last year, one location processed $3million in sales. At an average of about $60 per transaction, that's a little over 30 000 transactions. At one location. Last year, there was only one case where one of those transactions was from a stolen credit card number. Yeah, I think paranoia is very much excessive and unneccessary.
Speculatively, I would assume that he thought he would try to lead his family to a life of hiding that he would be happy with, but didn't stop to think if anyone else would be happy with it. He may have gotten into an argument with his wife about whether he did the wrong thing and things went downhill from there.
What I'm trying to say is that he probably didn't escape with the intent of murdering his family. That was probably something he didn't plan.
I'm sad that I'm so late to this discussion that this comment will be a long ways down the list and no one will likely see it. I don't get how so many people could misunderstand cause-and-effect.:(
The Starcraft FPS was Starcraft: Ghost which got dumped and rebuilt three times. Now, it's on indefinite hiatus. And I cry myself to sleep at night knowing this unfortunate truth.;_;
I'm reading the Wikipedia article on the GPLv3 Criticism. It has this to say:
"Whilst the GPL does allow commercial distribution of GPL software, the market price will settle near the price of distribution--near zero--since the purchasers may redistribute the software and its source code for their cost of redistribution. This could be seen to inhibit commercial use of GPL'ed code by others wishing to use that code for proprietary purposes--if they don't wish to avail themselves of GPL'ed code, they will have to re-implement it themselves."
This quote would seem to indicate that the writer of the article is right and understands the actual legal requirements of the GPL.
I disagree. I think this "maroon" isn't really telling people that "Open Source under GPLv3 is Bad" so much as he is telling people "Open Source doesn't mean what you think it means."
This is very evident in his opening paragraph: "Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it."
This is a "heads-up" to let people know that they need to be more careful with how they use other peoples' work. The GPLv3 doesn't change the fact that they should have been more careful before, but it does make abuse more risky. I think this is what Mr. Walsh is trying to point out.
I noticed the article mentioned the Earth's internal turbulence. Would the way the Sun's and Moon's gravitational pull deform the earth's geometry be a partial cause of turbulence within the earth's molten core?
If no, why not?
If yes, is this experiment accounting for something like that?
Would something like this even have an effect on the magnetic field?
Civilian casualties can be pretty bad with computer attacks. Given how much laymen trust their computers so much that phishing and keyloggers are such a threat, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people are keeping a lot of important information on their computers. If a military attack somehow permanently damaged the wrong computer, whether by accident or deliberate action, a person might lose a lot of financial information, business information, money-earning projects and what-have-you. No person will suffer a direct, physical attack, but the repercussions could still ruin a life's work.
Obviously, the counter-argument is "always back up your data" or "don't rely on computers so much" to which the follow-up is "if they didn't back it up, they got what they deserved." However, the same argument could be made of real-life incidents: "Never associate with [terrorists|the enemy]" and "if they didn't leave that town, they deserved to be bombed with the [terrorists|enemy]". Would that be an acceptable excuse? I don't think so.
Speaking as one who works in sales, businesses never stop at just raising awareness. Non-profit groups, charities, and public groups might, and maybe even some for-profit small-businesses, but not the run-of-the-mill for-profit businesses. Any chance they get to embellish the worth of their products, they take.
In short, what you suggest happens too rarely to really be considered a valid exception.
A car manufacturer doesn't just note how many airbags a car has, it alludes to being unsafe with fewer.
From their article,
World of Warcraft's Subscriber Definition World of Warcraft subscribers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or have an active prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the game and are within their free month of access. Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last thirty days are also counted as subscribers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules.
I concur with this guy. I've been using a Wii (built-in WiFi), two laptops, and the Xbox360 within five feet of eachother for about two months, now, and we've been relatively free of problems. There is a new issue with one of the laptops losing it's wireless connectivity, but the Xbox360 has been around far longer than the problem, so I'd be very wary of trying to make that association.
You know, this argument is often perported but really holds little credibility.
Sure, it's a game, and sure the rewards appear to be entirely virtual and owned by Blizzard. However, this is not completely the case. While it is just a game, millions of people are putting a lot of effort into it. The rewards they reap aren't just items, reputation, and experience. They are also getting personal satisfaction and developing relationships with distant friends and guildies. The amount of effort put into this game by an average player still deserves respect. When their efforts result in nothing, it would be akin to working at a real job and your employer suddenly saying they won't pay you for your last 6 or 8 hours of work. I'd rather be kicked in the jimmy. >_> <_<
To think about the argument from the other side of the street, what would you say if your job decided to heap three times your normal workload on you and not give you any extra compensation? It's only a job, right? You only do it for 8.. 10... maybe even 12 hours a day, and in the end you still get paid, right? You've still got the rest of the day to do what you need to or want to. Why should you be upset? (Before you start answering with reasons to be upset, realize that this specific argument is designed to be fallacy.)
Inevitably, someone will argue that a job gives real rewards (money) as opposed to programming code that is technically not owned by the player, but I would argue we need personal satisfaction and relationships at least as much as we need money or we stop being human.
But when many points in our religions conflict with that which science has factually proven, are you going to deny the facts?
Perhaps you could name the specific points and explain just how these specific points contradict observations? Evolution vs Creationism is the first one you probably thought of, but as many would be quick to point out, we weren't there. We don't know what happened. Evolution is merely our best guess. Evolution doesn't rule out God. Even if evolution is absolutely correct it still doesn't rule out God. It differs somewhat from a literal interpretation of the christian bible, but if the story of creation in their bible were taken less literally, it very easily could match up.
You state that Religion speaks to purpose and value and meaning. That implies that there has to be a meaning. We are looking from our perspective for a meaning in our life and find it VERY hard to see how selfish and potentially that is. The universe is a huge place and why do we think that we rank high enough to have a meaning for our lives within respect to this universe? What if there IS no meaning given to us and our individual existence? What if the meaning of our lives is dictated by what we accomplish while here and who we positively affect?
What if our meaning is that which we, ourselves create?
Any meaning created by a human has, by default, no greater authority or validity than any other meaning created by any other human. Why? Because human authority is meaningless if anyone is unwilling to follow. If you would differ from this, then I declare that I have the authority to require that all computers are illegal and must immediately be destroyed. Essentially, that view requires that everything we do for ourselves is without a meaning other than self-gratification.
Several religious folks have stated the point of TRUTH today to me in their writings. I have commonly rebutted by stating "There are many religions in this world, each with their own TRUTHs. I propose that at least one of them is wrong." What is there is no absolute TRUTH? What if we make our own meaning as we go throughout this world. To me, that is truly challenging, difficult and rewarding.
To this, I responded elsewhere, but I shall do so, again. The quoted statement is entirely illogical. You require that, just because one, or many, are incorrect, they all are. What if only one was absolutely correct? You will never know because you refuse to examine any of the various religions for accuracy according to their real doctrine and assume they are incorrect merely from what you remember of them.
I know this is severe but it strikes me that if you must look to religion for meaning, then maybe you need to accomplish more in your life. I sure as hell feel like I need to and I'm trying to learn the patience to do just that.
I'm sure this will throw you off, but I agree with this, mostly. If one's only meaning comes from being part of a religion, their meaning is futile. It accomplishes nothing. In Christianity, which I specifically chose as a focus earlier, a person who merely believes gains nothing. Jesus claimed he would say to them, "I never knew you." In Christianity, at least, according to the writings of James, in specific, it is precisely because they believe, and because they obey, and because of what they do for others that they gain anything at all from God.
Do you think we are so important that we transcend life itself? Reality is much harsher than most expect. If this is all there is, then we'd ought to make more of an effort to accomplish while we are here. And this is the point where I proceed to accomplish procuring some smoked salmon.
Mmm Salmon. Salmon of Doubt?
I'm sorry. That was off topic. The statement quoted is entirely correct, though of limited scope, even taken in the context of Christianity. The question preceding the statement is entirely fair, and agre
I claim your statement about religion being a panacea is flame-bait and/or ignorant because you did not specify any specific religion, but appeared to claim that all religion, without exception, was a drug to ease the mind without qualifying the statement.
There are a lot of religions that teach very different things; I cannot deny this. Perhaps before claiming they are all wrong without extensive knowledge of what they teach, it might be more constructive to find out what each teaches - in-depth rather than generally - and measure its accuracy against our observastions about the world and it's accuracy compared to other, similar religions.
Yes and I'm scared that we're approaching a Christian induced period of "believe in what makes you feel good" instead of "believe in what is correct, true and accurate."
This is, actually, not a christian-induced belief. Christianity states that believing in what makes you feel good because it makes you feel good is hedonism and denounced. Christianity teaches that God gave them what they should believe in, and if they believe in something contradictory, they will be lost. In Leviticus, I believe, the priesthood of God is detailed for the Jews. It was specified that the High Priest was to burn incense for God. If "believe what makes you feel good" were God-given, the sons of the High Priest, who tried to burn incense but were not authorized to do so, would not have been burned to death in punishment for disobedience.
The parent appears to suffer from a lack of knowledge of what Christianity really dictates and is really decrying post-modernism, essentially, the belief that truth is relative. This is where "believe what makes you feel good" comes from.
Religion is a panacea for those of small minds who are to lazy to learn how the world really works and feel comfortable with small and easy answers - even if they are false.
This is ignorant at best and flame-bait at worst. It seems to me that small minds are the ones that believe they are the only right ones. True, many Christians fall into that description, but so do many outside of Christianity. I'd say the percentages are probably equal.
I agree with this, at least in part. Usage of "Planet" has become basically meaningless. Sure, it is useful for differentiating bodies that orbit the Sun, but the debate around the definition is evidence that it is too constrictive. I would rather call them "Solar Orbital Bodies" (although, in afterthought, it might be wise to use a term that has an abbreviation less offensive than "SOB").
We could define "Small Orbital Bodies" and "Large Orbital Bodies" while still utilizing other terms, such as "brown dwarf" and "gas giant" which are both based on other qualities of the orbital bodies. Even "Comet" and "Meteor" could remain in usage because, as I am under the impression of, those are defined by the make-up of the body.
While using the terms "Small" and "Large" to define size, it would be simple to arbitrate points within the ranges because every size fits into a given range.
Understanding that I'm not an astronomer, my assumption is that, for some reason, I will be proven wrong. I might appreciate if someone could tell me what I am wrong about. ^_^
What if it was driven by self-interest yet still factual? Since when does a study driven by self-interest necessarily preclude fact? Sure, it may be more likely to be wrong, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
It seems to me that it's lines like the last one from the article that generate unhealthy hype. I'm sure a lot of people would be happy with the game whether it had multiplayer or no, but if everyone gets this bad idea that multiplayer is the only thing that will save the game, then it's failure is certain.
I agree. The worst thing that could happen to this movie would be like making a Doom movie without Mars and hell-spawned Demons. I'm not looking forward to Doom, but I want to look forward to this.
It's like a popularity contest, really. People post articles about things they care about, and if a lot of people also like the topic, the topic keeps coming up.
This is just a long way of saying "World of Warcraft gets news articles because more people care about it, and it matters to more people than those other games."
Linking D&D to murder has been proven invalid numerous times, especially back when many still believed it lead to devil-worship and living sacrifices. I don't think anyone will take it seriously, anymore, except for the most dedicated of anti-gaming bigots.
I wonder if the guy who was quoted was being facesious. When I read his quote with sarcasm in mind, it amuses me to think that the media might have, once again, quoted someone out of context to generate hype.
I seem to recall someone making this claim about MP3s, stating that with broadband and higher bandwidths, it would be more efficient to send the uncompressed.wav files and keep the (near-)perfect sound instead of using compression and sacrificing realism and clarity.
Well, if blogging is similar to publishing articles, and you leave derogatory messages about work in such a blog on the internet for anyone to see, then if your boss sees it, you effectively gave him a flyer telling him he sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you'd think that most people are smart enough to not do stuff where they could end up in jail, but about 1% of the population of the USA _is_ currently in jail. You'd think that most people are sane enough, but 0.4 to 0.6 of the population are schizophrenic. You'd think that most people are nice enough to their fellow human, but about 1 in 30 qualifies as sociopath, and 1 in 100 as outright complete psychopath.
Your argument is based on false assumptions. First of all, you say 1% of citizens (residents) are in jail as if that somehow disqualifies "most". You then go on to give more of these minimals and expect us to be afraid of 1% as if it's 99%. Sounds to me like you're one of the 1% of people who are paranoid of everything.
Secondly, 1% of the population might be in jail, or have been in jail, but the number of companies that later employ those who are likely to commit fraud and gives them access to that information are few and far between. Also, those who are in jail don't generally have access to that kind of information, and there are a lot of people who come out of jail unwilling to recommit. They are not a statistically insignificant number. 1%? that's statistically insignificant.
I know what you're thinking already, too! "Just wait 'til you have your identity/credit card number stolen!" Ya know what? I work in an industry where credit cards are used for two-thirds of all transactions every day. Last year, one location processed $3million in sales. At an average of about $60 per transaction, that's a little over 30 000 transactions. At one location. Last year, there was only one case where one of those transactions was from a stolen credit card number. Yeah, I think paranoia is very much excessive and unneccessary.
Speculatively, I would assume that he thought he would try to lead his family to a life of hiding that he would be happy with, but didn't stop to think if anyone else would be happy with it. He may have gotten into an argument with his wife about whether he did the wrong thing and things went downhill from there.
What I'm trying to say is that he probably didn't escape with the intent of murdering his family. That was probably something he didn't plan.
I'm sad that I'm so late to this discussion that this comment will be a long ways down the list and no one will likely see it. I don't get how so many people could misunderstand cause-and-effect. :(
The Starcraft FPS was Starcraft: Ghost which got dumped and rebuilt three times. Now, it's on indefinite hiatus. And I cry myself to sleep at night knowing this unfortunate truth. ;_;
I'm reading the Wikipedia article on the GPLv3 Criticism. It has this to say:
"Whilst the GPL does allow commercial distribution of GPL software, the market price will settle near the price of distribution--near zero--since the purchasers may redistribute the software and its source code for their cost of redistribution. This could be seen to inhibit commercial use of GPL'ed code by others wishing to use that code for proprietary purposes--if they don't wish to avail themselves of GPL'ed code, they will have to re-implement it themselves."
This quote would seem to indicate that the writer of the article is right and understands the actual legal requirements of the GPL.
How is Mr. Walsh wrong, exactly?
I disagree. I think this "maroon" isn't really telling people that "Open Source under GPLv3 is Bad" so much as he is telling people "Open Source doesn't mean what you think it means."
This is very evident in his opening paragraph: "Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it."
This is a "heads-up" to let people know that they need to be more careful with how they use other peoples' work. The GPLv3 doesn't change the fact that they should have been more careful before, but it does make abuse more risky. I think this is what Mr. Walsh is trying to point out.
I noticed the article mentioned the Earth's internal turbulence. Would the way the Sun's and Moon's gravitational pull deform the earth's geometry be a partial cause of turbulence within the earth's molten core?
If no, why not?
If yes, is this experiment accounting for something like that?
Would something like this even have an effect on the magnetic field?
Civilian casualties can be pretty bad with computer attacks. Given how much laymen trust their computers so much that phishing and keyloggers are such a threat, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people are keeping a lot of important information on their computers. If a military attack somehow permanently damaged the wrong computer, whether by accident or deliberate action, a person might lose a lot of financial information, business information, money-earning projects and what-have-you. No person will suffer a direct, physical attack, but the repercussions could still ruin a life's work.
Obviously, the counter-argument is "always back up your data" or "don't rely on computers so much" to which the follow-up is "if they didn't back it up, they got what they deserved." However, the same argument could be made of real-life incidents: "Never associate with [terrorists|the enemy]" and "if they didn't leave that town, they deserved to be bombed with the [terrorists|enemy]". Would that be an acceptable excuse? I don't think so.
Speaking as one who works in sales, businesses never stop at just raising awareness. Non-profit groups, charities, and public groups might, and maybe even some for-profit small-businesses, but not the run-of-the-mill for-profit businesses. Any chance they get to embellish the worth of their products, they take.
In short, what you suggest happens too rarely to really be considered a valid exception.
A car manufacturer doesn't just note how many airbags a car has, it alludes to being unsafe with fewer.
I don't get it. Patcpong seemed to have a genuine question. Mantaar seemed to give a genuine answer. I don't see Creationist claims in there at all.
World of Warcraft subscribers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or have an active prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the game and are within their free month of access. Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last thirty days are also counted as subscribers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules.
I concur with this guy. I've been using a Wii (built-in WiFi), two laptops, and the Xbox360 within five feet of eachother for about two months, now, and we've been relatively free of problems. There is a new issue with one of the laptops losing it's wireless connectivity, but the Xbox360 has been around far longer than the problem, so I'd be very wary of trying to make that association.
You know, this argument is often perported but really holds little credibility.
Sure, it's a game, and sure the rewards appear to be entirely virtual and owned by Blizzard. However, this is not completely the case. While it is just a game, millions of people are putting a lot of effort into it. The rewards they reap aren't just items, reputation, and experience. They are also getting personal satisfaction and developing relationships with distant friends and guildies. The amount of effort put into this game by an average player still deserves respect. When their efforts result in nothing, it would be akin to working at a real job and your employer suddenly saying they won't pay you for your last 6 or 8 hours of work. I'd rather be kicked in the jimmy. >_> <_<
To think about the argument from the other side of the street, what would you say if your job decided to heap three times your normal workload on you and not give you any extra compensation? It's only a job, right? You only do it for 8.. 10... maybe even 12 hours a day, and in the end you still get paid, right? You've still got the rest of the day to do what you need to or want to. Why should you be upset? (Before you start answering with reasons to be upset, realize that this specific argument is designed to be fallacy.)
Inevitably, someone will argue that a job gives real rewards (money) as opposed to programming code that is technically not owned by the player, but I would argue we need personal satisfaction and relationships at least as much as we need money or we stop being human.
Forgive me, for I noticed something else quantum physics demands, or, rather, something quantum physics "can't" allow.
Maybe I'm just too cynical. I really can't say.
Forgive me, for I am replying, again, to you.
But when many points in our religions conflict with that which science has factually proven, are you going to deny the facts?
Perhaps you could name the specific points and explain just how these specific points contradict observations? Evolution vs Creationism is the first one you probably thought of, but as many would be quick to point out, we weren't there. We don't know what happened. Evolution is merely our best guess. Evolution doesn't rule out God. Even if evolution is absolutely correct it still doesn't rule out God. It differs somewhat from a literal interpretation of the christian bible, but if the story of creation in their bible were taken less literally, it very easily could match up.
You state that Religion speaks to purpose and value and meaning. That implies that there has to be a meaning. We are looking from our perspective for a meaning in our life and find it VERY hard to see how selfish and potentially that is. The universe is a huge place and why do we think that we rank high enough to have a meaning for our lives within respect to this universe? What if there IS no meaning given to us and our individual existence? What if the meaning of our lives is dictated by what we accomplish while here and who we positively affect?
What if our meaning is that which we, ourselves create?
Any meaning created by a human has, by default, no greater authority or validity than any other meaning created by any other human. Why? Because human authority is meaningless if anyone is unwilling to follow. If you would differ from this, then I declare that I have the authority to require that all computers are illegal and must immediately be destroyed. Essentially, that view requires that everything we do for ourselves is without a meaning other than self-gratification.
Several religious folks have stated the point of TRUTH today to me in their writings. I have commonly rebutted by stating "There are many religions in this world, each with their own TRUTHs. I propose that at least one of them is wrong." What is there is no absolute TRUTH? What if we make our own meaning as we go throughout this world. To me, that is truly challenging, difficult and rewarding.
To this, I responded elsewhere, but I shall do so, again. The quoted statement is entirely illogical. You require that, just because one, or many, are incorrect, they all are. What if only one was absolutely correct? You will never know because you refuse to examine any of the various religions for accuracy according to their real doctrine and assume they are incorrect merely from what you remember of them.
I know this is severe but it strikes me that if you must look to religion for meaning, then maybe you need to accomplish more in your life. I sure as hell feel like I need to and I'm trying to learn the patience to do just that.
I'm sure this will throw you off, but I agree with this, mostly. If one's only meaning comes from being part of a religion, their meaning is futile. It accomplishes nothing. In Christianity, which I specifically chose as a focus earlier, a person who merely believes gains nothing. Jesus claimed he would say to them, "I never knew you." In Christianity, at least, according to the writings of James, in specific, it is precisely because they believe, and because they obey, and because of what they do for others that they gain anything at all from God.
Do you think we are so important that we transcend life itself? Reality is much harsher than most expect. If this is all there is, then we'd ought to make more of an effort to accomplish while we are here. And this is the point where I proceed to accomplish procuring some smoked salmon.
Mmm Salmon. Salmon of Doubt?
I'm sorry. That was off topic. The statement quoted is entirely correct, though of limited scope, even taken in the context of Christianity. The question preceding the statement is entirely fair, and agre
I claim your statement about religion being a panacea is flame-bait and/or ignorant because you did not specify any specific religion, but appeared to claim that all religion, without exception, was a drug to ease the mind without qualifying the statement.
There are a lot of religions that teach very different things; I cannot deny this. Perhaps before claiming they are all wrong without extensive knowledge of what they teach, it might be more constructive to find out what each teaches - in-depth rather than generally - and measure its accuracy against our observastions about the world and it's accuracy compared to other, similar religions.
Yes and I'm scared that we're approaching a Christian induced period of "believe in what makes you feel good" instead of "believe in what is correct, true and accurate."
This is, actually, not a christian-induced belief. Christianity states that believing in what makes you feel good because it makes you feel good is hedonism and denounced. Christianity teaches that God gave them what they should believe in, and if they believe in something contradictory, they will be lost. In Leviticus, I believe, the priesthood of God is detailed for the Jews. It was specified that the High Priest was to burn incense for God. If "believe what makes you feel good" were God-given, the sons of the High Priest, who tried to burn incense but were not authorized to do so, would not have been burned to death in punishment for disobedience.
The parent appears to suffer from a lack of knowledge of what Christianity really dictates and is really decrying post-modernism, essentially, the belief that truth is relative. This is where "believe what makes you feel good" comes from.
Religion is a panacea for those of small minds who are to lazy to learn how the world really works and feel comfortable with small and easy answers - even if they are false.
This is ignorant at best and flame-bait at worst. It seems to me that small minds are the ones that believe they are the only right ones. True, many Christians fall into that description, but so do many outside of Christianity. I'd say the percentages are probably equal.
I agree with this, at least in part. Usage of "Planet" has become basically meaningless. Sure, it is useful for differentiating bodies that orbit the Sun, but the debate around the definition is evidence that it is too constrictive. I would rather call them "Solar Orbital Bodies" (although, in afterthought, it might be wise to use a term that has an abbreviation less offensive than "SOB").
We could define "Small Orbital Bodies" and "Large Orbital Bodies" while still utilizing other terms, such as "brown dwarf" and "gas giant" which are both based on other qualities of the orbital bodies. Even "Comet" and "Meteor" could remain in usage because, as I am under the impression of, those are defined by the make-up of the body.
While using the terms "Small" and "Large" to define size, it would be simple to arbitrate points within the ranges because every size fits into a given range.
Understanding that I'm not an astronomer, my assumption is that, for some reason, I will be proven wrong. I might appreciate if someone could tell me what I am wrong about. ^_^
I created a guild in WoW named "Incomitatus". I'm the only member. I do it for personal amusement.
What if it was driven by self-interest yet still factual? Since when does a study driven by self-interest necessarily preclude fact? Sure, it may be more likely to be wrong, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
It seems to me that it's lines like the last one from the article that generate unhealthy hype. I'm sure a lot of people would be happy with the game whether it had multiplayer or no, but if everyone gets this bad idea that multiplayer is the only thing that will save the game, then it's failure is certain.
I agree. The worst thing that could happen to this movie would be like making a Doom movie without Mars and hell-spawned Demons. I'm not looking forward to Doom, but I want to look forward to this.
It's like a popularity contest, really. People post articles about things they care about, and if a lot of people also like the topic, the topic keeps coming up.
This is just a long way of saying "World of Warcraft gets news articles because more people care about it, and it matters to more people than those other games."
Linking D&D to murder has been proven invalid numerous times, especially back when many still believed it lead to devil-worship and living sacrifices. I don't think anyone will take it seriously, anymore, except for the most dedicated of anti-gaming bigots.
I wonder if the guy who was quoted was being facesious. When I read his quote with sarcasm in mind, it amuses me to think that the media might have, once again, quoted someone out of context to generate hype.
I seem to recall someone making this claim about MP3s, stating that with broadband and higher bandwidths, it would be more efficient to send the uncompressed .wav files and keep the (near-)perfect sound instead of using compression and sacrificing realism and clarity.
Well, if blogging is similar to publishing articles, and you leave derogatory messages about work in such a blog on the internet for anyone to see, then if your boss sees it, you effectively gave him a flyer telling him he sucks.