No shit. I have trouble ever buying even used games from a Gamestop because I can almost always get them cheaper on eBay - and I haven't traded in used games in over a decade because I can *sell* them for more on eBay. Both of these things should not be able to be true at the same time, yet they are, usually for the exact same games. I can't believe anyone buys/sells via these stores.
Because languages are fixed entities that never change over time, and just because a phrase is commonly used to mean something different from its original meaning does NOT mean that it can ever truly take on the new meaning. A phrase canNOT have more than one meaning, no matter WHAT.
I have the same time with M&L:Partners in time. 90% of my DS play is on my 15-minute bus ride twice a day, and several times I've had to turn that game off without saving it because I couldn't get to a save point in time. Portable games really should not have finite save points.
New games are still being made for the Gameboy Advance, three years after the introduction of the DS. And a year ago, GBAs were still selling better than PSPs (although GBA sales numbers are now down much lower). Nintendo hasn't done a bad job of supporting both a more-powered and a less-powered handheld system for a couple of years at least, though it looks like the GBA is starting its final descent.
Nothing in either of those articles says anything to dispute my argument. I'm saying that someone who smokes their first cigarette before 18 is more likely to become *addicted* to nicotine than someone who smokes their first cigarette later than that. I said absolutely nothing about the age at which most people smoke their first cigarette, which seems to be what you're using those articles to argue against. The piece of my comment that you quoted was about CASUAL smokers, those who aren't addicted (or not very addicted) and smoke, say, only at parties or on the weekends, not daily.
In fact, your first article says something that may be referring to the same phenomenon (can't be sure): researchers do know is that the window of vulnerability for smoking tends to open around age 8 and close around age 20. If you smoke a cigarette past that age (I know it's a bit higher than 18, but our laws just don't line up with research), you are less vulnerable to addiction. (But, of course, you're also less vulnerable to the pressures that get you started in the first place, which is another argument for not letting kids smoke.)
I only skimmed your argument, so forgive me if this has been covered. But one reason is that people who start smoking after about age 18 are far less likely to get addicted to it than those who start younger. Most "casual smokers" picked up the habit in college or later.
I would argue that you really only have the choice to start smoking; after that, each subsequent cigarette is less of a conscious choice and more your body taking over, until you make another conscious (and more difficult) choice to quit. If minors are less able to make a well-reasoned decision to start smoking, AND they are more likely to wind up addicted and thus not really choosing each additional cigarette as adults, you wind up with more adults who have never made a well-reasoned decision to smoke. If you make them wait until they are a bit older, when they are less likely to get addicted, you are giving them the opportunity to make a well-reasoned decision every time they light up. (This is my super-fast gotta-catch-the-bus-but-can't-resist version of this argument, just so you know.)
There are charities for those, if you want to donate to them instead, go ahead. In all other species, sick adults don't survive, either. Would you rather we just give up the whole "medicine" thing?
I also want an active effort to digitize rare and old footage, just like Google books.
I agree that this would be a good thing to have. I am guessing that worldwide copyright stuff is one major block to getting both this, and the everything-in-the-world-all-in-one deal that you're looking for.
I didn't say whether the credit was a good thing or not. Consciously decided not to bother even going into that. *shrug* He seemed to want to take credit for it...
Remember that there are teenagers in children's hospitals, too. And they may want individual copies for different wards, so that they don't have to shuffle the video collection around constantly. No, there may never be a time when five kids want to watch it at once, but at least the kid sitting in oncology doesn't have to hike over to the burn unit to get a copy, nor do the nurses have to waste time searching the hospital.
Every nonprofit organization has a specific mission. And to stay alive, they need to focus on that mission, otherwise every charity would just devolve into "Give Money To Whomever Or Whatever Needs It This Week, Inc." This charity's mission is to provide toys and games to sick children in children's hospitals. Not to provide entertainment for sick adults. Not to provide homes to homeless dogs. Not to buy new CT scanners. If you want to help with any of those missions, there are other nonprofits that you can donate to - including the hospitals themselves directly. If you want to provide toys and games to sick children in children's hospitals, this is a good way to do it.
Right now, Netflix only ships to the US and US territories. I seriously doubt that they have a branch in France; if they do, their US website has no mention of it anywhere. I think it's rather unfair of you to expect them to go so far as to hook you up with a different company (if such even exists) in a different country to get things that simply have not been released in the US at all. Also, if there is a French equivalent, why would they want to send you a movie when you're paying Netflix, not them? Why don't you go find France's Netflix equivalent yourself and ask them to ship to you in the US?
I have never gotten a movie out of order on Netflix, but then, I've never tried to rent recent blockbusters. But of all the TV series I have in my queue (which are handled exactly like other movies, sounds like they're handled differently on BB), I've never gotten anything but the first in the queue mailed to me.
Yeah, the streaming also only works with Windows. I find it a bit annoying that they say it's a "Free service" with your subscription, so they can get around giving a discount to people who can't use it. But the mail-in service is worth $14/month to me.
I agree, I mostly use it for TV shows and I doubt I could get Sesame Street Old School (yes, that's what they call the new DVDs of 60s-80s Sesame Street) or The Muppet Show at the grocery store kiosk. Heck, I probably couldn't even get ST:TNG or Battlestar Galactica. House and Scrubs, maybe. And those six shows pretty much cover 90% of what I've rented in the past few months. (It's gonna take a while to go through the entire 7 seasons of ST...)
It depends on where you live and when you return it. I've got a warehouse quite nearby, so if I drop a video in the mail Tuesday morning, I've go another one in my mailbox on Thursday afternoon 90% of the time. (I've had a couple of videos take an extra day in the 5 months I've been with Netflix. Plus, of course, extra time for Sundays.) And since I've got the $14/month 2-at-a-time plan, I usually go through 3 per week. That's a bit over a dollar each, BUT a) I don't have to go further than the mailbox on the corner and b) I can keep them as long as I want if I don't have time to watch right then.
I don't know if this is the same issue, but my Tiger mail chokes if I get more than 10-20 junk mails at a time. I find that if I make sure the junk mail folder is selected as I do my first mail retrieval of the morning, it's far more likely to filter them all correctly. Though they are still marked as Junk, they just go to the Inbox - if they're not getting marked as junk, you probably just need to keep training it.
You tell me that we have the biggest slice of the pie-(and maybe we do) but we worked for it at those menial jobs also. Your generation seems to think that they should go right to the top with little on no work experience or life experience. And being young gives you no more insight and clear thinking. Remember we were ALL young once and thought the exact same things, nothing new there, Sparky.
A quote from the Wikipedia Generation X page:
According to the US Census Bureau, from 1993 to 2006, males grossed less than their fathers (defined as the cohort 30-years prior, about the average age of fatherhood) at the same age, using combined real median income and based on the following criteria:[6]
* At ages 25-34, those born from about 1965-1981
* At ages 30-39, those born from about 1963-1976
* At ages 25-39, those born from about 1964-1981
It's been widely reported that Gen X is the first generation that will not surpass its parents' standard of living.
While I don't want to claim that your generation has done nothing useful, I take issue with a few of your claims:
gave women and minorities the same rights as everyone else - You definitely get partial credit for this. However... Rosa Parks was NOT a baby boomer. Martin Luther King? NOT a baby boomer. The suffragettes? NOT baby boomers. Heck, Mary Tyler Moore? NOT a baby boomer! You guys helped, but you were only continuing the momentum started by previous generations.
won the space race - O RLY? Baby boomers born between 1942-1962 (or so, ish) were responsible for the moon landing in 1969? It was a bunch of 7-27 year olds who pulled that off?
I think you may be confusing "Thing that we did" with "thing that I happen to remember that happened before you were born." I'll give you some credit for Vietnam, and sure, you get credit for a lot of great technology in the 80s and 90s. But by the early 90s, Gen Xers were also participating in the tech boom (Gen Xers include: Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Linus Torvalds, Tom Anderson).
Also, if women's lib and civil rights for minorities defined your generation, I would guess that gay rights is the parallel movement that would define Gen X in many of the same ways.
I was wondering that, too. I have a 1.25GHz eMac and a 1.6GHz PowerBook, and the only software I've used that doesn't run acceptably fast is NeoOffice and maybe iMovie. Word, Excel, iWork, Photoshop Elements - they're all fine.
I've been reading some books on nonprofit management lately. The biggest thing they all push is "Know your mission, stick to your mission." I have a feeling that for-profit businesses probably benefit from the same advice. Hopefully the people who own Slashdot will follow it.
A book with a similar theme (and that, unlike Ender's Game, probably hasn't already been read by 99% of slashdot) is The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit. I have trouble ever buying even used games from a Gamestop because I can almost always get them cheaper on eBay - and I haven't traded in used games in over a decade because I can *sell* them for more on eBay. Both of these things should not be able to be true at the same time, yet they are, usually for the exact same games. I can't believe anyone buys/sells via these stores.
Because languages are fixed entities that never change over time, and just because a phrase is commonly used to mean something different from its original meaning does NOT mean that it can ever truly take on the new meaning. A phrase canNOT have more than one meaning, no matter WHAT.
I have the same time with M&L:Partners in time. 90% of my DS play is on my 15-minute bus ride twice a day, and several times I've had to turn that game off without saving it because I couldn't get to a save point in time. Portable games really should not have finite save points.
New games are still being made for the Gameboy Advance, three years after the introduction of the DS. And a year ago, GBAs were still selling better than PSPs (although GBA sales numbers are now down much lower). Nintendo hasn't done a bad job of supporting both a more-powered and a less-powered handheld system for a couple of years at least, though it looks like the GBA is starting its final descent.
In fact, your first article says something that may be referring to the same phenomenon (can't be sure): researchers do know is that the window of vulnerability for smoking tends to open around age 8 and close around age 20. If you smoke a cigarette past that age (I know it's a bit higher than 18, but our laws just don't line up with research), you are less vulnerable to addiction. (But, of course, you're also less vulnerable to the pressures that get you started in the first place, which is another argument for not letting kids smoke.)
I would argue that you really only have the choice to start smoking; after that, each subsequent cigarette is less of a conscious choice and more your body taking over, until you make another conscious (and more difficult) choice to quit. If minors are less able to make a well-reasoned decision to start smoking, AND they are more likely to wind up addicted and thus not really choosing each additional cigarette as adults, you wind up with more adults who have never made a well-reasoned decision to smoke. If you make them wait until they are a bit older, when they are less likely to get addicted, you are giving them the opportunity to make a well-reasoned decision every time they light up. (This is my super-fast gotta-catch-the-bus-but-can't-resist version of this argument, just so you know.)
There are charities for those, if you want to donate to them instead, go ahead. In all other species, sick adults don't survive, either. Would you rather we just give up the whole "medicine" thing?
You try taking a minivan full of kids on an 8-hour road trip and then tell me a video game system in the back seat wouldn't be functional.
I agree that this would be a good thing to have. I am guessing that worldwide copyright stuff is one major block to getting both this, and the everything-in-the-world-all-in-one deal that you're looking for.
I didn't say whether the credit was a good thing or not. Consciously decided not to bother even going into that. *shrug* He seemed to want to take credit for it...
Remember that there are teenagers in children's hospitals, too. And they may want individual copies for different wards, so that they don't have to shuffle the video collection around constantly. No, there may never be a time when five kids want to watch it at once, but at least the kid sitting in oncology doesn't have to hike over to the burn unit to get a copy, nor do the nurses have to waste time searching the hospital.
Every nonprofit organization has a specific mission. And to stay alive, they need to focus on that mission, otherwise every charity would just devolve into "Give Money To Whomever Or Whatever Needs It This Week, Inc." This charity's mission is to provide toys and games to sick children in children's hospitals. Not to provide entertainment for sick adults. Not to provide homes to homeless dogs. Not to buy new CT scanners. If you want to help with any of those missions, there are other nonprofits that you can donate to - including the hospitals themselves directly. If you want to provide toys and games to sick children in children's hospitals, this is a good way to do it.
Right now, Netflix only ships to the US and US territories. I seriously doubt that they have a branch in France; if they do, their US website has no mention of it anywhere. I think it's rather unfair of you to expect them to go so far as to hook you up with a different company (if such even exists) in a different country to get things that simply have not been released in the US at all. Also, if there is a French equivalent, why would they want to send you a movie when you're paying Netflix, not them? Why don't you go find France's Netflix equivalent yourself and ask them to ship to you in the US?
I have never gotten a movie out of order on Netflix, but then, I've never tried to rent recent blockbusters. But of all the TV series I have in my queue (which are handled exactly like other movies, sounds like they're handled differently on BB), I've never gotten anything but the first in the queue mailed to me.
Yeah, the streaming also only works with Windows. I find it a bit annoying that they say it's a "Free service" with your subscription, so they can get around giving a discount to people who can't use it. But the mail-in service is worth $14/month to me.
I agree, I mostly use it for TV shows and I doubt I could get Sesame Street Old School (yes, that's what they call the new DVDs of 60s-80s Sesame Street) or The Muppet Show at the grocery store kiosk. Heck, I probably couldn't even get ST:TNG or Battlestar Galactica. House and Scrubs, maybe. And those six shows pretty much cover 90% of what I've rented in the past few months. (It's gonna take a while to go through the entire 7 seasons of ST...)
It depends on where you live and when you return it. I've got a warehouse quite nearby, so if I drop a video in the mail Tuesday morning, I've go another one in my mailbox on Thursday afternoon 90% of the time. (I've had a couple of videos take an extra day in the 5 months I've been with Netflix. Plus, of course, extra time for Sundays.) And since I've got the $14/month 2-at-a-time plan, I usually go through 3 per week. That's a bit over a dollar each, BUT a) I don't have to go further than the mailbox on the corner and b) I can keep them as long as I want if I don't have time to watch right then.
The insanely long and detailed ArsTechnica review (slashdotted a few days ago) is based entirely on using Leopard on G5s.
I don't know if this is the same issue, but my Tiger mail chokes if I get more than 10-20 junk mails at a time. I find that if I make sure the junk mail folder is selected as I do my first mail retrieval of the morning, it's far more likely to filter them all correctly. Though they are still marked as Junk, they just go to the Inbox - if they're not getting marked as junk, you probably just need to keep training it.
A quote from the Wikipedia Generation X page:
According to the US Census Bureau, from 1993 to 2006, males grossed less than their fathers (defined as the cohort 30-years prior, about the average age of fatherhood) at the same age, using combined real median income and based on the following criteria:[6]
* At ages 25-34, those born from about 1965-1981
* At ages 30-39, those born from about 1963-1976
* At ages 25-39, those born from about 1964-1981
It's been widely reported that Gen X is the first generation that will not surpass its parents' standard of living.
gave women and minorities the same rights as everyone else - You definitely get partial credit for this. However... Rosa Parks was NOT a baby boomer. Martin Luther King? NOT a baby boomer. The suffragettes? NOT baby boomers. Heck, Mary Tyler Moore? NOT a baby boomer! You guys helped, but you were only continuing the momentum started by previous generations.
won the space race - O RLY? Baby boomers born between 1942-1962 (or so, ish) were responsible for the moon landing in 1969? It was a bunch of 7-27 year olds who pulled that off?
I think you may be confusing "Thing that we did" with "thing that I happen to remember that happened before you were born." I'll give you some credit for Vietnam, and sure, you get credit for a lot of great technology in the 80s and 90s. But by the early 90s, Gen Xers were also participating in the tech boom (Gen Xers include: Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Linus Torvalds, Tom Anderson).
Also, if women's lib and civil rights for minorities defined your generation, I would guess that gay rights is the parallel movement that would define Gen X in many of the same ways.
I was wondering that, too. I have a 1.25GHz eMac and a 1.6GHz PowerBook, and the only software I've used that doesn't run acceptably fast is NeoOffice and maybe iMovie. Word, Excel, iWork, Photoshop Elements - they're all fine.
I've been reading some books on nonprofit management lately. The biggest thing they all push is "Know your mission, stick to your mission." I have a feeling that for-profit businesses probably benefit from the same advice. Hopefully the people who own Slashdot will follow it.
Ever heard of renting? They even have it on Netflix.
A book with a similar theme (and that, unlike Ender's Game, probably hasn't already been read by 99% of slashdot) is The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.