I tend to buy games used anyway; that way they are cheaper and I know that scratches are probably there already. If they don't work, I can return them within a few days and get my money back or get another used copy.
Gamestop and cohorts tend to be my last choice for new or used games, since "used" to them tends to mean $5 off of retail (which isn't much of a deal for a $50+ game that could be up to a year old). My alternative is a nice books/music/movies/games store called Hastings that tends to chop $10-20 off of retail for used games, especially games 6 months and older. Since they have a standard return policy for used games, I tend to look there for games before Gamestop and cohorts.
In short, try to look for other game stores if possible if you don't like Gamestop et al.'s practices. It seems like the stores that sell games exclusively can be a pretty big rip-off if you're trying to get brand-new games. And as one poster says, Best Buy and other big-box stores tend to have full pallets of the same new games where Gamestop may only stock a few.
Dismissing merit pay for teachers is probably a good reason a lot of good teachers never go into teaching in the first place. If they can't support themselves and their family, then what's the point? And besides, if we don't reward those who try their best to help people learn, then what does that say about our culture?
On a semi-related note, I think it says a lot when the top sports coach in Iowa (for example) makes over twice as much* as the top professor. It says something about priorities when sports income becomes more important to a SCHOOL than does government and private (charities/foundations) income sources.
*http://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=3b4e0000f9b8b7j1e3f6h4i3b0a6 (Look at the whole of Iowa, then look specifically at Johnson County and Story County, which house U of Iowa and Iowa State U respectively. I don't mean to start an argument over the importance of athletics to a university, but it saddens me when the average professor makes less a quarter of a single coach's salary).
That's the real problem. Creationists/IDers are trying to put their crap in US schools as science ("an alternative to 'Darwinism'") because they think kids should be academically free to learn "both sides of the argument".
I use quotes because I think those statements are horseshit. Creationism is not science, and there is no argument about it in the scientific community. If they want their beliefs presented in a theology class, then fine. But it is not science, and as long as the Creationists can make lawmakers think it is, then the US education system is in trouble.
Sorry if I came off sounding like I was against Michael J. Fox; he is doing the right thing. He is advocating scientific research for a real disease.
Jenny McCarthy is just trying to blame vaccines for her child's condition, instead of advocating scientific research into the real causes of any of the autistic disorders. She seems to think that screaming louder about it makes her right.
It also says something about the anti-vaccine crowd when they look to spokespeople like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey for their "scientific" views on the subject. They may be entertaining, but neither of them has any background in making medical decisions for people. And since people tend to believe every movie star with a cause is correct, they tend to ignore credentials.
Michael J. Fox = Advocates Parkinson's research because he has the disease (Sounds good)
Jenny McCarthy = Had a child with autistic tendencies, so it must be the vaccines' fault. (Huh?)
More evidence that peoples' bullshit filter is broken.
As a grad student teaching 18-19 year olds, I feel old already. It's depressing that I don't know the lingo anymore.
All this talk of LEGO blocks is making me want to go to my folks' house and find my bin of blocks and snatch them so I can play with them while writing my dissertation. It is quite soothing to make random spaceships, throw them against the wall (large monster attack or some such thing) and then put them back together perfectly from memory.
When I was about 12 years old (1993), Megablocks used stickers as opposed to the painted-on details that LEGO used. The stickers would fall off within a few days, so things like faces and such went blank on Megablocks, whereas it took a lot more time to scratch the paint off of LEGO blocks. Megablocks also seemed very light and never seemed to snap together as tightly as my LEGO blocks. In short, even as a 12 year old, I thought they were inferior and continued asked for LEGO specifically since I didn't like the Megablocks that my friends had. LEGO bricks were just more fun.
If these points are still true concerning both companies, then I am still willing to pay for a bin of $100 LEGO because they are the superior product. (Granted, I'm sure the $20 to $100 difference is exaggerated).
On a related note, most of my LEGO are still in good shape, so I can just mix in my old blocks with my kids' new blocks, and voila, a cheaper alternative to buying whole new buckets.
Extending on the parent's comment from a chemist's perspective, not all publishing houses are straight up business either. For example, the American Chemical Society (ACS) publishes some of the highest impact journals in the world of chemistry, and they charge many of the same fees as other companies (Elsevier, John Wiley, etc.). Unlike the other businesses, the ACS hosts conferences for and gives awards and scholarships to researchers and students everywhere. The ACS meetings are great chances for researchers to interact and share research, as well as helping chemists find careers. Through membership fees and (my guess is) subscriptions to their journals, they make enough money to keep going on helping chemists connect.
I know other fields and countries have this same kind of organization (the Royal Society for example), so to say that the current model for journal publishing is completely outdated is a bit of a stretch. Although I agree that pure print journals are on the outs, someone still needs to put all of the artcles together and have them peer-reviewed by appropriate scientists (very important!). This person (or people) do deserve to be paid, because at the rate research is being done, there are too many papers to just be "put online for free" without a filter, and that's where scientific organizations and publishers come in, although some of the for-profit publishers could use a kick in the pants for publishing some real crap and calling it both "new" and "good science".
Reading into some of your links, and being a researcher into titanium dioxide chemistry, I will tell you that the toxicity of titanium dioxide is a) nil for actual ingestion, b) high for your lungs like any small particulates, and c) unknown for sunscreen use.
A) and B) have been known for a long time. C) is still being studied, but the results I have seen so far in peer-reviewed journals (not random health websites) show that nanoparticle sunscreens are not harmful in any real-life circumstance, and looking at your locokazoo link, the zinc oxide sunscreens are the only ones I would even consider putting on my skin. The rest are organic photo-sensitizer molecules that are more harmful than zinc oxide even without light shining on them.
None of your links contain any scientific evidence saying nanoparticle sunscreens are harmful. Yes, titanium dioxide powder is bad for your lungs, but the titanium dioxide or zinc oxide suspended in sunscreen or mixed into paint is not particulate, and therefore has more chance of being eaten than breathed, and it is non-toxic in the digestive system. Again, no evidence has shown that the small concentration of "free" hydroxyl radicals formed when light shines on the titanium dioxide in sunscreen has any effect on exposed human surfaces.
A lot of debate stems from the question of "Should we even teach the controversy of evolution vs. creation?" since by teaching it, credence is given to creationism as a possible "truth". That said, one of the first lessons in a science class where the scientific method is being introduced, a discussion of what is scientific (evolution, dark matter, etc.) and what is belief-based or pseudoscience (creationism, scientology, etc.) should be presented.
Also, when subjects like evolution are taught, a history of the theory and the tests of its validity should be presented alongside the actual stating of the theory. Creationism has no reason to taught at this point, because it was not a scientific alternative to evolution. Teaching the controversy at this point does nothing to teach students what evolution is. The evidence for evolution is really cool and extensive, and that is where the teaching time needs to go.
That said, reminders of how the scientific method works and pointing out examples is not bad, but it needs to be balanced with actually teaching the science. Chemistry, for example, is difficult enough to learn without having to discuss political controversies surrounding it.
There is not enough evidence to make your claim. The two Blizzard games released since D2:LoD were Warcraft games (WC3 and WoW), and WC games have always been cartoony (look at WC1 and WC2). Diablo (I and II) and Starcraft (I and II) have been gothic and anime-ish respectively since their inception. (Note that SC: Ghost may never be released, so I won't count it). Remember that Blizzard North = Diablo and Blizzard = SC and WC. I would say a lot of the art direction stems from that division, although I don't have more evidence than that. I would be personally disappointed if D3 were drawn like WoW, but the initial gameplay trailer dismissed that for me.
I started playing the game at launch with my brother. We played together some, but the important part is that we made friends in-game and shared each others friends. I currently play with a friend from work and all of the guys he met in-game two years ago, who he now sees in real life every few months. As other posters have said, try to find a server with friends or workmates (that you can stand!) and level up together. The dungeons and quests are a lot of fun with people you know (and hopefully) trust. Sometimes the most relaxing weekend nights for me are a few drinks and WoW with voice chat. The grind factor decreases immensely when friends are involved, and you can actually talk to them. At that point it is much like CoD, Halo 3, Madden, etc. (if you play those), except with tauren shamans and blood elf warlocks.
See, here in Iowa, and most of the Midwest, we have a blinker fluid shortage. Because of that, only a few people actually use their turn signal, because everyone else either ran out or is conserving theirs for some important situations.
Please, conserve blinker fluid!
I'll amend my statement. If the coating is uniform enough (and the outer surface is far away from the innersurface so that charge transfer is not possible to the inner layer), then the reactive species (usually hydroxyl radicals) cannot be formed between the catalyst and fabric interface and the fabric and dye should be fine. Come to think of it these 4-5 nm particles should be a transparent colloid. Much thicker though, and it will be a white garment. Having looked at the article itself (the peer-reviewed journal, not the press release), they did not make any mention of fabric destruction, although it was a 2-3 page communication, so that doesn't mean much. Hopefully they will release an actually research paper (usually 6+ pages) that is very in-depth with characterizations and control experiments.
I should hope not. Surfactants (like laundry detergent) usually increase the reactivity of the photocatalyst, so if you've got some fluorescent lighting in your washer, it will be doubly clean. Actually soaking these clothes in normal water and then hanging them up to dry in the sun may be the best way to clean them. Titania doesn't dissolve in water, and water greatly increases the reactivity of the photocatalyst by producing more hydroxyl radicals. Long live the clothesline!
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to buy games used anyway; that way they are cheaper and I know that scratches are probably there already. If they don't work, I can return them within a few days and get my money back or get another used copy.
Gamestop and cohorts tend to be my last choice for new or used games, since "used" to them tends to mean $5 off of retail (which isn't much of a deal for a $50+ game that could be up to a year old). My alternative is a nice books/music/movies/games store called Hastings that tends to chop $10-20 off of retail for used games, especially games 6 months and older. Since they have a standard return policy for used games, I tend to look there for games before Gamestop and cohorts.
In short, try to look for other game stores if possible if you don't like Gamestop et al.'s practices. It seems like the stores that sell games exclusively can be a pretty big rip-off if you're trying to get brand-new games. And as one poster says, Best Buy and other big-box stores tend to have full pallets of the same new games where Gamestop may only stock a few.
The cake is a lie.
Dismissing merit pay for teachers is probably a good reason a lot of good teachers never go into teaching in the first place. If they can't support themselves and their family, then what's the point? And besides, if we don't reward those who try their best to help people learn, then what does that say about our culture?
On a semi-related note, I think it says a lot when the top sports coach in Iowa (for example) makes over twice as much* as the top professor. It says something about priorities when sports income becomes more important to a SCHOOL than does government and private (charities/foundations) income sources.
*http://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=3b4e0000f9b8b7j1e3f6h4i3b0a6 (Look at the whole of Iowa, then look specifically at Johnson County and Story County, which house U of Iowa and Iowa State U respectively. I don't mean to start an argument over the importance of athletics to a university, but it saddens me when the average professor makes less a quarter of a single coach's salary).
Blame the US education system I guess...
That's the real problem. Creationists/IDers are trying to put their crap in US schools as science ("an alternative to 'Darwinism'") because they think kids should be academically free to learn "both sides of the argument".
I use quotes because I think those statements are horseshit. Creationism is not science, and there is no argument about it in the scientific community. If they want their beliefs presented in a theology class, then fine. But it is not science, and as long as the Creationists can make lawmakers think it is, then the US education system is in trouble.
I'd say Bioshock's litte sisters are both a gameplay and story twist.
Sorry if I came off sounding like I was against Michael J. Fox; he is doing the right thing. He is advocating scientific research for a real disease.
Jenny McCarthy is just trying to blame vaccines for her child's condition, instead of advocating scientific research into the real causes of any of the autistic disorders. She seems to think that screaming louder about it makes her right.
It also says something about the anti-vaccine crowd when they look to spokespeople like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey for their "scientific" views on the subject. They may be entertaining, but neither of them has any background in making medical decisions for people. And since people tend to believe every movie star with a cause is correct, they tend to ignore credentials.
Michael J. Fox = Advocates Parkinson's research because he has the disease (Sounds good)
Jenny McCarthy = Had a child with autistic tendencies, so it must be the vaccines' fault. (Huh?)
More evidence that peoples' bullshit filter is broken.
As a grad student teaching 18-19 year olds, I feel old already. It's depressing that I don't know the lingo anymore.
All this talk of LEGO blocks is making me want to go to my folks' house and find my bin of blocks and snatch them so I can play with them while writing my dissertation. It is quite soothing to make random spaceships, throw them against the wall (large monster attack or some such thing) and then put them back together perfectly from memory.
When I was about 12 years old (1993), Megablocks used stickers as opposed to the painted-on details that LEGO used. The stickers would fall off within a few days, so things like faces and such went blank on Megablocks, whereas it took a lot more time to scratch the paint off of LEGO blocks. Megablocks also seemed very light and never seemed to snap together as tightly as my LEGO blocks. In short, even as a 12 year old, I thought they were inferior and continued asked for LEGO specifically since I didn't like the Megablocks that my friends had. LEGO bricks were just more fun.
If these points are still true concerning both companies, then I am still willing to pay for a bin of $100 LEGO because they are the superior product. (Granted, I'm sure the $20 to $100 difference is exaggerated).
On a related note, most of my LEGO are still in good shape, so I can just mix in my old blocks with my kids' new blocks, and voila, a cheaper alternative to buying whole new buckets.
Extending on the parent's comment from a chemist's perspective, not all publishing houses are straight up business either. For example, the American Chemical Society (ACS) publishes some of the highest impact journals in the world of chemistry, and they charge many of the same fees as other companies (Elsevier, John Wiley, etc.). Unlike the other businesses, the ACS hosts conferences for and gives awards and scholarships to researchers and students everywhere. The ACS meetings are great chances for researchers to interact and share research, as well as helping chemists find careers. Through membership fees and (my guess is) subscriptions to their journals, they make enough money to keep going on helping chemists connect.
I know other fields and countries have this same kind of organization (the Royal Society for example), so to say that the current model for journal publishing is completely outdated is a bit of a stretch. Although I agree that pure print journals are on the outs, someone still needs to put all of the artcles together and have them peer-reviewed by appropriate scientists (very important!). This person (or people) do deserve to be paid, because at the rate research is being done, there are too many papers to just be "put online for free" without a filter, and that's where scientific organizations and publishers come in, although some of the for-profit publishers could use a kick in the pants for publishing some real crap and calling it both "new" and "good science".
Reading into some of your links, and being a researcher into titanium dioxide chemistry, I will tell you that the toxicity of titanium dioxide is a) nil for actual ingestion, b) high for your lungs like any small particulates, and c) unknown for sunscreen use.
A) and B) have been known for a long time. C) is still being studied, but the results I have seen so far in peer-reviewed journals (not random health websites) show that nanoparticle sunscreens are not harmful in any real-life circumstance, and looking at your locokazoo link, the zinc oxide sunscreens are the only ones I would even consider putting on my skin. The rest are organic photo-sensitizer molecules that are more harmful than zinc oxide even without light shining on them.
None of your links contain any scientific evidence saying nanoparticle sunscreens are harmful. Yes, titanium dioxide powder is bad for your lungs, but the titanium dioxide or zinc oxide suspended in sunscreen or mixed into paint is not particulate, and therefore has more chance of being eaten than breathed, and it is non-toxic in the digestive system. Again, no evidence has shown that the small concentration of "free" hydroxyl radicals formed when light shines on the titanium dioxide in sunscreen has any effect on exposed human surfaces.
Tonight, on Jerry Springer: my son is a darwinist!
Fixed that for you.
A lot of debate stems from the question of "Should we even teach the controversy of evolution vs. creation?" since by teaching it, credence is given to creationism as a possible "truth". That said, one of the first lessons in a science class where the scientific method is being introduced, a discussion of what is scientific (evolution, dark matter, etc.) and what is belief-based or pseudoscience (creationism, scientology, etc.) should be presented. Also, when subjects like evolution are taught, a history of the theory and the tests of its validity should be presented alongside the actual stating of the theory. Creationism has no reason to taught at this point, because it was not a scientific alternative to evolution. Teaching the controversy at this point does nothing to teach students what evolution is. The evidence for evolution is really cool and extensive, and that is where the teaching time needs to go. That said, reminders of how the scientific method works and pointing out examples is not bad, but it needs to be balanced with actually teaching the science. Chemistry, for example, is difficult enough to learn without having to discuss political controversies surrounding it.
There is not enough evidence to make your claim. The two Blizzard games released since D2:LoD were Warcraft games (WC3 and WoW), and WC games have always been cartoony (look at WC1 and WC2). Diablo (I and II) and Starcraft (I and II) have been gothic and anime-ish respectively since their inception. (Note that SC: Ghost may never be released, so I won't count it). Remember that Blizzard North = Diablo and Blizzard = SC and WC. I would say a lot of the art direction stems from that division, although I don't have more evidence than that. I would be personally disappointed if D3 were drawn like WoW, but the initial gameplay trailer dismissed that for me.
The Guitar Hero franchise.
Our chair technology is light-years ahead of yours.
And any of Stephen Gagne's mods. The Penultima and Elegia series were excellently written and fun to play.
http://www.pixelscapes.com/twoflower/
I started playing the game at launch with my brother. We played together some, but the important part is that we made friends in-game and shared each others friends. I currently play with a friend from work and all of the guys he met in-game two years ago, who he now sees in real life every few months. As other posters have said, try to find a server with friends or workmates (that you can stand!) and level up together. The dungeons and quests are a lot of fun with people you know (and hopefully) trust. Sometimes the most relaxing weekend nights for me are a few drinks and WoW with voice chat. The grind factor decreases immensely when friends are involved, and you can actually talk to them. At that point it is much like CoD, Halo 3, Madden, etc. (if you play those), except with tauren shamans and blood elf warlocks.
Yeah, he beat out the 15-year-old who got admitted to Pacific Tech for his laser work.
See, here in Iowa, and most of the Midwest, we have a blinker fluid shortage. Because of that, only a few people actually use their turn signal, because everyone else either ran out or is conserving theirs for some important situations. Please, conserve blinker fluid!
Enjoy your trip; I hope you took a d20 with you.
I'll amend my statement. If the coating is uniform enough (and the outer surface is far away from the innersurface so that charge transfer is not possible to the inner layer), then the reactive species (usually hydroxyl radicals) cannot be formed between the catalyst and fabric interface and the fabric and dye should be fine. Come to think of it these 4-5 nm particles should be a transparent colloid. Much thicker though, and it will be a white garment. Having looked at the article itself (the peer-reviewed journal, not the press release), they did not make any mention of fabric destruction, although it was a 2-3 page communication, so that doesn't mean much. Hopefully they will release an actually research paper (usually 6+ pages) that is very in-depth with characterizations and control experiments.
It's actually an important ingredient in sunscreen too.
I should hope not. Surfactants (like laundry detergent) usually increase the reactivity of the photocatalyst, so if you've got some fluorescent lighting in your washer, it will be doubly clean. Actually soaking these clothes in normal water and then hanging them up to dry in the sun may be the best way to clean them. Titania doesn't dissolve in water, and water greatly increases the reactivity of the photocatalyst by producing more hydroxyl radicals. Long live the clothesline!
All you really need is UV light (400 nm). So fluorescent bulbs are good. This includes black lights. :D