Call to Arms is a runeword'd sword she could be using on switch. In fact, characters of many classes do.
I know it's not quite what you're asking for, but you can indeed have a sorceress running around casting a low level battle orders and whatnot.
Call To Arms 5 Socket Weapons Amn + Ral + Mal + Ist + Ohm +1 To All Skills +40% Increased Attack Speed +250-290% Enhanced Damage (varies) Adds 5-30 Fire Damage 7% Life Stolen Per Hit +2-6 To Battle Command (varies)* +1-6 To Battle Orders (varies)* +1-4 To Battle Cry (varies)* Prevent Monster Heal Replenish Life +12 30% Better Chance of Getting Magic Items
You posted that comment as AC despite having an account(and posting from it now). That to me indicates that you knew it was likely to draw the ire of people, and/or would be noticed for being completely off topic. Maybe you were posting from some public place and just didn't feel like logging in. Maybe. Seems unlikely though.
So yeah, I'm thinking you did know you were trolling.
Of course, by responding to you I'm posting even further off topic, but at least I contributed some other more pertinent stuff up above:P
Well, you *can* have a sorceress in Diablo 2 using a sword. In fact, there are swords that are made specifically for spellcasters to use. The act 3 mercenaries are sword/shield and magic(though they very very rarely actually HIT anything with their sword).
The problem with this is that typically wizards/etc need to learn *how* to do all the crazy physics-defying things they do. That apparently takes time effort and money, leaving your character with much less time to devote to lifting very heavy things, running quite a bit and learning the best way to stab someone with an oversized knife. So you'd expect they'd be kinda crummy at both.
Diablo 2 still lets you do that if you want, it just doesn't expect you to be as powerful as a pure frozen orb/meteor sorc or a pure fighter. Sorceress' can hit things with their swords like Hexfire, having buffed themselves with enchant and with energy shield.
Druids can run around shapeshifted into a werewolf form, clawing and biting things all the while calling down Armageddon. Of course, the number of skill point you need to expend in order to be really good at both is very high, but you *can* do it...
There's a blog post from PZ Myers on Pharyngula that addresses this statement from Steve Jones fairly well I think. Read it in full here
This[the idea that older men have more mutations in their sperm] is true, but it makes no sense. It's not as if younger fathers produce no mutations -- they generate plenty. It's a difference in degree, nothing more, so we still have plenty of new mutations percolating into the population. And of course, over most of human history parents have been relatively young, since you couldn't count on living to the age of 35.
And then there's this odd argument.
Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. "In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21."
That makes even less sense. Natural selection is going to eliminate variants; by reducing its effects, we permit more mutations to persist in the population. One moment he's complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he's complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?
Better one is: "One more question. You're watching a stage play. A banquet is in progress. The guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog..."
I really dunno if it's in the interests of some of the Powers That Be in Washington for Osama to get captured. He's the best thing that ever happened to their careers and power base.
I've a very slight twist on Voltaire's famous statement.
If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
If Osama didn't exist and do the horrible things he does, then they'd need to find someone else to make the boogeyman of the day in order to maintain their programs. There are some genuinely good people in Washington sure, but there are some people over there who IMO have developed a taste for power. Sure, you could accurately say they're diversifying, and could start using Ahmadinejad even more than they are now, but why bother? The idea that Osama is still out there and plotting keeps people terrified just as well.
You mentioned some of the other methods of discipline in there:P
First step if time permits, is to take a half breath and think about the issue first so that you, as the grown up with a presumably fully functioning frontal lobe, can make informed choices about the situation. Is she really doing anything wrong? Am I just being a grumpy bastard because I had a long day at work and am taking it out on her. Is he actually capable of doing what I'm expecting of him? If it's an issue that's probably genuinely beyond his abilities(getting a kid in trouble for pissing his pants when he's still toilet training)... Then I should cool it. Did she know at the time that she was doing something that's not appropriate, or is this a first/second time offense in this sort of environment(eg: being too loud at a friend's place who has cantankerous neighbours).
As long as it's not harming himself badly or others, let 'em feel the natural consequences of their actions. If they broke something or hurt another, try to get 'em involved with fixing the issue. That keeps them attending to the new problem and they see the time/effort involved in fixing it. Time outs for a few minutes even just to cool tempers if needed. Distract them:P If they're being a pain in the ass over something, try and get their attention onto another toy or activity or whatever. If the kid is too young to understand you when you explain why something's bad, then out of sight will likely be out of mind. Give them some choices that are meaningful. Not sure if you remember being a young hellion, but it's a massive pain in the ass not having control over your life at times... You've got to have limits(eg: bedtimes, amount of chocolate ice cream they can have, etc...) but when they can make the choice, let them. Praise them when they're not acting up, but praise them for specific things they've done; "I'm proud of how hard you worked studying for that test!" rather than "You're so smart! Look how great you did on that test!"
What you do depends on the age of the child really. If this is some toddler then you could pick her up, carry her to the (not neccessarily their own bedroom), put 'em down. I suppose technically that's force, as you touch the kid to pick them up, but I put that on a scale somewhat gentler than pulling their pants down and hitting them repeatedly.
If this kid is grown up enough that carrying them is innappropriate, then they can carry on at least a basic conversation. So talk to them, use I words rather than you words, try to figure out why they did whatever they did, and explain what's wrong with that.
tl;dr punishment as a rule should be avoided if possible, since it fosters a me-against-them mindset. Still have rules and limits certainly, but favour positive reinforcement over punishment when possible. When it IS needed, attempt to enact the punishment quickly, make it as mild as you're willing to, and don't let it drag on forever, keep it brief.
In fact, if the kid really doesn't want to listen, there is no solution.
You go on to say that even spanking doesn't work, and that currently there are no legal ways of getting through to the kid since you're not even allowed to just dump the kid in the forest anymore. So how is it that we have all these kinda well adjusted people in the world? Not everyone's a rampaging axe murderer. Suggests to me that your earlier statement mustn't happen then eh? Kids want to listen? Probably not all the time, but apparently they must want to enough, otherwise all civilization would have collapsed by now.
I'm not suggesting that you try to have a high level discussion of ethics and positive law versus natural law with a toddler, but I've seen a number of 5 year olds capable of understanding "stop it right now, you're being too loud" and if they continue, taking the child away from their current activity and putting them in a pseudo time-out or a host of other punishments. True, they sometimes DID keep being loud, and the threat had to be made followed through with, kids as young as five can and do manage to control themselves. The ability to inhibit stuff is terrible in children but not absent.
My personal anecdotes do not data make, but I've seen research that suggests that corporeal punishment is an effective way of getting most kids to do what you want, provided you're going to stand over them, watching for any slip-ups. As soon as the kid figures he can get away with it, he resumes misbehaving. Other forms of punishment tend not to show such effects quite so strongly, though they are of course, harder to apply.
I didn't mean thesis in the sense of a written proposal, I meant it(to shamelessly plagarize from wikipedia) in this way: The word "thesis" comes from the Greek, meaning "position", and refers to an intellectual proposition.
There's certainly ample research to suggest that temperment is partially genetic, and I have no doubts that biological sex and gender both play a role in shaping what people are like. I just thought it bizarre that YOU would bring up those two examples in the same post as you suggest that modern methods of discipline are not "effective or in the best interests of a child" I assume you're using such methods with your daughter, as you say you don't use physical discipline. If not, and if you don't mind, what are you using for discipline?
Additionally find it odd that you specify that there are lots of little boys and grown men who are incapable/unwilling to respect an authority that isn't backed up by force. Sure boys and girls are different, but why bother to specify boys there?
While I'm not sure that I fully believe this personally, an arguement COULD be made that those people who don't respect authority unless it's backed by force might have learned that pattern when they had force used on them in their formative years eh? The parent in this instance is modelling the idea that if you get in a disagreement, force is an acceptable way of coercing others into following your position and demonstrating your authority over them. They internalize this messege and hence continue to require it from others when they're grown men. "Oh yeah? Make me!" rather than "Oh yeah? Why?"
Wait what? You were spanked with a belt as a child, and by self admission "sure as hell wasn't" respectful or well behaved. Told off nuns, no respect for authority...
You have "never had to use physical discipline" with your daughter, and she's well behaved.
That's purely anecdotal evidence of course, but how on earth does that support the thesis that physical discipline leads to better behaviour in the long run?
Are you really that threatened by the child that you need to use physical violence to cower them? That's the ONLY kind of real power you view parents as having?
That's more than a little disturbing. I have no children of my own, but have a pair of neices and a pair of nephews, and have been able to be there as they are growing up. I've seen them pout and whine and complain and whatnot in order to try and get a toy or a treat or whatever. I'm not sure that based off of that anecdotal experience I'd agree with your thesis. Nor would the research I've seen in journals and research seminars.
In fact, if I pick the winner I LOSE when it comes to politics.
All that self-righteous "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos/another guy" that I love so much goes out the window if I actually voted for the shmuck. That's why I try to make sure I pick someone who's unlikely to win, but still seems like the sort of guy I like.
Usually, I do a write-in vote for Santa. Sure/. might harp on his love for surveillance that goes beyond regular wiretapping... but he brings me presents!
If I'm recalling correctly Hawking addressed that issue in Brief(Briefer?) History of Time. He explained that for small black holes the difference in how strongly gravity is pulling one end of you(feet) compared to the other end(head) would tear you apart before you could reach the event horizon. Large black holes (on the order of millions of stellar masses, like the ones at the center of galaxies) would be a much more gentle ride intially. In fact he said, you could pass right through the event horizon and not notice anything particularly weird happening. You wouldn't even notice. Nevertheless as you get closer to the singularity at the center you'd still get ripped apart.
It appears that they don't have officially released specs as of yet. Their FAQ still isn't even 100% sure what platforms will be used. -_- PC is sure of course, but other than that...
Currently the plan for Stargate Worlds is to release on the PC. However, we realize that there are MMO and Stargate fans on many platforms, and we would like to explore as many of these options as we can. Once we have confirmed which platforms will be supported we will make an announcement on this website.
There's some speculative posts on the forum about what plausible system requirements there will be. The best info I can find is on the Stargate-Worlds wiki
:
Currently the public plan is to release Stargate Worlds only on the PC. However CME have indicated that they would like to release the game for other operating systems and consoles, most likely the XBox360.[5][6][7] There are no definitive set of system requirements at this stage, and they are unlikely to be available till much closer till the release of the game. It is expected that any current middle to high end PC will be able to run the game. [8] Better hardware will result in a better graphics experience. The team is using dual 3GHz Xenon CPUs with dual cores with 4 gigs of RAM 512 Meg Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT as their development platform.[9] And while the game is currently being built for Windows XP, it will support Vista as well.[10]
At this stage, whilst the devs would like to support it, no decision has yet been made regarding dial-up.
I'm not from the US, so all I have to go off of is anecdotes and whatnot... But is it really that expensive/difficult to get a dose of Plan B(an emergency contraceptive) down there? Far more effective than a coke and less likely to lead to damage of the delicate fallopian tubes (coke under pressure being squirted up into the vagina in an effort to "make sure we get 'em all"...
ugh, they don't go into details of how that's used, but assuming it's like typical spermicides and it's vaginally applied that's a TERRIBLE idea. Even if it kills sperm, that'd completely screw up the pH balance and flood it with sugar. Sounds to me like exactly what you don't want to do(unless you like yeast infections and other such STIs)
"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Why? Because it got tangled up in a big ball with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[...snip...]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
I suppose what I'm saying is that future rovers should be designed for as many possible contingencies
If you want a general purpose tool that can adapt to many scenario, send a human. (Also, go to the bank, you're going to need to make a biiiiiig withdrawl)
If you want to do science on a budget(which NASA has to do since it gets diddly squat for funding compared to certain other institutions) then you simply plan out what you think are probable tasks that'll be done, and design your robot to be able to do them cheaply and effectively. Trying to make a robot for "as many possible contingencies" will mean it will likely take a whole lot longer to design, to build, will cost more and all other things being equal, be more likely to break. The odds of something Going Wrong increases with the complexity of the device. Unless you plan on sending the rover with a bunch of spare parts and some arms to automatically perform repairs?
The question is, what mechanism do you believe in that could stop micro from becoming macro, given that the exact same mechanism is responsible for both? The analogy I've usually seen used to represent this is this: "How do you stop all these inches from adding up to a foot/mile?"
Change of/variation in genes is what allows for microevolution, and it is that exact same thing that permits macroevolution. Do you believe that God steps in and prevents further mutation?
"Hey hey hey, I don't mind you two groups of cats that were geographically separated developing some differences in your coloration, jaw shape and diet... but changing THAT? It'd be enough to make you into new species, so stop it!"
I'm pretty sure this must still happen in things like wow
The problem with such stuff in WoW and such games is that the really great loot drops when you're not around. You hear about how a friend of a friend recently got [insert awesome item] and drool. Even if you didn't get that item, the fact that you're reminded that it's around, and that OTHER people are finding it keeps your hopes up. We're like rats in a big room lever pressing for snacks. Other rats getting one is a "reward" of sorts for us, and keeps us working hard in the hopes of being similarily rewarded.
Hacking highly classified government systems to learn the secrets of the USA? Trying to instill fear in the hearts of the populace, that people in other countries, hiding amongst their allies, are doing this sort of thing?
Sounds like terrorism to me. Ship him to Gitmo.
^What an outsider might think is going to happen to this guy, as these are the sorts of thinking patterns that seem plausible.
I'm rather confused by how ID searches for answers. It seems to me like it simply says "this is how it must have been" and the search stops there. How can one study such a thing as ID in order to arive at new ideas? There's nothing to test since it doesn't have falsifiable predictions... A search involves moving forward with testing new ideas and seeing if they're true.
And a pile of sand might evolve if more sand were dumped on the pile every day
Sand does not reproduce, with heritable variation between the children of a Daddy Sand, and with some of those variations being advantageous or not for the purposes of future reproduction. ergo, no, a pile of sand will not evolve if you dump more sand on it.
is that one type seems to require some kind of intelligence.
That's I think the issue. I'm not sure why a person needs more intelligence to arise than a pile of sand. It might need more energy and time, but intelligence? Why? Where did IT come from? Is it intelligent designers "all the way down"?
It may well be a good thing that we've got guns, and that means the nutjobs in Washington couldn't as easily send the army or blackwater into Detroit to round up all the Arab Americans there as they could if there were no guns in private hands I'm not an American, nor living there, but I've visited Detroit before. Honestly? I'd think that the majority of the people in Detroit and elsewhere in the USA would not use their guns to defend Arab Americans against being picked up by the military. They'd be more likely IMO to turn their guns on their fellow citizens if they saw a bunch of Arab guys shooting or throwing rocks/molotov coctails/etc... at the military, than to shoot the soldiers.
The IP is that valuable and you're just going to put the laptop in the trash?...
What? You don't think that someone will notice, and perhaps take that laptop? Perhaps rummaging through the contents at their leisure?
If you decide to smash the laptop violently first, then dump the shattered bits into the trash that might work I suppose, and attract the attention of the cops who think you're unstable.
Slashdot Mirror
Call to Arms is a runeword'd sword she could be using on switch. In fact, characters of many classes do.
I know it's not quite what you're asking for, but you can indeed have a sorceress running around casting a low level battle orders and whatnot.
Call To Arms 5 Socket Weapons Amn + Ral + Mal + Ist + Ohm
+1 To All Skills
+40% Increased Attack Speed
+250-290% Enhanced Damage (varies)
Adds 5-30 Fire Damage
7% Life Stolen Per Hit
+2-6 To Battle Command (varies)*
+1-6 To Battle Orders (varies)*
+1-4 To Battle Cry (varies)*
Prevent Monster Heal
Replenish Life +12
30% Better Chance of Getting Magic Items
You posted that comment as AC despite having an account(and posting from it now). That to me indicates that you knew it was likely to draw the ire of people, and/or would be noticed for being completely off topic. Maybe you were posting from some public place and just didn't feel like logging in. Maybe. Seems unlikely though.
So yeah, I'm thinking you did know you were trolling.
Of course, by responding to you I'm posting even further off topic, but at least I contributed some other more pertinent stuff up above :P
Well, you *can* have a sorceress in Diablo 2 using a sword. In fact, there are swords that are made specifically for spellcasters to use. The act 3 mercenaries are sword/shield and magic(though they very very rarely actually HIT anything with their sword).
The problem with this is that typically wizards/etc need to learn *how* to do all the crazy physics-defying things they do. That apparently takes time effort and money, leaving your character with much less time to devote to lifting very heavy things, running quite a bit and learning the best way to stab someone with an oversized knife.
So you'd expect they'd be kinda crummy at both.
Diablo 2 still lets you do that if you want, it just doesn't expect you to be as powerful as a pure frozen orb/meteor sorc or a pure fighter.
Sorceress' can hit things with their swords like Hexfire, having buffed themselves with enchant and with energy shield.
Druids can run around shapeshifted into a werewolf form, clawing and biting things all the while calling down Armageddon. Of course, the number of skill point you need to expend in order to be really good at both is very high, but you *can* do it...
There's a blog post from PZ Myers on Pharyngula that addresses this statement from Steve Jones fairly well I think. Read it in full here
This[the idea that older men have more mutations in their sperm] is true, but it makes no sense. It's not as if younger fathers produce no mutations -- they generate plenty. It's a difference in degree, nothing more, so we still have plenty of new mutations percolating into the population. And of course, over most of human history parents have been relatively young, since you couldn't count on living to the age of 35.
And then there's this odd argument.
Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. "In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21."
That makes even less sense. Natural selection is going to eliminate variants; by reducing its effects, we permit more mutations to persist in the population. One moment he's complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he's complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?
tl;dr = Steve Jones is full of wacky.
eh, that one works alright, most of the time.
Better one is: "One more question. You're watching a stage play. A banquet is in progress. The guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog..."
I've a very slight twist on Voltaire's famous statement.
If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
If Osama didn't exist and do the horrible things he does, then they'd need to find someone else to make the boogeyman of the day in order to maintain their programs. There are some genuinely good people in Washington sure, but there are some people over there who IMO have developed a taste for power. Sure, you could accurately say they're diversifying, and could start using Ahmadinejad even more than they are now, but why bother? The idea that Osama is still out there and plotting keeps people terrified just as well.
You mentioned some of the other methods of discipline in there :P
First step if time permits, is to take a half breath and think about the issue first so that you, as the grown up with a presumably fully functioning frontal lobe, can make informed choices about the situation.
Is she really doing anything wrong? Am I just being a grumpy bastard because I had a long day at work and am taking it out on her. Is he actually capable of doing what I'm expecting of him? If it's an issue that's probably genuinely beyond his abilities(getting a kid in trouble for pissing his pants when he's still toilet training)... Then I should cool it. Did she know at the time that she was doing something that's not appropriate, or is this a first/second time offense in this sort of environment(eg: being too loud at a friend's place who has cantankerous neighbours).
As long as it's not harming himself badly or others, let 'em feel the natural consequences of their actions. If they broke something or hurt another, try to get 'em involved with fixing the issue. That keeps them attending to the new problem and they see the time/effort involved in fixing it. Time outs for a few minutes even just to cool tempers if needed. Distract them :P If they're being a pain in the ass over something, try and get their attention onto another toy or activity or whatever. If the kid is too young to understand you when you explain why something's bad, then out of sight will likely be out of mind. Give them some choices that are meaningful. Not sure if you remember being a young hellion, but it's a massive pain in the ass not having control over your life at times... You've got to have limits(eg: bedtimes, amount of chocolate ice cream they can have, etc...) but when they can make the choice, let them. Praise them when they're not acting up, but praise them for specific things they've done; "I'm proud of how hard you worked studying for that test!" rather than "You're so smart! Look how great you did on that test!"
What you do depends on the age of the child really. If this is some toddler then you could pick her up, carry her to the (not neccessarily their own bedroom), put 'em down. I suppose technically that's force, as you touch the kid to pick them up, but I put that on a scale somewhat gentler than pulling their pants down and hitting them repeatedly.
If this kid is grown up enough that carrying them is innappropriate, then they can carry on at least a basic conversation. So talk to them, use I words rather than you words, try to figure out why they did whatever they did, and explain what's wrong with that.
tl;dr punishment as a rule should be avoided if possible, since it fosters a me-against-them mindset. Still have rules and limits certainly, but favour positive reinforcement over punishment when possible. When it IS needed, attempt to enact the punishment quickly, make it as mild as you're willing to, and don't let it drag on forever, keep it brief.
In fact, if the kid really doesn't want to listen, there is no solution.
You go on to say that even spanking doesn't work, and that currently there are no legal ways of getting through to the kid since you're not even allowed to just dump the kid in the forest anymore. So how is it that we have all these kinda well adjusted people in the world? Not everyone's a rampaging axe murderer. Suggests to me that your earlier statement mustn't happen then eh? Kids want to listen? Probably not all the time, but apparently they must want to enough, otherwise all civilization would have collapsed by now.
I'm not suggesting that you try to have a high level discussion of ethics and positive law versus natural law with a toddler, but I've seen a number of 5 year olds capable of understanding "stop it right now, you're being too loud" and if they continue, taking the child away from their current activity and putting them in a pseudo time-out or a host of other punishments. True, they sometimes DID keep being loud, and the threat had to be made followed through with, kids as young as five can and do manage to control themselves. The ability to inhibit stuff is terrible in children but not absent.
My personal anecdotes do not data make, but I've seen research that suggests that corporeal punishment is an effective way of getting most kids to do what you want, provided you're going to stand over them, watching for any slip-ups. As soon as the kid figures he can get away with it, he resumes misbehaving. Other forms of punishment tend not to show such effects quite so strongly, though they are of course, harder to apply.
I didn't mean thesis in the sense of a written proposal, I meant it(to shamelessly plagarize from wikipedia) in this way: The word "thesis" comes from the Greek, meaning "position", and refers to an intellectual proposition.
There's certainly ample research to suggest that temperment is partially genetic, and I have no doubts that biological sex and gender both play a role in shaping what people are like. I just thought it bizarre that YOU would bring up those two examples in the same post as you suggest that modern methods of discipline are not "effective or in the best interests of a child" I assume you're using such methods with your daughter, as you say you don't use physical discipline. If not, and if you don't mind, what are you using for discipline?
Additionally find it odd that you specify that there are lots of little boys and grown men who are incapable/unwilling to respect an authority that isn't backed up by force. Sure boys and girls are different, but why bother to specify boys there?
While I'm not sure that I fully believe this personally, an arguement COULD be made that those people who don't respect authority unless it's backed by force might have learned that pattern when they had force used on them in their formative years eh? The parent in this instance is modelling the idea that if you get in a disagreement, force is an acceptable way of coercing others into following your position and demonstrating your authority over them. They internalize this messege and hence continue to require it from others when they're grown men. "Oh yeah? Make me!" rather than "Oh yeah? Why?"
Wait what?
You were spanked with a belt as a child, and by self admission "sure as hell wasn't" respectful or well behaved. Told off nuns, no respect for authority...
You have "never had to use physical discipline" with your daughter, and she's well behaved.
That's purely anecdotal evidence of course, but how on earth does that support the thesis that physical discipline leads to better behaviour in the long run?
Are you really that threatened by the child that you need to use physical violence to cower them? That's the ONLY kind of real power you view parents as having?
That's more than a little disturbing.
I have no children of my own, but have a pair of neices and a pair of nephews, and have been able to be there as they are growing up. I've seen them pout and whine and complain and whatnot in order to try and get a toy or a treat or whatever. I'm not sure that based off of that anecdotal experience I'd agree with your thesis. Nor would the research I've seen in journals and research seminars.
In fact, if I pick the winner I LOSE when it comes to politics.
All that self-righteous "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos/another guy" that I love so much goes out the window if I actually voted for the shmuck. That's why I try to make sure I pick someone who's unlikely to win, but still seems like the sort of guy I like.
Usually, I do a write-in vote for Santa. Sure /. might harp on his love for surveillance that goes beyond regular wiretapping... but he brings me presents!
If I'm recalling correctly Hawking addressed that issue in Brief(Briefer?) History of Time. He explained that for small black holes the difference in how strongly gravity is pulling one end of you(feet) compared to the other end(head) would tear you apart before you could reach the event horizon. Large black holes (on the order of millions of stellar masses, like the ones at the center of galaxies) would be a much more gentle ride intially. In fact he said, you could pass right through the event horizon and not notice anything particularly weird happening. You wouldn't even notice. Nevertheless as you get closer to the singularity at the center you'd still get ripped apart.
It appears that they don't have officially released specs as of yet. Their FAQ still isn't even 100% sure what platforms will be used. -_- PC is sure of course, but other than that...
Currently the plan for Stargate Worlds is to release on the PC. However, we realize that there are MMO and Stargate fans on many platforms, and we would like to explore as many of these options as we can. Once we have confirmed which platforms will be supported we will make an announcement on this website.
There's some speculative posts on the forum about what plausible system requirements there will be. The best info I can find is on the Stargate-Worlds wiki
:
I'm not from the US, so all I have to go off of is anecdotes and whatnot... But is it really that expensive/difficult to get a dose of Plan B(an emergency contraceptive) down there? Far more effective than a coke and less likely to lead to damage of the delicate fallopian tubes (coke under pressure being squirted up into the vagina in an effort to "make sure we get 'em all"...
ugh, they don't go into details of how that's used, but assuming it's like typical spermicides and it's vaginally applied that's a TERRIBLE idea. Even if it kills sperm, that'd completely screw up the pH balance and flood it with sugar. Sounds to me like exactly what you don't want to do(unless you like yeast infections and other such STIs)
"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Why? Because it got tangled up in a big ball with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[...snip...]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
reference for the above quote
I suppose what I'm saying is that future rovers should be designed for as many possible contingencies
If you want a general purpose tool that can adapt to many scenario, send a human. (Also, go to the bank, you're going to need to make a biiiiiig withdrawl)
If you want to do science on a budget(which NASA has to do since it gets diddly squat for funding compared to certain other institutions) then you simply plan out what you think are probable tasks that'll be done, and design your robot to be able to do them cheaply and effectively. Trying to make a robot for "as many possible contingencies" will mean it will likely take a whole lot longer to design, to build, will cost more and all other things being equal, be more likely to break. The odds of something Going Wrong increases with the complexity of the device. Unless you plan on sending the rover with a bunch of spare parts and some arms to automatically perform repairs?
The question is, what mechanism do you believe in that could stop micro from becoming macro, given that the exact same mechanism is responsible for both? The analogy I've usually seen used to represent this is this: "How do you stop all these inches from adding up to a foot/mile?"
Change of/variation in genes is what allows for microevolution, and it is that exact same thing that permits macroevolution. Do you believe that God steps in and prevents further mutation?
"Hey hey hey, I don't mind you two groups of cats that were geographically separated developing some differences in your coloration, jaw shape and diet... but changing THAT? It'd be enough to make you into new species, so stop it!"
I'm pretty sure this must still happen in things like wow
The problem with such stuff in WoW and such games is that the really great loot drops when you're not around. You hear about how a friend of a friend recently got [insert awesome item] and drool. Even if you didn't get that item, the fact that you're reminded that it's around, and that OTHER people are finding it keeps your hopes up. We're like rats in a big room lever pressing for snacks. Other rats getting one is a "reward" of sorts for us, and keeps us working hard in the hopes of being similarily rewarded.
The grandmother has been living there for 12 years. Maybe this is a reference to Windows 95 being ancient, but still kicking around the house.
Notice that she seems to be the one that actually does most of the work around the place? :P She does the laundry, troubleshoots cars...
Hacking highly classified government systems to learn the secrets of the USA? Trying to instill fear in the hearts of the populace, that people in other countries, hiding amongst their allies, are doing this sort of thing?
Sounds like terrorism to me. Ship him to Gitmo.
^What an outsider might think is going to happen to this guy, as these are the sorts of thinking patterns that seem plausible.
I'm rather confused by how ID searches for answers. It seems to me like it simply says "this is how it must have been" and the search stops there. How can one study such a thing as ID in order to arive at new ideas? There's nothing to test since it doesn't have falsifiable predictions... A search involves moving forward with testing new ideas and seeing if they're true.
And a pile of sand might evolve if more sand were dumped on the pile every day
Sand does not reproduce, with heritable variation between the children of a Daddy Sand, and with some of those variations being advantageous or not for the purposes of future reproduction. ergo, no, a pile of sand will not evolve if you dump more sand on it.
is that one type seems to require some kind of intelligence.
That's I think the issue. I'm not sure why a person needs more intelligence to arise than a pile of sand. It might need more energy and time, but intelligence? Why? Where did IT come from? Is it intelligent designers "all the way down"?
The IP is that valuable and you're just going to put the laptop in the trash? ...
What? You don't think that someone will notice, and perhaps take that laptop? Perhaps rummaging through the contents at their leisure?
If you decide to smash the laptop violently first, then dump the shattered bits into the trash that might work I suppose, and attract the attention of the cops who think you're unstable.