I enjoy books, so I'm not trying to say that your totally off your rocker, but the prices your quote are for you only I suppose. $20 to see Spider-Man 3 plus $8 popcorn and a $5 drink comes out to $33 for two people to see a movie where you are, or how you live. My wife and I are going to see it tomorrow morning for a grand whopping total of $11. That's two tickets. This might surprise you, but you can last more than two hours without junk food. In fact, you can last more than two hours without any food or drink at all. Eat a hearty meal before you go. Lay off the excess fats and sugars.
It also helps that we're going in the morning. If I felt justified in doing so, we'd go in the morning during the weekdays and get two tickets for a total of $9, but the time off work isn't worth those $2. Normally we wait till movies show up in the dollar theater and then go on $0.75 Tuesdays. That's two tickets for a whopping $1.50, but there are a lot of movies we want to see this summer and so we're starting early. We haven't been to the theater for nearly 8 months, so we don't spend a lot there anyway. We'll also get the DVDs of most movies we watch. That's because we feel if it's not worth buying, then it's probably not worth watching. So in total, by the time we buy Spider-Man 3 we'll have spent about $30. $11 from the tickets for tomorrow morning, maybe one more viewing in the dollar theater, and then we'll get it on the first day Wal-Mart sells it which is usually fairly cheap.
While all of that is more expensive than a $6 picture book of space (can you reply with a link, cause that sounds cool), it's worth it to us. But where do you get off trying to dictate how people ought to value entertainment? If people would rather watch a movie for $10,000 than take a short free walk in the park with friends, then that is their prerogative. I read a lot, but I honestly don't see anything inherently more entertaining in a book than a movie. Literature is thousands of years old. Movies are slightly over a century old, and talkies are less than that. Games are only a couple of decades into their life. Images have been around for a long time as well. Just because one art form has had a longer time to evolve, doesn't mean it is inherently better than other art forms. Just because one entertainment medium has been perfecting itself for thousands of years doesn't mean it is inherently better than another medium.
Also, your arguments about restrictive and expensive are very much a reality already. When things get too expensive, people find other things to do. Why do you think it is that not everyone eats lobster? Sure, not everyone likes it, but if it was as cheap as carrot sticks then it would be eaten a lot more than it currently is. Not every one can afford a cruise. Not everyone can afford a trip into space. Not everyone that wants to can afford the ten thousand dollar escort. So people find something else that entertains them. Will the movie companies be upset that you can't afford the movie? Not at all. They'll price it so that they can make as much money as they can. If it's more profitable to them to sell tickets at $200 per seat than to sell it at $2 per seat, then they'll do that. Are they evil for doing so? No, they don't owe you anything. You don't deserve to be entertained by them, that is why they are charging you for it. Which is why your "so restricted that we can't download it for free" comment is totally ridiculous. I'm all for shortening the copyright term, I'm against DRM, but why should you be able to dictate at what price someone sells their work of art for. If they want to overcharge, it's their problem. If they do it because it's more profitable, then good for them. You don't deserve it for free. It is not some inherent right that you have to get someone else's work with the terms that you dictate.
Finally, those $10 books at Waldenbooks and Barnes and Noble are $10 because they know that is the price they can charge for them. If t
If you don't want people killing each other then you have to prevent it. Thus all guns, knives, swords, bombs, hammers, saws, heavy bludgeoning type equipment, etc should be banned. Large sticks, water, fire, dirt, rocks and other such things will also have to be taken away. All hands will be tied behind your back, feet will be chained together and muzzles will be put over you mouths to keep you from using your teeth. Also, to prevent you from falling on top of someone, or from pushing them over a cliff, every one will be locked into cages.
While I'm not likening what they did to murder, the idea that you have to prevent something in order to be able to punish someone for breaking the rule is absolutely stupid. If there was a rule against using proxies, then the punishment for it should be held, regardless of whether or not the sys admins even attempted to block proxies. If you think that they must prevent in order to be able to punish, then you agree with the murder analogy above. Or perhaps you think that someone should not be punished for robbing your home, because while you did lock the door, you failed to bar your windows, thus you might as well just asked him to steal from you.
You can't even argue concerning the punishment given that there is no context. Were the kids looking at porn? Whether you agree with it or not, the school could be held liable for all sorts of things if that were the case. Were they already delinquents? That is, did they have a record of any type, but even more so of breaking this particular rule. Had they been warned about it several times, but each time ignored the warnings and still did it for the umpteenth time? I don't know, but neither do you, unless you're somehow in the know and not letting the rest of us know. Three months is a long time for something as seemingly innocuous as using a web filter. It seems that the whole article, and I include the summary by the submitter as well, was written to get a reactionary response, and they got you.
So to answer the question in the title, no, students should not be held liable for school insecurity. What that question has to do with the scenario at hand though is beyond me. The question probably should have been "Should students be held responsible for decisions they make to break rules?" and the answer is an obvious and resounding yes. Perhaps the question could have been "Is 3 months too long for such a violation?" in which case context would have been imperative. We are given no such context and thus the answer would be that we don't know.
I doubt that story simply because anybody that's installing water heaters would know that water heaters are not called hot water heaters. Why in the world would you be wanting to heat the water if it's already hot?
However, Virginia Tech's actions toward Cho came under heavy scrutiny after the killings because of the "disturbing" plays and essays teachers say he had written for classes.
Finally, games are out of the lime light just like rap, rock and roll, movies and comic books used to be. The new evil ill in our society will be plays and essays. I can't wait for them to go after Andrew Lloyd Weber. That guy is dangerous.
Actually, in all my experiences, I have found that if you want to appear to be a hardcore gamer, you need to have an Xbox. If you actually are a hardcore gamer, you'll have more than one console (which may or may not include the Xbox) and you'll probably be also playing on the PC. Nearly every person I've met (anecdotal I know) that only has an Xbox are the type of people who just want to look like their on the inside. When I talk to them about games (past, present and future) they don't know what I'm talking about. But get them started on Halo or Gears of War and they can drone on forever about how much they love games. Technically you only need two to say "games" I suppose.
This would be equivalent to someone saying they love board games but they've never played anything more than Monopoly and Candy Land, or someone saying they love vegetables, but they've never even heard of an eggplant. Note that I'm not saying they don't like anything other than Monopoly or Candy Land, but they've never played anything more. I'm not saying you have to like eggplant in order to say you're hardcore into veggies, but you should have heard about it.
I've long understood that they rely on the parent company for their source of funding, but why? Why would Microsoft be interested in losing money for yet another division. Why would any business be interested in that? Do they feel they are doing some kind of charitable contribution to mankind? Is it a tax write off where somehow they are actually making money doing this? I just don't know what's in it for them to lose money year after year after year. Sure they made a lot of money from other things, but in the last few years, their entertainment division has lost them over $5 billion. And what has it got them? Nothing. They're not dominating, they're not even near dominating. The Wii is fast approaching their numbers and it's been out for only a third of what they have. The Playstation 2 is still outselling the Xbox 360. What could they possibly be hoping for?
My prediction is that unless something seriously changes, Microsoft will be out of the console market by the end of the next generation (and by next I mean Xbox 720, Playstation 4, and Wii 2). I really don't think Halo 3 is going to do it for them. The quarter Halo 2 came out was the only profitable quarter MS has ever had in that division, and that's because nearly everyone that bought it did so in that quarter. According to Wikipedia, 5 million bought Halo, 8 million bought Halo 2, but you're probably not going to see that kind of increase for Halo 3. My guess is that the Halo market is near if not at saturation. So let's pretend all 8 million of those people and even a few million more buy Halo 3. So what? They have another single profitable quarter. Maybe even two. Then they go back to losing money. By the time Halo 4 comes out, people's interest will start to wane and they'll want something new and different. If MS can't get it for them, they lose out.
I'm not saying there MS has no chance to survive, make your time. But they are in serious trouble in that division and if they don't do something to change it, something significantly different than what they've done, their console division will be gone within 5-6 years. They can't just make another more powerful console. Game development costs have gone up so far that exclusives are becoming rare. If Nintendo success continues at the current pace, every console maker will have motion control next gen. So they can't just rely on that.
And for 99.9% of users the underlying architecture is a block box. But 100$ of applications the underlying architecture is important, and if the application doesn't run then the user gets upset. Doesn't matter if the application only needs to be recompiled, even if the developers gave away free recompiles to people who had previously purchased the software, it would require users to know which architecture they have (already difficult for most people) and make sure they get the right one.
Have you ever seen people confused about which package to get for which Linux distro? They don't know if they should get the one for Fedora, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Gentoo or Debian, and then they have to decide i386, x86_64, ppc, or whatever else there is.
Yes, most developers would have no problem, and most users wouldn't care once everything was working, it's just getting things into a working state that would suck when underlying architectures are changing every few years.
Dead? Where have you been? Let's start with a very short list of companies that use OpenGL.
Epic - makers of the Unreal engines id - makers of the Doom and Quake engines Valve - they are porting Half-Life 2 to the PS3 which uses a variation of OpenGL Blizzard - makers of Warcraft games, Starcraft, and the Diablo series
For a very short list of games please refer to the lists found here, here and here, and that is only for three engines. I will admit that those engines also use Direct X, but if they use OpenGL at all, and they all do, then I wouldn't exactly call OpenGL dead.
And Microsoft wont make a "ZunePhone." That would just hurt their Windows CE business because other manufacturers would be less inclined to use the OS on their devices. You don't want to pay software license fees to your direct competitor.
In other news, Microsoft won't make a Zune. That would just hurt their Plays for Sure business because other manufacturers would be less inclined to use the format on their devices. You don't want to pay software license fees to your direct competitor.
You are being charged for the service of monitoring and updating you on a regular basis.
you are purchasing the service of reporting it to you.
So which is it? Am I being charged for them monitoring and updating, or for it being reported to me? If I'm being charged for them monitoring it, then that would be why the original poster asked why he should have to monitor it. But if you are being charged for reporting it to you, then it actually does not belong to you. The credit agencies aren't some storage rental place where you pay for them to hold on to your information. You didn't even give it to them. They acquired it all on their own. Which means that if it belongs to you, then they stole it. They acquired it on their own and are charging you to see it. It belongs to them, not you. Even if it were, what kind of place charges you per viewing to see your own stuff? No place does, because in this case it's not yours. The credit report about you does not belong to you.
Also, so what if you are given on free report per agency per year? That's not enough for you to monitor your credit. If you want to monitor your credit you've got to do it more often than that, especially given the context of why we are even having this discussion. If I wanted to make sure no one has stolen my information and has decimated my credit and committed fraud in my name, I would know about it when the cops showed up long before I got my yearly report.
That would be where you are wrong. It's not yours. It belongs to the credit agencies. If it was yours then you shouldn't be charged for obtaining it. But you are charged because it doesn't belong to you. I'm sure you'd like to think it belongs to you. I'd like to think it belongs to me. But either it doesn't belong to you, or you shouldn't be charged for it.
Yes they are allowed. The only thing you can't do is admit them to pornographic stuff. But the ratings system is a totally 100% voluntary thing. If a director doesn't want to have a rating on his movie, then he just doesn't submit it to the MPAA ratings board. Without a rating, the movie is less likely to show up in major theater chains, but no law keeps them from showing it. No law keeps kids out of R-rated movies. It's all an industry regulated thing and is 100% voluntary.
The news doesn't generally show you the really graphic stuff.
You don't need graphic stuff to say "Hey, that's what I'm going to do." If you have a guy who's deranged and mad at the world he can play a violent video game and watch violent movies and see the graphic violence he wants to lash out at people the world over, or you can show him hours upon hours of the VA Tech school shooting news which shows nothing graphic, but it does show him how much attention he can get if he one ups Mr. Cho. He learns from the news how he can cause mass hysteria against the people he hates, he sees that they can suffer just like he does. On the flip side, video games don't show people having break downs due to the death of loved ones. They also don't show the mass hysteria that ensued due to the violence in a game, they don't show how much news coverage you get after the violence, etc.
Personally, if I knew someone who tended toward violent thoughts and actions the news is the last thing I would want them watching.
I think the whole measurement is rather silly. So what if they had more genes change for the better. Would you rather have 100 deposits into your bank of $1 each, or one large deposit of $500. Measuring the number of changes is rather pointless in that light. But I suppose that leaves people trying to decide which developments are better. Money is easy to quantify, "better-ness" is not quite so easy. But who cares anyway? Let's pretend chimps have become genetically "better" than humans...
Oh for the love! I was going to say something witty here, but everything I came up with could be countered by pointing out people that act worse than chimps. Maybe they are better than humans. I quit. I'm going to go live in the trees and see if I can catch up to them evolution-wise.
Or for that matter, compare a day of operations in Iraq to a day of operations for the entire US. Do you people just love to bring this stuff up. Someone is glad that his tax dollars are being put to a better use and the only thing you can respond with is that there's a conflict in Iraq costing a lot of money? Did you also think that when the OP talked about his tax dollars that he was actually referring to just his tax dollars and not anybody else's?
First off, not all AZ is wicked hot. However, when I lived in Glendale, the heat was exactly what I enjoyed. Now I'm living in the frigid land of the north where in the winter they go off DST and no one goes out doors because it's so cold and the sun ain't shining no more. After nightfall they're all sucking every last watt out of their homes barricaded inside a heated life-support. Warm evenings save energy.
It's not 50-60f degrees everywhere in the USA during Winter ya know.
Slashdot Mirror
I enjoy books, so I'm not trying to say that your totally off your rocker, but the prices your quote are for you only I suppose. $20 to see Spider-Man 3 plus $8 popcorn and a $5 drink comes out to $33 for two people to see a movie where you are, or how you live. My wife and I are going to see it tomorrow morning for a grand whopping total of $11. That's two tickets. This might surprise you, but you can last more than two hours without junk food. In fact, you can last more than two hours without any food or drink at all. Eat a hearty meal before you go. Lay off the excess fats and sugars.
It also helps that we're going in the morning. If I felt justified in doing so, we'd go in the morning during the weekdays and get two tickets for a total of $9, but the time off work isn't worth those $2. Normally we wait till movies show up in the dollar theater and then go on $0.75 Tuesdays. That's two tickets for a whopping $1.50, but there are a lot of movies we want to see this summer and so we're starting early. We haven't been to the theater for nearly 8 months, so we don't spend a lot there anyway. We'll also get the DVDs of most movies we watch. That's because we feel if it's not worth buying, then it's probably not worth watching. So in total, by the time we buy Spider-Man 3 we'll have spent about $30. $11 from the tickets for tomorrow morning, maybe one more viewing in the dollar theater, and then we'll get it on the first day Wal-Mart sells it which is usually fairly cheap.
While all of that is more expensive than a $6 picture book of space (can you reply with a link, cause that sounds cool), it's worth it to us. But where do you get off trying to dictate how people ought to value entertainment? If people would rather watch a movie for $10,000 than take a short free walk in the park with friends, then that is their prerogative. I read a lot, but I honestly don't see anything inherently more entertaining in a book than a movie. Literature is thousands of years old. Movies are slightly over a century old, and talkies are less than that. Games are only a couple of decades into their life. Images have been around for a long time as well. Just because one art form has had a longer time to evolve, doesn't mean it is inherently better than other art forms. Just because one entertainment medium has been perfecting itself for thousands of years doesn't mean it is inherently better than another medium.
Also, your arguments about restrictive and expensive are very much a reality already. When things get too expensive, people find other things to do. Why do you think it is that not everyone eats lobster? Sure, not everyone likes it, but if it was as cheap as carrot sticks then it would be eaten a lot more than it currently is. Not every one can afford a cruise. Not everyone can afford a trip into space. Not everyone that wants to can afford the ten thousand dollar escort. So people find something else that entertains them. Will the movie companies be upset that you can't afford the movie? Not at all. They'll price it so that they can make as much money as they can. If it's more profitable to them to sell tickets at $200 per seat than to sell it at $2 per seat, then they'll do that. Are they evil for doing so? No, they don't owe you anything. You don't deserve to be entertained by them, that is why they are charging you for it. Which is why your "so restricted that we can't download it for free" comment is totally ridiculous. I'm all for shortening the copyright term, I'm against DRM, but why should you be able to dictate at what price someone sells their work of art for. If they want to overcharge, it's their problem. If they do it because it's more profitable, then good for them. You don't deserve it for free. It is not some inherent right that you have to get someone else's work with the terms that you dictate.
Finally, those $10 books at Waldenbooks and Barnes and Noble are $10 because they know that is the price they can charge for them. If t
If you don't want people killing each other then you have to prevent it. Thus all guns, knives, swords, bombs, hammers, saws, heavy bludgeoning type equipment, etc should be banned. Large sticks, water, fire, dirt, rocks and other such things will also have to be taken away. All hands will be tied behind your back, feet will be chained together and muzzles will be put over you mouths to keep you from using your teeth. Also, to prevent you from falling on top of someone, or from pushing them over a cliff, every one will be locked into cages.
While I'm not likening what they did to murder, the idea that you have to prevent something in order to be able to punish someone for breaking the rule is absolutely stupid. If there was a rule against using proxies, then the punishment for it should be held, regardless of whether or not the sys admins even attempted to block proxies. If you think that they must prevent in order to be able to punish, then you agree with the murder analogy above. Or perhaps you think that someone should not be punished for robbing your home, because while you did lock the door, you failed to bar your windows, thus you might as well just asked him to steal from you.
You can't even argue concerning the punishment given that there is no context. Were the kids looking at porn? Whether you agree with it or not, the school could be held liable for all sorts of things if that were the case. Were they already delinquents? That is, did they have a record of any type, but even more so of breaking this particular rule. Had they been warned about it several times, but each time ignored the warnings and still did it for the umpteenth time? I don't know, but neither do you, unless you're somehow in the know and not letting the rest of us know. Three months is a long time for something as seemingly innocuous as using a web filter. It seems that the whole article, and I include the summary by the submitter as well, was written to get a reactionary response, and they got you.
So to answer the question in the title, no, students should not be held liable for school insecurity. What that question has to do with the scenario at hand though is beyond me. The question probably should have been "Should students be held responsible for decisions they make to break rules?" and the answer is an obvious and resounding yes. Perhaps the question could have been "Is 3 months too long for such a violation?" in which case context would have been imperative. We are given no such context and thus the answer would be that we don't know.
I doubt that story simply because anybody that's installing water heaters would know that water heaters are not called hot water heaters. Why in the world would you be wanting to heat the water if it's already hot?
You're wrong on all accounts. Obviously the cell phones are causing the parasite invasion.
What does that even mean when not even the incompetent want you? I kid, I kid.
Actually, in all my experiences, I have found that if you want to appear to be a hardcore gamer, you need to have an Xbox. If you actually are a hardcore gamer, you'll have more than one console (which may or may not include the Xbox) and you'll probably be also playing on the PC. Nearly every person I've met (anecdotal I know) that only has an Xbox are the type of people who just want to look like their on the inside. When I talk to them about games (past, present and future) they don't know what I'm talking about. But get them started on Halo or Gears of War and they can drone on forever about how much they love games. Technically you only need two to say "games" I suppose.
This would be equivalent to someone saying they love board games but they've never played anything more than Monopoly and Candy Land, or someone saying they love vegetables, but they've never even heard of an eggplant. Note that I'm not saying they don't like anything other than Monopoly or Candy Land, but they've never played anything more. I'm not saying you have to like eggplant in order to say you're hardcore into veggies, but you should have heard about it.
I've long understood that they rely on the parent company for their source of funding, but why? Why would Microsoft be interested in losing money for yet another division. Why would any business be interested in that? Do they feel they are doing some kind of charitable contribution to mankind? Is it a tax write off where somehow they are actually making money doing this? I just don't know what's in it for them to lose money year after year after year. Sure they made a lot of money from other things, but in the last few years, their entertainment division has lost them over $5 billion. And what has it got them? Nothing. They're not dominating, they're not even near dominating. The Wii is fast approaching their numbers and it's been out for only a third of what they have. The Playstation 2 is still outselling the Xbox 360. What could they possibly be hoping for?
My prediction is that unless something seriously changes, Microsoft will be out of the console market by the end of the next generation (and by next I mean Xbox 720, Playstation 4, and Wii 2). I really don't think Halo 3 is going to do it for them. The quarter Halo 2 came out was the only profitable quarter MS has ever had in that division, and that's because nearly everyone that bought it did so in that quarter. According to Wikipedia, 5 million bought Halo, 8 million bought Halo 2, but you're probably not going to see that kind of increase for Halo 3. My guess is that the Halo market is near if not at saturation. So let's pretend all 8 million of those people and even a few million more buy Halo 3. So what? They have another single profitable quarter. Maybe even two. Then they go back to losing money. By the time Halo 4 comes out, people's interest will start to wane and they'll want something new and different. If MS can't get it for them, they lose out.
I'm not saying there MS has no chance to survive, make your time. But they are in serious trouble in that division and if they don't do something to change it, something significantly different than what they've done, their console division will be gone within 5-6 years. They can't just make another more powerful console. Game development costs have gone up so far that exclusives are becoming rare. If Nintendo success continues at the current pace, every console maker will have motion control next gen. So they can't just rely on that.
Perhaps I'm biased, but if there were 9,500 Hondas and one Ford, it is quite more likely that the Ford will break down first.
And for 99.9% of users the underlying architecture is a block box. But 100$ of applications the underlying architecture is important, and if the application doesn't run then the user gets upset. Doesn't matter if the application only needs to be recompiled, even if the developers gave away free recompiles to people who had previously purchased the software, it would require users to know which architecture they have (already difficult for most people) and make sure they get the right one.
Have you ever seen people confused about which package to get for which Linux distro? They don't know if they should get the one for Fedora, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Gentoo or Debian, and then they have to decide i386, x86_64, ppc, or whatever else there is.
Yes, most developers would have no problem, and most users wouldn't care once everything was working, it's just getting things into a working state that would suck when underlying architectures are changing every few years.
Dead? Where have you been? Let's start with a very short list of companies that use OpenGL.
Epic - makers of the Unreal engines
id - makers of the Doom and Quake engines
Valve - they are porting Half-Life 2 to the PS3 which uses a variation of OpenGL
Blizzard - makers of Warcraft games, Starcraft, and the Diablo series
For a very short list of games please refer to the lists found here, here and here, and that is only for three engines. I will admit that those engines also use Direct X, but if they use OpenGL at all, and they all do, then I wouldn't exactly call OpenGL dead.
In other news, Microsoft won't make a Zune. That would just hurt their Plays for Sure business because other manufacturers would be less inclined to use the format on their devices. You don't want to pay software license fees to your direct competitor.
I'd say they were more popular than just hyped.
"And now we see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
You are being charged for the service of monitoring and updating you on a regular basis.
you are purchasing the service of reporting it to you.
So which is it? Am I being charged for them monitoring and updating, or for it being reported to me? If I'm being charged for them monitoring it, then that would be why the original poster asked why he should have to monitor it. But if you are being charged for reporting it to you, then it actually does not belong to you. The credit agencies aren't some storage rental place where you pay for them to hold on to your information. You didn't even give it to them. They acquired it all on their own. Which means that if it belongs to you, then they stole it. They acquired it on their own and are charging you to see it. It belongs to them, not you. Even if it were, what kind of place charges you per viewing to see your own stuff? No place does, because in this case it's not yours. The credit report about you does not belong to you.
Also, so what if you are given on free report per agency per year? That's not enough for you to monitor your credit. If you want to monitor your credit you've got to do it more often than that, especially given the context of why we are even having this discussion. If I wanted to make sure no one has stolen my information and has decimated my credit and committed fraud in my name, I would know about it when the cops showed up long before I got my yearly report.
That would be where you are wrong. It's not yours. It belongs to the credit agencies. If it was yours then you shouldn't be charged for obtaining it. But you are charged because it doesn't belong to you. I'm sure you'd like to think it belongs to you. I'd like to think it belongs to me. But either it doesn't belong to you, or you shouldn't be charged for it.
Yes they are allowed. The only thing you can't do is admit them to pornographic stuff. But the ratings system is a totally 100% voluntary thing. If a director doesn't want to have a rating on his movie, then he just doesn't submit it to the MPAA ratings board. Without a rating, the movie is less likely to show up in major theater chains, but no law keeps them from showing it. No law keeps kids out of R-rated movies. It's all an industry regulated thing and is 100% voluntary.
The news doesn't generally show you the really graphic stuff.
You don't need graphic stuff to say "Hey, that's what I'm going to do." If you have a guy who's deranged and mad at the world he can play a violent video game and watch violent movies and see the graphic violence he wants to lash out at people the world over, or you can show him hours upon hours of the VA Tech school shooting news which shows nothing graphic, but it does show him how much attention he can get if he one ups Mr. Cho. He learns from the news how he can cause mass hysteria against the people he hates, he sees that they can suffer just like he does. On the flip side, video games don't show people having break downs due to the death of loved ones. They also don't show the mass hysteria that ensued due to the violence in a game, they don't show how much news coverage you get after the violence, etc.
Personally, if I knew someone who tended toward violent thoughts and actions the news is the last thing I would want them watching.
I think the whole measurement is rather silly. So what if they had more genes change for the better. Would you rather have 100 deposits into your bank of $1 each, or one large deposit of $500. Measuring the number of changes is rather pointless in that light. But I suppose that leaves people trying to decide which developments are better. Money is easy to quantify, "better-ness" is not quite so easy. But who cares anyway? Let's pretend chimps have become genetically "better" than humans...
Oh for the love! I was going to say something witty here, but everything I came up with could be countered by pointing out people that act worse than chimps. Maybe they are better than humans. I quit. I'm going to go live in the trees and see if I can catch up to them evolution-wise.
Even better, the door was on public property.
Oh, Oh, even better, the door was sending out invitations.
Oh, I got another one, if the owner didn't want anyone to use the door they could have stopped the door from sending invitations.
I'd gladly pay for a very stable, very fast, very efficient word processor that handled ODF and let me easily integrate tools with it.
And that is exactly what MS is afraid of. You'd pay for what you described, which means you would not pay for MS Office.
Or how about the pop up ad PC World hit me with. Or how about articles stretched over 5 pages? Or how about "More ads than content" web sites?
Not only did you say it one minute later, you also misspelled it the same way. Are you the same person?
Or for that matter, compare a day of operations in Iraq to a day of operations for the entire US. Do you people just love to bring this stuff up. Someone is glad that his tax dollars are being put to a better use and the only thing you can respond with is that there's a conflict in Iraq costing a lot of money? Did you also think that when the OP talked about his tax dollars that he was actually referring to just his tax dollars and not anybody else's?
First off, not all AZ is wicked hot. However, when I lived in Glendale, the heat was exactly what I enjoyed. Now I'm living in the frigid land of the north where in the winter they go off DST and no one goes out doors because it's so cold and the sun ain't shining no more. After nightfall they're all sucking every last watt out of their homes barricaded inside a heated life-support. Warm evenings save energy.
It's not 50-60f degrees everywhere in the USA during Winter ya know.