[2] Nobody's stupid enough to start a fight where a teacher might *see* you.
Oh, contraire, my friend. I know just a person stupid enough to do that: me. An acquaintance of mine pissed me off in lunch one day, so I slugged him--right in the middle of the cafeteria. Not only did it attract the attention of every one of my peers, but also 2 teachers and a security guard, who removed both of us from the caf.
Luckily for me, I am a weakling, so the kid I hit didn't care. He was more surprised that I could get worked up enough to hit anyone. Furthermore, I have a habit of making friends of authority figures*, so the guard let me off the hook. The really odd thing is the other students began treating me with more respect after that**. I guess it's a "that took balls" type of moment.
* While this has served me quite well over the past 23 years, it attracts bullies like bees to honey.
** including the kid I hit, whose remarks were reduced to my inability to fight--something I was quite comfortable with.
or any number of perfectly useful activities that do not include glotzing some retarded screen full of disinformation and jejune entertainment that reinforces a false consciousness that convinces people to act and live in a way that fosters the parasitic tapeworm economy.
Dude, please do us a favor and lay of the thesaurus for a bit.
MMORPGs are played to build your character so you can sometime reach the top levels. In "traditional" MMORPGs this means, you can go down dungeons and come up with the most prized items.
Your analysis hits the mark for most MMORPGs, but a select few exist where the primary goal is to cultivate an identity, rather than power-mongering. EVE Online has always fit the latter mold of MMO design, and as such, your final analysis lacks applicability.
The most pertinent example supporting my assertion is the advancement system. It is literally impossible to create a "do everything" character, and most advancement paths these days take 6 months to a year minimum to fully learn. This influences the way players interact with the game: eventually, they all realize that getting the best loot and coolest ships isn't the goal of the game.
Another example supporting my "designed to enhance identity" assertion is the sheer risk you assume by playing. Over the course of 1 24-hour timespan, I went from having over 100 million isk in assets to just over 10 million (a tricked out thorax got ganked in 0.1 podkill space, on a routine flight to pick up ammo). It hurts to lose that much isk; luckily my clone was up to date, or I'd have lost over 15 million SP as well. But this risk helps foster that online identity. Losing everything for the first time throws your existence into perspective, by asking the question "do I want to lose this again?
Compare this to WoW or City of Villains, where your losses amount to grinding for another hour or two. This brings us to your question:
Would this convince you to sign up for the game? Or, rather, would it make you continue playing if you started to lose interest?... Would it convince you to start one when you hear that the top level dungeons are allegedly reserved for the devs and their buddies?
This most recent news wouldn't effect my decision to keep playing a "traditional" massive. If the game is fun, and access to special content doesn't effect my gameplay heavily, then who cares? But EVE doesn't posess the same founding principles. The problem with these activities, as far as EVE development is concerned, isn't the imbalance of gameplay, as Slashdot and others contend. Why? EVE gameplay is intrinsically imbalanced towards corporate activities and alliances, and a bit of favoritism won't effect the system as a whole. (The value of anything except the most expensive BPOs is inconsequential in the long-run, see below).
However, favoritism breaks something more important: the risk associated with playing the game. If a dev grants special privileges to his friends in-game, he removes the risk of identity loss. And when this occurs, the game falls apart. To see why it falls apart we must examine the ones affected by favoritism: the community.
One of the paramount virtues of EVE is the community. EVE's community in particular cares greatly about the game, and want an even playing field, not so they can "win", but because of the personal investment required to play the game. Losses, though virtual, feel incredibly real to the community. These losses come in two forms, capital loss and power loss.
Capital loss includes loss of clones, implants, ships, player owned stations, and outposts. Capital loss is incredibly common, and its implementation supports the entire economy of EVE. Because capital loss occurs so frequently in EVE Online, the capital one corp gains through favoritism is quickly outpaced by the other losses inherent in the game.
Power loss, on the other hand, is far more drastic. A dev's-buddys/corp-only dungeon and special gifts would wreak havoc in EVE, as the gifts received couldn't be earned by other corps. The exclusive mechanic or modification projects power from the beneficiary, causing a net loss in other corps. This loss cannot be (easily) regained by the maligned corps, because they simply don't have access to the content.*
While the MMORPG market generates tons of profits for game companies, that same market has an incredibly high barrier to entry. Not only is the market exceedingly competitive, but the amount of capital needed for a modern MMORPG can exceed that of a motion picture. In addition, these games commonly take between 2 and 4 years to implement, so you have to keep a great eye on your competition.
What does this all mean? While MMORPGs can develop far greater profits than a "regular" game, they carry a great deal more risk to development companies. Thus, developers always care about "people like you or I". You don't generate as much revenue, but the audience you fit in consumes the "bread and butter" product of the industry. That market is still fairly competitive, but it has less overhead--and thus the products are "safer" to release, from an economic standpoint.
Ah, but now we stumble upon the true way that Microsoft is ripping off of open source. Obviously they combined both logos as a way to drive linux and Adium off of the market. And you know what's also a bird? Pidgins. Could it really be such a coincidence that Tux is a bird, a duck is a bird (twice, once for MS, once for Adium), and that a pidgin is a bird? OH, LORD. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO.
But uh... yeah, all of that resemblence thing is just flaimbait
I wouldn't even call it flamebait. I would, however, call the blogger an idiot.
CowboyNeal: Switch, Apoc! LiquidCooled: What is it? CoolGuyZak: A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix...it happens when they change something
[ Admiral Ackbar realizes what they changed. ]
Admiral Ackbar: Oh my God...
[ Zonk is sitting in his chair in one of the hotel rooms, looking at a picture of the woman in the red dress. his cell phone rings it and he picks it up. ]
Admiral Ackbar: They cut the hard line, it's a trap, get out!!
Certain Macs - even the Pro notebooks - come with only one button. The reasons escape me, but I'm not the one selling computers.
It should be mentioned that all Intel Macs feature "right click" support on their touch pads. After enabling the feature in System Preferences, you can place two fingers on the touch pad and click the mouse button to pull up a context menu. The reasoning is as you mentioned: Ease of use. When all Macs feature the same basic UI Mechanisms, it enables consumers to experience the same level of consistency across all products out of the box.
Why is that good? Because many affluent customers get the most expensive (e.g. pro-line) package, even though they'll waste its capabilities. The professionals targeted by the platform know where to enable the advanced features, or look for it ASAP. (For instance, the first thing I did was enable right click support). It satisfies both of Apple's market segments and, thus, sells more computers.
Dude, neither of the apple screenshots you listed are those of modern apple apps running on Windows. The screenshot of iTunes was version 4.1. The latest release is 7.1.x. I couldn't identify the version of QuickTime in the screenshot, but I know that the present release resembles this (note: that screenshot is on OS X).
Modern Apple apps on XP/Vista still don't fit in, but they do fit better than the screenshots you provided. In addition, the point of iTunes and QuickTime is to stick out on windows. Apple wants easily identifiable products, in much the same way that nike wants their logo on shirts. (Think branding & style -- it helps customers identify what's popular, and many consumers just buy what's popular.)
Furthermore, you compared media playing applications (iTunes & Quicktime) to 'traditional' applications (Gnumeric, GIMP, GAIM, etc). Compare WinAmp, Windows Media Player, and Visual Studio. Just like sesame street: one of these doesn't belong (hint: it's Visual Studio). In other words, media players on windows are notorious for non-native UIs.
Considering that the GP quoted the HIG directly, you are in fact incorrect. iPhoto is implemented to the HIG. It has only one window (compare with iTunes' 2 windows). Furthermore, it doesn't continue to do anything locally after the user closes the window (compared with iTunes, which continues to play music locally). IE: The Bonjour file sharing functionality of iPhoto isn't considered by the HIG.
IMHO, iPhoto, iTunes, et al. should be used to browse and manipulate media, not broadcast it. Removing broadcast features tailors the functionality to a more specific user intent, which (generally) simplifies the UI. From the Avoid Feature Cascade">HIG:
If you are developing a simple application, it can be very tempting to add features that aren't wholly relevant to the original intent of the program. This feature cascade can lead to a bloated interface that is slow and difficult to use because of its complexity. Try to stick to the original intent of your program and include only features that are relevant to the main workflow.
The best products aren't the ones with the most features. The best products are those whose features are tightly integrated with the solutions they provide, making them the most usable.
One of the many areas where the HIG hasn't stayed up to date is with application & service integration. Ambiguity creeps in when you encounter functionality that should be "always-on". I believe that the proper solution is to separate bonjour sharing from the application(s) that support it, and move it into one or more OSX services. Preferences for these sharing services can then be configured via System Preferences > Sharing.
Borders takes measures to prevent employee theft. Amazingly enough, they use a positive incentive policy to do so. At first, employees are given a (store-wide) discount. After the employee evaluation period (90 days?) Borders gives their employees a gift certificate each month but halves the discount. In addition, they allow employees to borrow hard-back and trade paperback books to read. (They don't allow mass-market books, because damaging the spine is practically inevitable.) If the book comes back damaged, the employee is obligated to buy the book. Otherwise, it's shelved and sold. Furthermore, both the card & discount work on every item sold by the store with no strings attached, and the discount is also granted to immediate family. Plus, free coffee at the cafe.
IMHO, the extra effort is worth it, because this increases the morale of Borders employees. Higher morale correlates to less theft. Plus, why steal when you get a monthly gift card and your discount? Obviously this won't stop kleptomaniacs, but it works well enough for most other people.
Compare this to Barnes & Noble, with 3 different discount programs. One for books, one for movies & music, and the last for cafe items. The discount for cafe products only counts if you consume your purchase at the cafe. Finally, B&N only allows employees to borrow hard copies, if at all. The discount program is byzantine, and it forces employees to purchase books from their (shit) wages. This decreases the morale at the stores, allowing the discontent staff to justify their petty larceny.
Your comment about shitty wages and rising prices still applies, but that's largely due to declining book sales (in the US) and online competition.
(Disclosure: My mother has worked as a bookseller for nearing 20 years now, at 4 different bookstores in the Philadelphia area.)
I don't understand how this link "should" work. Either the site doesn't exist, or it's been slashdotted. Were you implying that any domain would fool someone?
What do you guys think about.bank + secure DNS? Is there some convergence of technology that would enable more secure banking?
The fact that he prefaced his statement with something to the effect of "I am a strong believer in copyright" indicates to me that he doesn't really understand the debate over copyright, or he doesn't care to get it right and is just tossing out a bone.
See Rhetoric and my last post. Granted, I'm in the 'tossing a bone' crowd at the moment, but I also think that pissing off big media wouldn't benefit his campaign.
Reading the/. summary neither mentions the public domain, nor makes it clear that Obama's letter shows an understanding of the distinction between waiving copyright and licensing.
While Obama could have mentioned the differences between waiving copyright and a CC Attribution license, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss the pros and cons within this letter. I believe Obama's intent was to introduce the subject to Dean and the DNC at large, to make it a talking point as primaries come up. A detailed discussion of the choices available would make the letter much longer, and more confrontational.
This circumstance is best avoided because of the 'peculiarities' of his campaign. Obama is attempting to become the first black vice/president, which (sadly) stirs up controversy as is. In addition, the hard-line confrontational approach is currently used by a less-than-well-liked person who presently holds the office Obama is gunning for. Thus, Obama's best option is to seem less controversial and confrontational in his communications.
Furthermore, as has been noted elsewhere, MSNBC is playing hard-ball with their broadcast. They would like to keep the debates as closed from the public as possible, so they can maximize the revenue generated by the broadcast. Obama may catch flack from MSNBC solely for mentioning this. Had his letter pressed harder on the point, his hopes of office would be all but sunk.
Finally, the discussion and/or argument about putting the debates in the PD or under a CC(A) license is best handled within the committee itself, not in a public letter. If Obama manages to convince the DNC of his position behind closed doors, then he can approach various media companies with far greater support. Writing a controversial and/or confrontational letter draws more attention from the mass media, and could sink the idea before it's considered.
In a related note, Obama likely understands the differences himself, as he earned a J.D. from Harvard Law and was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School before being elected to the Senate.
Oops. I just realized that you were criticizing the summary, not the letter. Please don't take this personally, but I'm posting my comment here anyway.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that Dawkins, Harris, et al. are complete douches.:D
I've been following this thread for about 10 or so posts now, and I'd like to thank slashdotsyncline/Scott for answering our many questions. It's given me quite a few ideas for several personal projects (designing virtual worlds--I'm quite interested in making them more immersive/believable).
And, to those ends, I have a question for syncline: Could you describe the process used to collect the fossils once they were discovered? You went into it briefly in this post.
And for fun: As a member of your state geological survey, what would you do if you encountered hyper-evolving alien life at a meteor crash site?
Who says that soldiers prefer the AK-47? The article you linked certainly didn't. It said that they used the kalishnakov (sp?) because the ammo is everywhere. Most of the soldiers I know prefer the M16 to the AK, because it's more accurate. Those that dislike our military rifles normally do because you have to clean them every 30 minutes to an hour b/c of the sand in the Middle East. (Yeh, yeh, I know. a priori assertion sprinkled w/ a dash of heresay).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, contraire, my friend. I know just a person stupid enough to do that: me. An acquaintance of mine pissed me off in lunch one day, so I slugged him--right in the middle of the cafeteria. Not only did it attract the attention of every one of my peers, but also 2 teachers and a security guard, who removed both of us from the caf.
Luckily for me, I am a weakling, so the kid I hit didn't care. He was more surprised that I could get worked up enough to hit anyone. Furthermore, I have a habit of making friends of authority figures*, so the guard let me off the hook. The really odd thing is the other students began treating me with more respect after that**. I guess it's a "that took balls" type of moment.
* While this has served me quite well over the past 23 years, it attracts bullies like bees to honey.
** including the kid I hit, whose remarks were reduced to my inability to fight--something I was quite comfortable with.
Dude, please do us a favor and lay of the thesaurus for a bit.
I do: the occasional movie and/or video games. I agree that TV is largely crap these days.
Your analysis hits the mark for most MMORPGs, but a select few exist where the primary goal is to cultivate an identity, rather than power-mongering. EVE Online has always fit the latter mold of MMO design, and as such, your final analysis lacks applicability.
The most pertinent example supporting my assertion is the advancement system. It is literally impossible to create a "do everything" character, and most advancement paths these days take 6 months to a year minimum to fully learn. This influences the way players interact with the game: eventually, they all realize that getting the best loot and coolest ships isn't the goal of the game.
Another example supporting my "designed to enhance identity" assertion is the sheer risk you assume by playing. Over the course of 1 24-hour timespan, I went from having over 100 million isk in assets to just over 10 million (a tricked out thorax got ganked in 0.1 podkill space, on a routine flight to pick up ammo). It hurts to lose that much isk; luckily my clone was up to date, or I'd have lost over 15 million SP as well. But this risk helps foster that online identity. Losing everything for the first time throws your existence into perspective, by asking the question "do I want to lose this again?
Compare this to WoW or City of Villains, where your losses amount to grinding for another hour or two. This brings us to your question:
This most recent news wouldn't effect my decision to keep playing a "traditional" massive. If the game is fun, and access to special content doesn't effect my gameplay heavily, then who cares? But EVE doesn't posess the same founding principles. The problem with these activities, as far as EVE development is concerned, isn't the imbalance of gameplay, as Slashdot and others contend. Why? EVE gameplay is intrinsically imbalanced towards corporate activities and alliances, and a bit of favoritism won't effect the system as a whole. (The value of anything except the most expensive BPOs is inconsequential in the long-run, see below).
However, favoritism breaks something more important: the risk associated with playing the game. If a dev grants special privileges to his friends in-game, he removes the risk of identity loss. And when this occurs, the game falls apart. To see why it falls apart we must examine the ones affected by favoritism: the community.
One of the paramount virtues of EVE is the community. EVE's community in particular cares greatly about the game, and want an even playing field, not so they can "win", but because of the personal investment required to play the game. Losses, though virtual, feel incredibly real to the community. These losses come in two forms, capital loss and power loss.
Capital loss includes loss of clones, implants, ships, player owned stations, and outposts. Capital loss is incredibly common, and its implementation supports the entire economy of EVE. Because capital loss occurs so frequently in EVE Online, the capital one corp gains through favoritism is quickly outpaced by the other losses inherent in the game.
Power loss, on the other hand, is far more drastic. A dev's-buddys/corp-only dungeon and special gifts would wreak havoc in EVE, as the gifts received couldn't be earned by other corps. The exclusive mechanic or modification projects power from the beneficiary, causing a net loss in other corps. This loss cannot be (easily) regained by the maligned corps, because they simply don't have access to the content.*
While the MMORPG market generates tons of profits for game companies, that same market has an incredibly high barrier to entry. Not only is the market exceedingly competitive, but the amount of capital needed for a modern MMORPG can exceed that of a motion picture. In addition, these games commonly take between 2 and 4 years to implement, so you have to keep a great eye on your competition.
What does this all mean? While MMORPGs can develop far greater profits than a "regular" game, they carry a great deal more risk to development companies. Thus, developers always care about "people like you or I". You don't generate as much revenue, but the audience you fit in consumes the "bread and butter" product of the industry. That market is still fairly competitive, but it has less overhead--and thus the products are "safer" to release, from an economic standpoint.
Well, maybe you're in luck. Bioshock (Spiritual Successor to System Shock) and Fallout 3 are planned for release within the next year, I believe.
Remember folks: he's only saying this because he cares.
Ah, but now we stumble upon the true way that Microsoft is ripping off of open source. Obviously they combined both logos as a way to drive linux and Adium off of the market. And you know what's also a bird? Pidgins. Could it really be such a coincidence that Tux is a bird, a duck is a bird (twice, once for MS, once for Adium), and that a pidgin is a bird? OH, LORD. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO.
I wouldn't even call it flamebait. I would, however, call the blogger an idiot.
CowboyNeal: Switch, Apoc!
LiquidCooled: What is it?
CoolGuyZak: A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix...it happens when they change something
[ Admiral Ackbar realizes what they changed. ]
Admiral Ackbar: Oh my God...
[ Zonk is sitting in his chair in one of the hotel rooms, looking at a picture of the woman in the red dress. his cell phone rings it and he picks it up. ]
Admiral Ackbar: They cut the hard line, it's a trap, get out!!
It should be mentioned that all Intel Macs feature "right click" support on their touch pads. After enabling the feature in System Preferences, you can place two fingers on the touch pad and click the mouse button to pull up a context menu. The reasoning is as you mentioned: Ease of use. When all Macs feature the same basic UI Mechanisms, it enables consumers to experience the same level of consistency across all products out of the box.
Why is that good? Because many affluent customers get the most expensive (e.g. pro-line) package, even though they'll waste its capabilities. The professionals targeted by the platform know where to enable the advanced features, or look for it ASAP. (For instance, the first thing I did was enable right click support). It satisfies both of Apple's market segments and, thus, sells more computers.
Dude, neither of the apple screenshots you listed are those of modern apple apps running on Windows. The screenshot of iTunes was version 4.1. The latest release is 7.1.x. I couldn't identify the version of QuickTime in the screenshot, but I know that the present release resembles this (note: that screenshot is on OS X).
Modern Apple apps on XP/Vista still don't fit in, but they do fit better than the screenshots you provided. In addition, the point of iTunes and QuickTime is to stick out on windows. Apple wants easily identifiable products, in much the same way that nike wants their logo on shirts. (Think branding & style -- it helps customers identify what's popular, and many consumers just buy what's popular.)
Furthermore, you compared media playing applications (iTunes & Quicktime) to 'traditional' applications (Gnumeric, GIMP, GAIM, etc). Compare WinAmp, Windows Media Player, and Visual Studio. Just like sesame street: one of these doesn't belong (hint: it's Visual Studio). In other words, media players on windows are notorious for non-native UIs.
Your comparison is bunk.
Considering that the GP quoted the HIG directly, you are in fact incorrect. iPhoto is implemented to the HIG. It has only one window (compare with iTunes' 2 windows). Furthermore, it doesn't continue to do anything locally after the user closes the window (compared with iTunes, which continues to play music locally). IE: The Bonjour file sharing functionality of iPhoto isn't considered by the HIG.
IMHO, iPhoto, iTunes, et al. should be used to browse and manipulate media, not broadcast it. Removing broadcast features tailors the functionality to a more specific user intent, which (generally) simplifies the UI. From the Avoid Feature Cascade">HIG:
One of the many areas where the HIG hasn't stayed up to date is with application & service integration. Ambiguity creeps in when you encounter functionality that should be "always-on". I believe that the proper solution is to separate bonjour sharing from the application(s) that support it, and move it into one or more OSX services. Preferences for these sharing services can then be configured via System Preferences > Sharing.
Go pull your pud in some other thread you fucking loser. We'll mod whatever way we god damn please.
Damn skippy he's awesome! He lets you waste time on /. instead of doing actual work!
*ducks*
Borders takes measures to prevent employee theft. Amazingly enough, they use a positive incentive policy to do so. At first, employees are given a (store-wide) discount. After the employee evaluation period (90 days?) Borders gives their employees a gift certificate each month but halves the discount. In addition, they allow employees to borrow hard-back and trade paperback books to read. (They don't allow mass-market books, because damaging the spine is practically inevitable.) If the book comes back damaged, the employee is obligated to buy the book. Otherwise, it's shelved and sold. Furthermore, both the card & discount work on every item sold by the store with no strings attached, and the discount is also granted to immediate family. Plus, free coffee at the cafe.
IMHO, the extra effort is worth it, because this increases the morale of Borders employees. Higher morale correlates to less theft. Plus, why steal when you get a monthly gift card and your discount? Obviously this won't stop kleptomaniacs, but it works well enough for most other people.
Compare this to Barnes & Noble, with 3 different discount programs. One for books, one for movies & music, and the last for cafe items. The discount for cafe products only counts if you consume your purchase at the cafe. Finally, B&N only allows employees to borrow hard copies, if at all. The discount program is byzantine, and it forces employees to purchase books from their (shit) wages. This decreases the morale at the stores, allowing the discontent staff to justify their petty larceny.
Your comment about shitty wages and rising prices still applies, but that's largely due to declining book sales (in the US) and online competition.
(Disclosure: My mother has worked as a bookseller for nearing 20 years now, at 4 different bookstores in the Philadelphia area.)
What about employee theft?
Question: if you're not an admin, why do you have root?
Unless, of course, you are a proud owner of the Mercedes smart fortwo (note: not for sale in the US).
I don't understand how this link "should" work. Either the site doesn't exist, or it's been slashdotted. Were you implying that any domain would fool someone?
What do you guys think about .bank + secure DNS? Is there some convergence of technology that would enable more secure banking?
See Rhetoric and my last post. Granted, I'm in the 'tossing a bone' crowd at the moment, but I also think that pissing off big media wouldn't benefit his campaign.
While Obama could have mentioned the differences between waiving copyright and a CC Attribution license, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss the pros and cons within this letter. I believe Obama's intent was to introduce the subject to Dean and the DNC at large, to make it a talking point as primaries come up. A detailed discussion of the choices available would make the letter much longer, and more confrontational.
This circumstance is best avoided because of the 'peculiarities' of his campaign. Obama is attempting to become the first black vice/president, which (sadly) stirs up controversy as is. In addition, the hard-line confrontational approach is currently used by a less-than-well-liked person who presently holds the office Obama is gunning for. Thus, Obama's best option is to seem less controversial and confrontational in his communications.
Furthermore, as has been noted elsewhere, MSNBC is playing hard-ball with their broadcast. They would like to keep the debates as closed from the public as possible, so they can maximize the revenue generated by the broadcast. Obama may catch flack from MSNBC solely for mentioning this. Had his letter pressed harder on the point, his hopes of office would be all but sunk.
Finally, the discussion and/or argument about putting the debates in the PD or under a CC(A) license is best handled within the committee itself, not in a public letter. If Obama manages to convince the DNC of his position behind closed doors, then he can approach various media companies with far greater support. Writing a controversial and/or confrontational letter draws more attention from the mass media, and could sink the idea before it's considered.
In a related note, Obama likely understands the differences himself, as he earned a J.D. from Harvard Law and was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School before being elected to the Senate.
Oops. I just realized that you were criticizing the summary, not the letter. Please don't take this personally, but I'm posting my comment here anyway.
Awesome. Thanks for the response.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that Dawkins, Harris, et al. are complete douches. :D
I've been following this thread for about 10 or so posts now, and I'd like to thank slashdotsyncline/Scott for answering our many questions. It's given me quite a few ideas for several personal projects (designing virtual worlds--I'm quite interested in making them more immersive/believable).
And, to those ends, I have a question for syncline: Could you describe the process used to collect the fossils once they were discovered? You went into it briefly in this post.
And for fun: As a member of your state geological survey, what would you do if you encountered hyper-evolving alien life at a meteor crash site?
Thanks once again for your help, Scott!
Who says that soldiers prefer the AK-47? The article you linked certainly didn't. It said that they used the kalishnakov (sp?) because the ammo is everywhere. Most of the soldiers I know prefer the M16 to the AK, because it's more accurate. Those that dislike our military rifles normally do because you have to clean them every 30 minutes to an hour b/c of the sand in the Middle East. (Yeh, yeh, I know. a priori assertion sprinkled w/ a dash of heresay).
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Showing compassion for the death of another is hardly sociopathic, nor antisocial. Some of the things Valenti lobbied for, on the other hand...