The Age of Legends is seen as a utopian society without war or crime, and devoted to culture and learning. Aes Sedai were frequently devoted to academic endeavours, one of which inadverdantly resulted in a hole - 'The Bore' - being drilled in the Dark One's prison. The immediate effects were not realised, but the Dark One gradually asserted power over humanity, swaying many to become his followers.
Celes's performance at the Opera House is the number one quest in my book.
It's so beautiful, but sad, and it foreshadows what happens during the second half of the game. Arguably the most famous sequence in the game, in 2002 Electronic Gaming Monthly declared the opera scene one of the "20 Greatest Moments in Console Gaming."
Wired still is, and always will be, faster, cheaper, and better than wireless communications.
I see you don't anticipate mankind's future in space, where wired solutions would be slower (to deploy at least), more expensive (a wire cable to Mars?-not likeley), worse(perhaps you imagine asteroid mining colonies with telephone poles sticking out of them?).
I think com lasers are definately the way to go, plus they could double as weapons in a pinch.
It's like philosophical grand larceny with you! Your name is well chosen, Maxist Hacker!
Fallacy: Stolen Concept. One or more concepts on which an argument logically depends are denied in the argument.
Examples:
(i) There are absolutely no absolutely true statements.
(ii) It is impossible for people to communicate with one another.
(iii) I do not exist.
(iv) Physics has proven science is incapable of telling us anything true.
(v) Facts don't exist.
Proof: In putting forth his argument the author both assumes and denies the same proposition, (though usually not explicitly) thus accepts contradictory positions. This is essentially the same as Aristotle's "reaffirmation through denial". E.g. "There are no facts." (The statement presupposes facts, and holds itself out as a fact, while claiming to deny the same. Much like the statement "This statement is false.")
The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable.
I couldn't agree more. I also agree with your implication that the law treats women in general as less capable of consent as compared to men. (Though today, many statutory rape laws are gender-neutral.)
However, the point still stands that nowhere in TFA is corcion or compulsion suggested. One wonders of the submitter read more than the headline, or if the submitter was merely wanted to stir up contraversy.
A woman who does genetics research for a living is far more qualified than I am to decide what to do or not do with her eggs. If the news had reported allegations of coercion, that would be another issue. Fortunately, the only suggestion of coercion is here on/. and not on in the press.
By "implied" you mean "there's no evidence of."
And although you might "compare it to a statutory rape scenario," the comparison is a poor one at best: statutory rape laws protect women who are too young to have the capacity to consent, whereas a researcher in a genetic lab would have all the information she would need to consent to an egg donation - quite the opposite of statutory rape!
In agreement with the above post, I recall reading a few months ago that during the Revolutionary Era in the US, Thomas Paine's Common Sense was read by a larger fraction of the populace than watches the Superbowl today. (I really wish I could find the article...)
And to those who think that civilization would collpase without State-sponsored teching, I'll quote from Paine:
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.
Historically, government controlled education is the exception -- not the rule. Prior to the 20th century it was either unheard of or quite rare. China, Spain, England, Egypt, Japan, the Early African Kingdoms, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Italy; during the intellectual golden ages of these societies, not a single one had a significant degree of State involvement in education.
In 1865, Stanley Jevons argued that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years' time. In 1914, the US Bureau of Mines estimated that supplies would last only 10 more years.
In 1939, the US department of the interior predicted that oil would last only 13 more years. In 1951, it made the same projection: oil had only 13 more years. As Professor Frank Notestein of Princeton said in his later years: "We've been running out of oil ever since I was a boy." Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s.
I have this sinking feeling that in 20 years, someone will post on/. that "the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20-30 years."
I'm going to have to challenge your #2 Without long copyrights, there would be no incentives for creators to create, leaving us with a dull and lifeless society. (It's unclear to me from your post if you agree with #2 or not, so I'll uncharitably act as if you do endorse it).
Artists have been creating art, sculpture and music several hundred years before copyright even existed, let alone before long (90-year) copyrights existed. There will still be art and music when copyrights cease to exist. You may have noticed that video did not in fact kill the radio star.
This metality strikes me as a sort of temporal cultural-centrism: "without the system we have now, there would not be the things we have now."
There are non-monopoly systems of distribution which provide material benefit to creators of art. Direct or indirect patronage systems, for example. My point is not to endorse these here, but rather to remind everyone that there are "other ways to run the railroad," i.e. - copyrights are not the only (or even best way) to provide art and music.
Because Indians are naturally better at higher math than other ethnic groups. Which is why, incidentally, that the early settlers in America tried to wipe them out.
In 1865 a book by Stanley Jevons argued that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years' time.
In 1914, the US Bureau of Mines estimated that supplies would last only 10 more years. In 1939, the US department of the interior predicted that oil would last only 13 more years. In 1951, it made the same projection: oil had only 13 more years. As Professor Frank Notestein of Princeton said in his later years: "We've been running out of oil ever since I was a boy."
Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950.
In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s. This was an especially chilly prospect, since, as Newsweek reported in 1975, we were in a climatic cooling trend that was going to reduce agricultural outputs for the rest of the century, leading possibly to a new Ice Age.
I have this sinking feeling that in 20 years, someone will post on/. that "the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.":)
Of course, by then solar and wind power will have come down in cost (as they have been doing, in real terms, for the past 20 years), and substitution effects will have futher reduced our demand for oil. And this ignores improvements in engine design, efficeiency etc.
So long as oil consumption is left to market forces we will never run out of oil. That doesn't mean it might not get very expensive, becase that surely could happen. However, worrying that we are going to "run out" of oil is, and has been for the last 100 years, silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Mysterious Cities of Gold was *exactly* what popped into my mind. I wonder if this boat will shoot solar-powered lasers.
Comedy gold. I love it.
The Age of Legends is seen as a utopian society without war or crime, and devoted to culture and learning. Aes Sedai were frequently devoted to academic endeavours, one of which inadverdantly resulted in a hole - 'The Bore' - being drilled in the Dark One's prison. The immediate effects were not realised, but the Dark One gradually asserted power over humanity, swaying many to become his followers.
It's so beautiful, but sad, and it foreshadows what happens during the second half of the game. Arguably the most famous sequence in the game, in 2002 Electronic Gaming Monthly declared the opera scene one of the "20 Greatest Moments in Console Gaming."
Foreign powers killing natives, natives repelling the foreign powers, natives killing each other. This could be a really cool game.
I see you don't anticipate mankind's future in space, where wired solutions would be slower (to deploy at least), more expensive (a wire cable to Mars?-not likeley), worse(perhaps you imagine asteroid mining colonies with telephone poles sticking out of them?).
I think com lasers are definately the way to go, plus they could double as weapons in a pinch.
Fallacy: Stolen Concept. One or more concepts on which an argument logically depends are denied in the argument.
Examples:
(i) There are absolutely no absolutely true statements.
(ii) It is impossible for people to communicate with one another.
(iii) I do not exist.
(iv) Physics has proven science is incapable of telling us anything true.
(v) Facts don't exist.
Proof: In putting forth his argument the author both assumes and denies the same proposition, (though usually not explicitly) thus accepts contradictory positions. This is essentially the same as Aristotle's "reaffirmation through denial". E.g. "There are no facts." (The statement presupposes facts, and holds itself out as a fact, while claiming to deny the same. Much like the statement "This statement is false.")
I think by "protect[ing] our future" the previous poster meant "continuing our tradition of protectionsim."
3) Egg donation does make the donor orgasm. (But then again, neither does having to work long hours.)
Much better!
The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable. I couldn't agree more. I also agree with your implication that the law treats women in general as less capable of consent as compared to men. (Though today, many statutory rape laws are gender-neutral.) However, the point still stands that nowhere in TFA is corcion or compulsion suggested. One wonders of the submitter read more than the headline, or if the submitter was merely wanted to stir up contraversy. A woman who does genetics research for a living is far more qualified than I am to decide what to do or not do with her eggs. If the news had reported allegations of coercion, that would be another issue. Fortunately, the only suggestion of coercion is here on /. and not on in the press.
By "implied" you mean "there's no evidence of." And although you might "compare it to a statutory rape scenario," the comparison is a poor one at best: statutory rape laws protect women who are too young to have the capacity to consent, whereas a researcher in a genetic lab would have all the information she would need to consent to an egg donation - quite the opposite of statutory rape!
How about: 1. Intent 2. Causation 3. Harm 3. Punititve Damages 5. Contigent Fee
And to those who think that civilization would collpase without State-sponsored teching, I'll quote from Paine:
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.
Historically, government controlled education is the exception -- not the rule. Prior to the 20th century it was either unheard of or quite rare. China, Spain, England, Egypt, Japan, the Early African Kingdoms, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Italy; during the intellectual golden ages of these societies, not a single one had a significant degree of State involvement in education.
-My $.02
In 1939, the US department of the interior predicted that oil would last only 13 more years. In 1951, it made the same projection: oil had only 13 more years. As Professor Frank Notestein of Princeton said in his later years: "We've been running out of oil ever since I was a boy." Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s.
I have this sinking feeling that in 20 years, someone will post on /. that "the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20-30 years."
Artists have been creating art, sculpture and music several hundred years before copyright even existed, let alone before long (90-year) copyrights existed. There will still be art and music when copyrights cease to exist. You may have noticed that video did not in fact kill the radio star.
This metality strikes me as a sort of temporal cultural-centrism: "without the system we have now, there would not be the things we have now."
There are non-monopoly systems of distribution which provide material benefit to creators of art. Direct or indirect patronage systems, for example. My point is not to endorse these here, but rather to remind everyone that there are "other ways to run the railroad," i.e. - copyrights are not the only (or even best way) to provide art and music.
You say tomato, I say to-mah-to.
Because Indians are naturally better at higher math than other ethnic groups. Which is why, incidentally, that the early settlers in America tried to wipe them out.
In 1865 a book by Stanley Jevons argued that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years' time. In 1914, the US Bureau of Mines estimated that supplies would last only 10 more years. In 1939, the US department of the interior predicted that oil would last only 13 more years. In 1951, it made the same projection: oil had only 13 more years. As Professor Frank Notestein of Princeton said in his later years: "We've been running out of oil ever since I was a boy." Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s. This was an especially chilly prospect, since, as Newsweek reported in 1975, we were in a climatic cooling trend that was going to reduce agricultural outputs for the rest of the century, leading possibly to a new Ice Age. I have this sinking feeling that in 20 years, someone will post on /. that "the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years." :)
Of course, by then solar and wind power will have come down in cost (as they have been doing, in real terms, for the past 20 years), and substitution effects will have futher reduced our demand for oil. And this ignores improvements in engine design, efficeiency etc.
So long as oil consumption is left to market forces we will never run out of oil. That doesn't mean it might not get very expensive, becase that surely could happen. However, worrying that we are going to "run out" of oil is, and has been for the last 100 years, silly.