After reading (several independent summaries of) the firefox EULA...
I don't see why they couldn't just clean out the things that don't apply to the end-user (mostly their trademark on redistribution), replace "I agree" with "continue" and remove "I disagree". That way they can have informed the user of where to get the source code, that mozilla can't be held liable for anything firefox does (if they must - you can't sign away your rights to sue them anyway and this applies to everything in Ubuntu so that's kinda redundant), about the anti-phishing stuff and its implications, and refer you to an actual license if you want to redistribute. That should cover their asses legally speaking without requiring the user to agree to anything.
Information theory? Are you talking about the idea that mutations are noise and so you can't get anything meaningful out of them? That'd totally be true if evolution was "there are mutations and they cause new species". But since "natural selection" is applied to the mutations (low points in the noise of mutation disappear instantly and high points become the new baseline on which more noise is created) there is nothing in information theory that would be "evidence against evolution".
And transitional forms? Looks like someone needs to take biology 101 again. Every single lifeform is the transitional form between its parents and its children. What exactly do you mean by a transitional form, then? Do you want an example of every single mutation, in order, between two species you know of? An animal being fossilized is incredibly rare, and many mutations wouldn't show up in fossils anyway, so that's obviously not going to happen.
The vast majority of the "evidence against evolution" is like yours - evidence against some other theory of evolution that only creationists know about. One where mutations are selected at random instead of only beneficial ones being selected, one where a one species gives birth to a "transitional form" that has the body of the old species and the head of a new species, which then gives birth to a new species (or sometimes directly from one species to another, like a cat giving birth to a dog). The rest of the evidence is outright falsehood or "the bible doesn't say evolution is true so it isn't" or even "I wouldn't want to be related to a monkey, so I'm not".
And even if there were evidence against evolution - that doesn't make it evidence *for* creationism.
They end with questions because the submitters know that without a question to discuss nobody would bother commenting on the story. Really kinda an insult to the intelligence of every slashdotter - I can think of some part of your submission to discuss without the need for a prompt.
To be fair, we *can* go to the moon and mars on 2 billion more a year. It'll just take more years and/or cuts elsewhere. Hopefully the private sector will help reduce costs, but even not counting on that we'll get to the moon/mars eventually... just not in 10 years this time.
If it is possible to completely predict the movement of every single particle then it's also possible to completely predict the movement of every single entity in a system. If that's true then there is only one decision you can *actually* make in any situation. So yes, you're not responsible for your actions. Of course, the people who punish you also have no choice about that so don't expect a break...
If there is free will, then you're responsible for your actions. If you don't have free will, then whatever people end up doing to punish you is the only possible course of action. So either way you might as well act under the assumption that you have free will. In other words this is a completely academic question with absolutely no meaning other then finding the answer. If we have free will great, if we don't there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Personally, I rather suspect there are at least some things that can't ever be predicted (like the decay of individual atoms) and while this doesn't prove there *is* free will, it at least leaves the possibility of it.
No, the electoral college doesn't fix this. It has gone from the system you describe to the college simply being a proxy for a candidate... you don't vote for one of them because you think they'll represent your interests, you vote for a candidate and your "actual" vote goes to an electorate who has pledged to vote for that candidate. This should be obvious because it isn't the electoral college on TV all the time - it's the candidates. Look at your ballet in November for that matter... it *might* have the name of the guy you're actually voting for, but you're going to check the big box next to "McCain" or "Obama".
And even if the system did still work, it would always slowly degenerate into what it is now... or at best you'd see the electorate on TV instead of the candidate and the same uninformed vote would go to them with no net difference except the name of the position.
Anyway, the reason people want to gut it now is because it currently functions to pretty much allow people in key areas (defined by the people who won the last election) to have a hugely disproportionate vote. I live in a district that *will* vote democrat... I doubt if anything could happen to change that in the next few months. My state will also go democrat, even if by some miracle my district goes republican. On the other hand, take ohio. It doesn't have a big population so the voters already have a disproportional vote. Added to that, the state has about a 50% chance of going either way. In that state, some districts are fixed... but others could go either way. A voter in such a district in such a state is *way* more important then I am to the election... the proof is pretty obvious - presidential candidates will probably visit my state about once between now and the election, while they'll appear about 20 times in key places in ohio. Get rid of the electorate and go a general popular vote and candidates will simply try to appear to as many people as possible instead of appearing to "key" people as many times as possible. This doesn't address the education problem, but neither does the electoral college as is.
I'm not sure if your comments are about my post or the article (probably both by the end) but I'll go ahead and respond as if they were all about my post...
Yes, education doesn't automatically mean democracy. But lack of education *does* mean democracy will quickly descend into dictatorship, anarchy, or a losing war.
Why yes, we do spend too much and reducing spending will help with the debt. Raising taxes will help too, though. With the ridiculous amount of debt we have we'll have to do both. We may disagree about proportions and where the taxes/spending should be adjusted but I don't think any rational person can disagree that both need work.
And yet again, this isn't a partisan issue. Yes, democrats are pretty much as bad as republicans, with the major difference being that democrats don't start screaming bloody murder if you mention raising taxes. Seriously, watch a McCain campaign ad - the entire point seems to be "Obama will raise taxes therefor he hates your family: vote for me." He has a few other points, but you'll find them all in Obama ads as well.
I completely agree (and in fact it was rather my entire point) that both economic stupidity and a trend toward the authoritarian are two of the major symptoms of the lack of education in voters.
How about the fact that when you say "minority" you mean "poor." A simple regression analysis will show you that the reason minorities tend to have more crime and all the other things you attribute to them is because they are poor - rich minorities don't have any of those negative traits and poor white people do have them.
So... good luck building a society without poor people. If you don't allow immigrants you'll just have white people mopping your floors and living in the inner city and causing all the problems you're trying to get rid of.
I don't like feeding the trolls but I also don't like when people answer their own questions that they posed to me.
Yes, yes they are. There were, and still are, very good reasons for that. But this isn't a partisan issue. This is a "oh, we have a massive debt that could potentially destroy the world economy if china decided they'd like their money now" issue and a "oh, all that fear-mongering seems to be working as our democracy gets more and more authoritarian" issue. Besides, with Obama as the 99% democratic nominee for president you have to think the racism issue is at least *better* now, though I admit it's probably still an insurmountable issue.
I could possibly see my second paragraph being slightly unclear, but the rest seems fairly straight forward. All the same I'll go ahead and try to re-type it with a focus on making fewer assumptions and ending my sentences more frequently.
This is why education is a prerequisite for democracy. Or at least for democracy to work.
Crap like this combined with the evidence from the republicans that people have finally realized they can vote themselves infinite money either has to end now (hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea, just like a credit card! What could possibly go wrong!), or things are going to get really bad really quick.
It's a horrible, horrible idea and would certainly end up being racist as well, but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted. Like, requiring that you have a history of not failing personal economics in order to have any influence on national economics? Or basic understanding of science to be able to influence science policy? Maybe it's not possible to do this, but you have to wonder if anything else can work in the long run.
30% of Americans want "balanced" blogging. The concept of government mandated equality for traditional news media comes from the fact that there are very few organizations capable of providing television news to the country, and if all these organizations have the same bias they can have an undue influence on public opinion. This isn't true for the internet, where anyone can write a blog and anyone can read any blog written. The fact that 30% of people who expressed an opinion on this topic thought "balance" for blogging was a good idea is an example of why education is required for democracy to work as a system of government.
The republican party seems to support increasing government spending. They do not support increasing taxes. We already spend more then we take in. This is a bad idea because eventually someone is going to call us on our massive debt with horrible consequences on way or another. Since this appears to be the official position of the party that about half of America supports, it is another example of how a lack of education could end a democracy. Both of these examples have to end soon or really bad things will happen. In the first example this could be the collapse of the internet or democracy itself under the weight of authoritarian government. In the second example outside trade could stop if we fail to pay a debt someone has called for, which would cause extreme economic collapse - or it could lead to war between nuclear powers.
There were once tests required to vote. These were eliminated when they were ruled unconstitutional because they tended to disproportionally stop African Americans from voting. I understand that issues in the way of requiring tests to vote are probably insurmountable right now. However (when you consider the two examples I gave) it might just be that there is no other way to save democracy.
No, I do not mean indoctrination. In our democracy the average person's job in government is to evaluate candidates' ability to govern. When the ability to govern includes decisions about technology and the average person doesn't understand technology at all... well then the average person can't do their job. So how is the "correct" candidate determined now? The media? Whoever is more charismatic? By the people already ruling? None of those systems work for long. An independent media will elect whoever gets it more money, eventually you'll end up with a charismatic idiot (or worse yet genius who wants to be a dictator), and of course no matter how noble the people who first ruled and no matter how well they choose their successors eventually corruption will creep in through the margin of error.
I'm not talking a matter of political philosophy, not republican vs democrat, not liberal vs conservative, not even libertarian vs authoritarian. I'm talking a matter of people who think it's ok to have a NINE TRILLION dollar debt and keep lowering taxes and increasing spending. It's simply NOT ok. It's a matter of people voting away democracy in the name of safety because they don't know any better. Democracy can't exist without people realizing this is a problem, and they can't do that without education.
As for wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner... Yea, democracy sucks. It's just that everything else sucks more. What's your better system? The only one I can think of is a benevolent dictatorship... and who decides who the next dictator is? What happens when they make a mistake and pick one that isn't quite so benevolent? No, the best we can do is democracy with checks and balances as strong as possible without grinding government to a halt.
This is why education is a prerequisite for democracy. Or at least for democracy to work.
Crap like this combined with the evidence from the republicans that people have finally realized they can vote themselves infinite money either has to end now (hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea, just like a credit card! What could possibly go wrong!), or things are going to get really bad really quick.
It's a horrible, horrible idea and would certainly end up being racist as well, but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted. Like, requiring that you have a history of not failing personal economics in order to have any influence on national economics? Or basic understanding of science to be able to influence science policy? Maybe it's not possible to do this, but you have to wonder if anything else can work in the long run.
Does it still count as a conspiracy theory if the target confirms it? I'd assume he was joking except that they haven't fixed the CSS in the months since it was first complained about.
Ah well, either way I can finally ignore idle... at least so far. (And *that* counts as a real conspiracy theory)
I've never won the lottery, seen someone win the lottery, or even known someone who won the lottery, in 20 years in this country. Therefor nobody wins the lottery?
On the other hand, I *have* seen police using excessive force on non-violent protesters. Maybe you're just looking in the wrong places?
I haven't read TFA, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that by "spy cameras in their homes" they mean a camera attached to the computer while school work (or at least tests) is being done in an effort to make sure the degree goes to the person doing the work?
As long as it isn't required to be on except while the student is doing work that would take place under the eyes of a professor or TA in a "real" college and as long as enrollment is voluntary I can't imagine it's really that objectionable.
Or did the first Fable have "Expressions... that let you woo ladies and forge new friendships" that "[You picked] from a radial menu when you want to take a wife or receive a gift" and "non-playable characters throughout town that you can interact with using Expressions, each with icons over their heads indicating their disposition"?
I mean, I'm all for news about a game to let people know it's still out there... but this could be fable one with a "II" painted on the box for all this blurb tells me. The actual article reveals that there is additionally a dog now.
Re:Why didn't they just kill the lawyer?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
Because the Joker is an insane terrorist? You don't negotiate with terrorists for the same reason you don't give in to blackmail - because the threat doesn't go away and once they know you'll play the game they'll keep pushing until it would have been better just to refuse at the start. Lets say someone kills the lawyer... the joker goes on air again "kill the mayor and gordon or I blow up a nursing home and an apartment building". The joker can go on air and demand a single prominent death over and over again, and each time the balance will be the same - one death against a large building exploding. *Maybe* he even keeps his word and doesn't blow up buildings when people cooperate. And each time it's easier to give in, and if the joker plays his cards right nobody's willing to lead a search for him because they know if they do they'll be the next one on the list... and that someone *will* kill them.
As for the lawyer after the film... you'll recall that Bruce Wayne saved him at great personal risk and expense - crashing his sports car into the car that was going to kill the lawyer. He managed to convince people that he was just being careless and didn't *mean* to save the guy, but the lawyer knows who Bruce Wayne really is - and he knows that Bruce could have let him die and it would have kept his identity secret *and* saved a hospital from blowing up. He's not going to tell. So how would that scene have gone down? Not very interestingly, I think. The crash scene was closure enough for me.
So where do I go to demand that there are equal numbers of male and female babysitters, maids, nurses, and elementary school teachers? And can someone remind me what the ratio of men to women in congress is?
In short: stupid idea. If women don't *want* to be scientists and engineers, fix it in schools by encouraging them to try it and doing your best to encourage the removal of the societal bias against it. Allowing minorities and women who are *less* qualified then white males to get jobs just to fulfill a quota is one thing that *will* reduce the quality of our science and engineering.
If you want to remove bias in hiring scientists and engineers, at require that the person who makes the decision to grant interviews not see any information that could identify a person's sex or race, including the name. Then, if you must, require that the interviewer match the interviewee in sex and race and if the interviewer isn't given the authority to decide who gets hired, again remove any identifying information from the report before it goes to the person who does make the decision.
That's a nice, scientific way to reduce (not eliminate... women and minorities can still be biased against other women and minorities) bias without hurting the final product. I mean, what would you do in the proposed bill if you only got 10 female and 90 male applications to fill 30 spots? Pick women off the street and try to make them do someone else's job?
My guess is because of the difficulty in connecting 300,000+ (how exactly is color encoded for the brain?) wires/electrodes to the optical nerve (or directly to the brain?) accurately in a confined space.
"Macroscopic quantities naturally." Our knowledge of such substances is pretty much comprehensive. So while there is a *chance* this is something new, the chance is minuscule.
Pretty much anything can sublimate under the proper conditions. But when you say "a white solid that sublimates at -70 degrees F and martian surface pressure and is found in macroscopic quantities naturally" you narrow down the field quite a bit. In this case, to exactly one reasonable possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading (several independent summaries of) the firefox EULA...
I don't see why they couldn't just clean out the things that don't apply to the end-user (mostly their trademark on redistribution), replace "I agree" with "continue" and remove "I disagree". That way they can have informed the user of where to get the source code, that mozilla can't be held liable for anything firefox does (if they must - you can't sign away your rights to sue them anyway and this applies to everything in Ubuntu so that's kinda redundant), about the anti-phishing stuff and its implications, and refer you to an actual license if you want to redistribute. That should cover their asses legally speaking without requiring the user to agree to anything.
Information theory? Are you talking about the idea that mutations are noise and so you can't get anything meaningful out of them? That'd totally be true if evolution was "there are mutations and they cause new species". But since "natural selection" is applied to the mutations (low points in the noise of mutation disappear instantly and high points become the new baseline on which more noise is created) there is nothing in information theory that would be "evidence against evolution".
And transitional forms? Looks like someone needs to take biology 101 again. Every single lifeform is the transitional form between its parents and its children. What exactly do you mean by a transitional form, then? Do you want an example of every single mutation, in order, between two species you know of? An animal being fossilized is incredibly rare, and many mutations wouldn't show up in fossils anyway, so that's obviously not going to happen.
The vast majority of the "evidence against evolution" is like yours - evidence against some other theory of evolution that only creationists know about. One where mutations are selected at random instead of only beneficial ones being selected, one where a one species gives birth to a "transitional form" that has the body of the old species and the head of a new species, which then gives birth to a new species (or sometimes directly from one species to another, like a cat giving birth to a dog). The rest of the evidence is outright falsehood or "the bible doesn't say evolution is true so it isn't" or even "I wouldn't want to be related to a monkey, so I'm not".
And even if there were evidence against evolution - that doesn't make it evidence *for* creationism.
They end with questions because the submitters know that without a question to discuss nobody would bother commenting on the story. Really kinda an insult to the intelligence of every slashdotter - I can think of some part of your submission to discuss without the need for a prompt.
To be fair, we *can* go to the moon and mars on 2 billion more a year. It'll just take more years and/or cuts elsewhere. Hopefully the private sector will help reduce costs, but even not counting on that we'll get to the moon/mars eventually... just not in 10 years this time.
If it is possible to completely predict the movement of every single particle then it's also possible to completely predict the movement of every single entity in a system. If that's true then there is only one decision you can *actually* make in any situation. So yes, you're not responsible for your actions. Of course, the people who punish you also have no choice about that so don't expect a break...
If there is free will, then you're responsible for your actions. If you don't have free will, then whatever people end up doing to punish you is the only possible course of action. So either way you might as well act under the assumption that you have free will. In other words this is a completely academic question with absolutely no meaning other then finding the answer. If we have free will great, if we don't there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Personally, I rather suspect there are at least some things that can't ever be predicted (like the decay of individual atoms) and while this doesn't prove there *is* free will, it at least leaves the possibility of it.
No, the electoral college doesn't fix this. It has gone from the system you describe to the college simply being a proxy for a candidate... you don't vote for one of them because you think they'll represent your interests, you vote for a candidate and your "actual" vote goes to an electorate who has pledged to vote for that candidate. This should be obvious because it isn't the electoral college on TV all the time - it's the candidates. Look at your ballet in November for that matter... it *might* have the name of the guy you're actually voting for, but you're going to check the big box next to "McCain" or "Obama".
And even if the system did still work, it would always slowly degenerate into what it is now... or at best you'd see the electorate on TV instead of the candidate and the same uninformed vote would go to them with no net difference except the name of the position.
Anyway, the reason people want to gut it now is because it currently functions to pretty much allow people in key areas (defined by the people who won the last election) to have a hugely disproportionate vote. I live in a district that *will* vote democrat... I doubt if anything could happen to change that in the next few months. My state will also go democrat, even if by some miracle my district goes republican. On the other hand, take ohio. It doesn't have a big population so the voters already have a disproportional vote. Added to that, the state has about a 50% chance of going either way. In that state, some districts are fixed... but others could go either way. A voter in such a district in such a state is *way* more important then I am to the election... the proof is pretty obvious - presidential candidates will probably visit my state about once between now and the election, while they'll appear about 20 times in key places in ohio. Get rid of the electorate and go a general popular vote and candidates will simply try to appear to as many people as possible instead of appearing to "key" people as many times as possible. This doesn't address the education problem, but neither does the electoral college as is.
I'm not sure if your comments are about my post or the article (probably both by the end) but I'll go ahead and respond as if they were all about my post...
Yes, education doesn't automatically mean democracy. But lack of education *does* mean democracy will quickly descend into dictatorship, anarchy, or a losing war.
Why yes, we do spend too much and reducing spending will help with the debt. Raising taxes will help too, though. With the ridiculous amount of debt we have we'll have to do both. We may disagree about proportions and where the taxes/spending should be adjusted but I don't think any rational person can disagree that both need work.
And yet again, this isn't a partisan issue. Yes, democrats are pretty much as bad as republicans, with the major difference being that democrats don't start screaming bloody murder if you mention raising taxes. Seriously, watch a McCain campaign ad - the entire point seems to be "Obama will raise taxes therefor he hates your family: vote for me." He has a few other points, but you'll find them all in Obama ads as well.
I completely agree (and in fact it was rather my entire point) that both economic stupidity and a trend toward the authoritarian are two of the major symptoms of the lack of education in voters.
How about the fact that when you say "minority" you mean "poor." A simple regression analysis will show you that the reason minorities tend to have more crime and all the other things you attribute to them is because they are poor - rich minorities don't have any of those negative traits and poor white people do have them.
So... good luck building a society without poor people. If you don't allow immigrants you'll just have white people mopping your floors and living in the inner city and causing all the problems you're trying to get rid of.
I don't like feeding the trolls but I also don't like when people answer their own questions that they posed to me.
Yes, yes they are. There were, and still are, very good reasons for that. But this isn't a partisan issue. This is a "oh, we have a massive debt that could potentially destroy the world economy if china decided they'd like their money now" issue and a "oh, all that fear-mongering seems to be working as our democracy gets more and more authoritarian" issue. Besides, with Obama as the 99% democratic nominee for president you have to think the racism issue is at least *better* now, though I admit it's probably still an insurmountable issue.
This is why education is a prerequisite for democracy. Or at least for democracy to work.
Crap like this combined with the evidence from the republicans that people have finally realized they can vote themselves infinite money either has to end now (hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea, just like a credit card! What could possibly go wrong!), or things are going to get really bad really quick.
It's a horrible, horrible idea and would certainly end up being racist as well, but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted. Like, requiring that you have a history of not failing personal economics in order to have any influence on national economics? Or basic understanding of science to be able to influence science policy? Maybe it's not possible to do this, but you have to wonder if anything else can work in the long run.
30% of Americans want "balanced" blogging. The concept of government mandated equality for traditional news media comes from the fact that there are very few organizations capable of providing television news to the country, and if all these organizations have the same bias they can have an undue influence on public opinion. This isn't true for the internet, where anyone can write a blog and anyone can read any blog written. The fact that 30% of people who expressed an opinion on this topic thought "balance" for blogging was a good idea is an example of why education is required for democracy to work as a system of government.
The republican party seems to support increasing government spending. They do not support increasing taxes. We already spend more then we take in. This is a bad idea because eventually someone is going to call us on our massive debt with horrible consequences on way or another. Since this appears to be the official position of the party that about half of America supports, it is another example of how a lack of education could end a democracy. Both of these examples have to end soon or really bad things will happen. In the first example this could be the collapse of the internet or democracy itself under the weight of authoritarian government. In the second example outside trade could stop if we fail to pay a debt someone has called for, which would cause extreme economic collapse - or it could lead to war between nuclear powers.
There were once tests required to vote. These were eliminated when they were ruled unconstitutional because they tended to disproportionally stop African Americans from voting. I understand that issues in the way of requiring tests to vote are probably insurmountable right now. However (when you consider the two examples I gave) it might just be that there is no other way to save democracy.
No, I do not mean indoctrination. In our democracy the average person's job in government is to evaluate candidates' ability to govern. When the ability to govern includes decisions about technology and the average person doesn't understand technology at all... well then the average person can't do their job. So how is the "correct" candidate determined now? The media? Whoever is more charismatic? By the people already ruling? None of those systems work for long. An independent media will elect whoever gets it more money, eventually you'll end up with a charismatic idiot (or worse yet genius who wants to be a dictator), and of course no matter how noble the people who first ruled and no matter how well they choose their successors eventually corruption will creep in through the margin of error.
I'm not talking a matter of political philosophy, not republican vs democrat, not liberal vs conservative, not even libertarian vs authoritarian. I'm talking a matter of people who think it's ok to have a NINE TRILLION dollar debt and keep lowering taxes and increasing spending. It's simply NOT ok. It's a matter of people voting away democracy in the name of safety because they don't know any better. Democracy can't exist without people realizing this is a problem, and they can't do that without education.
As for wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner... Yea, democracy sucks. It's just that everything else sucks more. What's your better system? The only one I can think of is a benevolent dictatorship... and who decides who the next dictator is? What happens when they make a mistake and pick one that isn't quite so benevolent? No, the best we can do is democracy with checks and balances as strong as possible without grinding government to a halt.
This is why education is a prerequisite for democracy. Or at least for democracy to work.
Crap like this combined with the evidence from the republicans that people have finally realized they can vote themselves infinite money either has to end now (hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea, just like a credit card! What could possibly go wrong!), or things are going to get really bad really quick.
It's a horrible, horrible idea and would certainly end up being racist as well, but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted. Like, requiring that you have a history of not failing personal economics in order to have any influence on national economics? Or basic understanding of science to be able to influence science policy? Maybe it's not possible to do this, but you have to wonder if anything else can work in the long run.
Does it still count as a conspiracy theory if the target confirms it? I'd assume he was joking except that they haven't fixed the CSS in the months since it was first complained about.
Ah well, either way I can finally ignore idle... at least so far. (And *that* counts as a real conspiracy theory)
I'd rather see the cop get fired and charged with assault and perhaps a few other crimes.
I've never won the lottery, seen someone win the lottery, or even known someone who won the lottery, in 20 years in this country. Therefor nobody wins the lottery?
On the other hand, I *have* seen police using excessive force on non-violent protesters. Maybe you're just looking in the wrong places?
I haven't read TFA, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that by "spy cameras in their homes" they mean a camera attached to the computer while school work (or at least tests) is being done in an effort to make sure the degree goes to the person doing the work?
As long as it isn't required to be on except while the student is doing work that would take place under the eyes of a professor or TA in a "real" college and as long as enrollment is voluntary I can't imagine it's really that objectionable.
Or did the first Fable have "Expressions... that let you woo ladies and forge new friendships" that "[You picked] from a radial menu when you want to take a wife or receive a gift" and "non-playable characters throughout town that you can interact with using Expressions, each with icons over their heads indicating their disposition"?
I mean, I'm all for news about a game to let people know it's still out there... but this could be fable one with a "II" painted on the box for all this blurb tells me. The actual article reveals that there is additionally a dog now.
Because the Joker is an insane terrorist? You don't negotiate with terrorists for the same reason you don't give in to blackmail - because the threat doesn't go away and once they know you'll play the game they'll keep pushing until it would have been better just to refuse at the start. Lets say someone kills the lawyer... the joker goes on air again "kill the mayor and gordon or I blow up a nursing home and an apartment building". The joker can go on air and demand a single prominent death over and over again, and each time the balance will be the same - one death against a large building exploding. *Maybe* he even keeps his word and doesn't blow up buildings when people cooperate. And each time it's easier to give in, and if the joker plays his cards right nobody's willing to lead a search for him because they know if they do they'll be the next one on the list... and that someone *will* kill them.
As for the lawyer after the film... you'll recall that Bruce Wayne saved him at great personal risk and expense - crashing his sports car into the car that was going to kill the lawyer. He managed to convince people that he was just being careless and didn't *mean* to save the guy, but the lawyer knows who Bruce Wayne really is - and he knows that Bruce could have let him die and it would have kept his identity secret *and* saved a hospital from blowing up. He's not going to tell. So how would that scene have gone down? Not very interestingly, I think. The crash scene was closure enough for me.
Bah, that's why I've decided "fuck it, I'm treating quotes and such as if they were code, even though I'm in the US". I even once did the following:
?".
Yea, that's wrong *everywhere* and I still did it.
So where do I go to demand that there are equal numbers of male and female babysitters, maids, nurses, and elementary school teachers? And can someone remind me what the ratio of men to women in congress is?
In short: stupid idea. If women don't *want* to be scientists and engineers, fix it in schools by encouraging them to try it and doing your best to encourage the removal of the societal bias against it. Allowing minorities and women who are *less* qualified then white males to get jobs just to fulfill a quota is one thing that *will* reduce the quality of our science and engineering.
If you want to remove bias in hiring scientists and engineers, at require that the person who makes the decision to grant interviews not see any information that could identify a person's sex or race, including the name. Then, if you must, require that the interviewer match the interviewee in sex and race and if the interviewer isn't given the authority to decide who gets hired, again remove any identifying information from the report before it goes to the person who does make the decision.
That's a nice, scientific way to reduce (not eliminate... women and minorities can still be biased against other women and minorities) bias without hurting the final product. I mean, what would you do in the proposed bill if you only got 10 female and 90 male applications to fill 30 spots? Pick women off the street and try to make them do someone else's job?
My guess is because of the difficulty in connecting 300,000+ (how exactly is color encoded for the brain?) wires/electrodes to the optical nerve (or directly to the brain?) accurately in a confined space.
"Macroscopic quantities naturally." Our knowledge of such substances is pretty much comprehensive. So while there is a *chance* this is something new, the chance is minuscule.
Correct, and further experiments will be undertaken to confirm that it is indeed water ice.
In the mean time, though, it's pretty safe to act under the assumption that there is indeed water on mars.
Pretty much anything can sublimate under the proper conditions. But when you say "a white solid that sublimates at -70 degrees F and martian surface pressure and is found in macroscopic quantities naturally" you narrow down the field quite a bit. In this case, to exactly one reasonable possibility.
I seem to recall google having a pretty excellent benefits package in *addition* to their superior salary.