Going by the graph, there is a point somewhere between 1/100th and 1/100th atm, where ice turns directly to vapor, without melting to water. Thus, you can't keep liquid water at that pressure, and there is no known organism that can survive without it.
And I don't know how much pressure skin can withstand, but I doubt it could survive a vaccum. Your skin would either freeze, or dry up and crumble, because you can't have liquid water. Plus, there are alot of gases solved inside our body, between the tissue.
The EU commissioner for competition, Neelie Kroes, is a very contreversial figure in Europe. She was revieing cases of companies that she was working for only a few months before, has a habit of sticking her nose into everything, and not always complying to behavior codes she accepted when taking on the position.
Last year she even got a University she used to work for to give Bill Gates an honory doctorate.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole process slowed to a halt because of her.
Who is to say what is good for the human race? Having "superior" genes? Multiplying to every corner of the universe? This is what would happen if the basic driving force of evolution were to succeed, but is that really what we want?
And who is to say that the poeple benfefiting from the welfare system today, wouldn't have had a higher status when poeple didn't have to worry about getting an education, and instead concentrate on hunting, therby beating socalled "smarter" people to it?
"Selection" criteria have changed so much since the beginning of civilisation. Wanting to filter selection by the criteria that are important at this moment in time (in which chance is probably the most important factor)is immoral and simply wrong.
Without welfare systems, the selection criteria would probably be even further from socalled "natural selection".
Just because you have had some luck, and "succeeded" in modern society, doesn't mean your genes are any better for the future of the human race than the guy living on benefit. And if you really want to pass on your genes and produce more offspring, nobody's stopping you.
Genetics are too intricate, to think that destroying all appearences of society will lead to better genes.
I remember reading once that by system sales, Super Smash Brothers Meelee was the most successful game, with about half of all GameCube owners having a copy of Meelee. I don't know if that still applies, but it looks as if Nintendogs is going to get close.
I live in Europe and passed by the main retailer in my area today and saw an intersting thing.
Where up until yesterday there was a shelf full of plastic boxes representing preorder-PSPs, there were a line of GranTourismo-PStwo bundles, and above literally hundreds of UMDs.
The only systems I saw were 4 boxes lodged between the PS2s and another huge pile of UMDs.
I'll check out the situation again maybe tomorrow, but if Sony give main retailers, like maybe ten PSPs it's no wonder they're sold out.
Everyone in America should consider themselves lucky with their NTSC signal.
Thank God things have changed now, but in the days on FFVII all we got were squashed pictures and 5/6ths of the original speed, bevause of the differences in resolution and framerate.
Heck, they didn't even give a shit about the in-game clock, which meant if you had 50 Hours on your clock, your real play-time was 60 hours.
So what if they lose business? (I hardly think they would have to close just because they don't sell used games anymore)
Do they feel obliged to support the games industry by not selling used games, a practice which costs the industry many millions or even more every year?
No, they want to make a profit for themselves. As long as their pockets are full, they don't give a shit about you, your money, charities, or waning games sales.
So why should you feel obliged to support the guys who do unfair business at games stores?
Microsoft might just have a general problem with the attractiveness of their new console.
I don't think you can apply the same circumstances there were with this generation, to the next.
The majority of casual gamers probably aren't looking for a new console at the moment, and with a last push from Sony and Nintendo for their current consoles, they might see the XBOX 360 as much a major console launch as Microsoft hoped.
I live in Europe, where $300 works out as 243 Euros, and up until about one and a half years ago, thats what you spent on a Playstation 2 or XBOX.
Playstation 2 had a starting price of around 400 Euros, so around $500. And Microsoft were even so insolent to want a whopping 479 Euros when they released their console in march 2002. That works out as 590 Dollars. No wonder they lay on the shelves like blocks of concrete.
You can usually get games for 50 Euros, but some XBOX games cost 70 Euros when the system first came out.
I am also what you would describe as a casual gamer.
After playing a few months, I stopped. I found that what I was getting for my money just wasn't good enough. I might start again sometime in the future but I somehow think thats unlikely.
That's another thing I think is a rip-off. Six Months after unsubrscribing, my characters are deleted. For the money I've given them they could at least give my characters permanent space.
I only reached LV 36 with one character, because I didn't play all that much. Having said that I did invest numerous hours into the Game.
I suppose that's because I did alot of soloing, like most poeple I know. I might have been on a bad server, but there just weren't enough people who wanted to casually group and do a few quests. And I haven't got that kind of flexibility to adjust my playing time to that of my freinds, or some other guys in the game I've never even met.
The biggest fault in WoW is that it's just sooooo slooooooowwwww.
Even when I was in a group, the game experience didn't improve all that much. Sure, you can gain experience quicker and easier, but everything still just takes so long. So much running. For anything you could do, you have to run for miles. And when you finally get those much worked for Exp it gave you a pitiful amount towards your next Level.
It's not as if the Quests were even fun. Collecting some stupid claws from cats that only about one in ten had (?) isn't all that much better than running over miles of land.
plus its unconstituitional, government is not suppose to censor such things (see that stuff about free speech). you cant regulate one thing and not regulate the rest.
This isn't censorship. Censorship would be if someone went round through Game Studios and made them cut out all blood, as an example.
This is regulation of sales to minors. They're not banning it or preventing it from being there, but are unhappy with the fact that a 7-year old can just go into a store and buy it.
It's the same way the government protects kids from alcohol.
I don't understand why free speech is brought up here. It has nothing to do with free speech that children can or can't buy violent games. Any adult wanting to "speak freely" by buying them can do so.
Parents still have absolute control of what their children play. Nothing has changed. But for parents who would maybe just want to know when their kids play them, it has made things a little easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Going by the graph, there is a point somewhere between 1/100th and 1/100th atm, where ice turns directly to vapor, without melting to water. Thus, you can't keep liquid water at that pressure, and there is no known organism that can survive without it.
And I don't know how much pressure skin can withstand, but I doubt it could survive a vaccum.
Your skin would either freeze, or dry up and crumble, because you can't have liquid water.
Plus, there are alot of gases solved inside our body, between the tissue.
The EU commissioner for competition, Neelie Kroes, is a very contreversial figure in Europe. She was revieing cases of companies that she was working for only a few months before, has a habit of sticking her nose into everything, and not always complying to behavior codes she accepted when taking on the position.
Last year she even got a University she used to work for to give Bill Gates an honory doctorate.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole process slowed to a halt because of her.
Who is to say what is good for the human race? Having "superior" genes? Multiplying to every corner of the universe?
This is what would happen if the basic driving force of evolution were to succeed, but is that really what we want?
And who is to say that the poeple benfefiting from the welfare system today, wouldn't have had a higher status when poeple didn't have to worry about getting an education, and instead concentrate on hunting, therby beating socalled "smarter" people to it?
"Selection" criteria have changed so much since the beginning of civilisation. Wanting to filter selection by the criteria that are important at this moment in time (in which chance is probably the most important factor)is immoral and simply wrong.
Without welfare systems, the selection criteria would probably be even further from socalled "natural selection".
Just because you have had some luck, and "succeeded" in modern society, doesn't mean your genes are any better for the future of the human race than the guy living on benefit.
And if you really want to pass on your genes and produce more offspring, nobody's stopping you.
Genetics are too intricate, to think that destroying all appearences of society will lead to better genes.
Your view is just way too simplistic.
I remember reading once that by system sales, Super Smash Brothers Meelee was the most successful game, with about half of all GameCube owners having a copy of Meelee.
I don't know if that still applies, but it looks as if Nintendogs is going to get close.
I live in Europe and passed by the main retailer in my area today and saw an intersting thing.
Where up until yesterday there was a shelf full of plastic boxes representing preorder-PSPs, there were a line of GranTourismo-PStwo bundles, and above literally hundreds of UMDs.
The only systems I saw were 4 boxes lodged between the PS2s and another huge pile of UMDs.
I'll check out the situation again maybe tomorrow, but if Sony give main retailers, like maybe ten PSPs it's no wonder they're sold out.
249 Euros for a Value Pack, which is 310 Dollars.
Music UMD 18 Euros --> 22 Dollars
Movie UMD 20-25 Euros --> 25-30 Dollars
The cheapest games are forty Euros, so fifty Dollars, and many third party games are 50 Euros, or 62 Dollars.
I even saw Spider Man for 60 Euros, which works out as a whopping 75 Dollars.
Everyone in America should consider themselves lucky with their NTSC signal.
Thank God things have changed now, but in the days on FFVII all we got were squashed pictures and 5/6ths of the original speed, bevause of the differences in resolution and framerate.
Heck, they didn't even give a shit about the in-game clock, which meant if you had 50 Hours on your clock, your real play-time was 60 hours.
Are you proposing that progress in game development should be halted just so that every little game studio can keep up with the big boys?
Don't get me wrong. I too would like to see smaller developers have better chances in setting up.
But where's the benefit in slowing progress and thus hindering any growth?
The better games get, the better (aint that obvious?)
So what if they lose business? (I hardly think they would have to close just because they don't sell used games anymore)
Do they feel obliged to support the games industry by not selling used games, a practice which costs the industry many millions or even more every year?
No, they want to make a profit for themselves.
As long as their pockets are full, they don't give a shit about you, your money, charities, or waning games sales.
So why should you feel obliged to support the guys who do unfair business at games stores?
Microsoft might just have a general problem with the attractiveness of their new console.
I don't think you can apply the same circumstances there were with this generation, to the next.
The majority of casual gamers probably aren't looking for a new console at the moment, and with a last push from Sony and Nintendo for their current consoles, they might see the XBOX 360 as much a major console launch as Microsoft hoped.
This price seems actually quite cheap to me.
I live in Europe, where $300 works out as 243 Euros, and up until about one and a half years ago, thats what you spent on a Playstation 2 or XBOX.
Playstation 2 had a starting price of around 400 Euros, so around $500.
And Microsoft were even so insolent to want a whopping 479 Euros when they released their console in march 2002. That works out as 590 Dollars.
No wonder they lay on the shelves like blocks of concrete.
You can usually get games for 50 Euros, but some XBOX games cost 70 Euros when the system first came out.
I am also what you would describe as a casual gamer.
After playing a few months, I stopped. I found that what I was getting for my money just wasn't good enough. I might start again sometime in the future but I somehow think thats unlikely.
That's another thing I think is a rip-off. Six Months after unsubrscribing, my characters are deleted. For the money I've given them they could at least give my characters permanent space.
I only reached LV 36 with one character, because I didn't play all that much.
Having said that I did invest numerous hours into the Game.
I suppose that's because I did alot of soloing, like most poeple I know. I might have been on a bad server, but there just weren't enough people who wanted to casually group and do a few quests. And I haven't got that kind of flexibility to adjust my playing time to that of my freinds, or some other guys in the game I've never even met.
The biggest fault in WoW is that it's just sooooo slooooooowwwww.
Even when I was in a group, the game experience didn't improve all that much. Sure, you can gain experience quicker and easier, but everything still just takes so long. So much running. For anything you could do, you have to run for miles. And when you finally get those much worked for Exp it gave you a pitiful amount towards your next Level.
It's not as if the Quests were even fun. Collecting some stupid claws from cats that only about one in ten had (?) isn't all that much better than running over miles of land.
To me, the game just wasn't fun.
plus its unconstituitional, government is not suppose to censor such things (see that stuff about free speech). you cant regulate one thing and not regulate the rest.
This isn't censorship. Censorship would be if someone went round through Game Studios and made them cut out all blood, as an example.
This is regulation of sales to minors. They're not banning it or preventing it from being there, but are unhappy with the fact that a 7-year old can just go into a store and buy it.
It's the same way the government protects kids from alcohol.
I don't understand why free speech is brought up here. It has nothing to do with free speech that children can or can't buy violent games. Any adult wanting to "speak freely" by buying them can do so.
Parents still have absolute control of what their children play. Nothing has changed. But for parents who would maybe just want to know when their kids play them, it has made things a little easier.