Distance from the sun and the greenhouse effect are not the only factors that affect surface temperature.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several other factors.
Length of day: Positive correlation with daily peak temps; not sure of the effect on average temos.
Albedo (reflectiveness): The amount of sunlight converted into heat will depend on reflectiveness. The lack of surface water (high reflectivity) on Mars would cause more sunlight to be converted to heat energy.
Considering that Earth is more than half covered by water, I think this could be a HUGE factor in planetary temperatures.
That's the benefit of having the dominant market share, people will accept that it's a problem with them -- accept it enough to keep IE installed, anyway.
Either IE7 will have an IE6 mode, or it will have to render standard HTML/CSS properly.
I'll take 100 to 1 odds on the first option.
More likely, the developers just do the patches to make it IE7 operable (as opposed to adhere to standards, to make it Opera-able).
How many Firefox users still have IE installed to view those pages? I'd guess over 98%. If you want the large corporate websites to adhere to standards, hit 'em in the pocket, and take your business elsewhere. Make sure they are aware of why you are leaving them.
Boycotting IE7 does not send a strong enough message to the companies that enable MS to continue flaunting standards.
There are laws in place to ensure mature content does not get into the hands of minors who are deemed, in general, to be too immature to handle same and this lady circumvented these laws by purchasing something her grandchild would not have been able to purchase on his own (for very good reason).
Actually, those laws are in place to ensure that said content does not get into the hands of minors without approval of their guardian.
She did not circumvent any laws. She exercised her right, as a guardian, to decide what material is appropriate for her ward.
Please understand that the rights of parents/guardians to decide what material is appropriate for her ward is not abrogated by any law, with the exception of pornography.
Furthermore, the child COULD legally buy the game in question, the ESRB rating system is voluntary, and not enforceable by law. It is the choice of retailers not to allow minors access to those games.
The question remains, did R*/Take2 mislead the consumer regarding content of the published media?
If the game is listed as being suitable for a 17 year old, what difference does it make if it's instead listed as being suitable for an 18 year old? Neither one of them equals a 14 year old. Period.
It doesn't matter how mature the kid is, or if he's 10, 14, or 17 years old. What matters is what level of maturity SHE deems the child to be, and therefore to determine what level of material is appropriate for her ward. We must assume that she was making an educated decision here, since that is the basis of her claim, and that therefore she thought her child was mature enough to handle content the ESRB rates as M.
While your standards may be that NO 14-year-old is mature enough for M-rated games, her standards may be different, and she is within her rights to apply them to her ward.
All that matters here is whether or not the game was published with material different from what was discosed, that was misleading enough to warrant a different ESRB rating.
I agree with you, it is a ridiculous lawsuit. However, she does have a legal standpoint.
I did not say that it is OK to neglect your children. But, given limited time in which to raise your children, I think society could help a parent not neglect their children by making sure content is appropriately labeled. Then parents could dedicate more time to interacting with their children, teaching them, and preparing them to be good people.
And yes it is true I beleive it is our societies job (AKA The Government) to protect current and future children from abusive (neglect is abuse) parents.
One of the best ways to achieve this is to enable parents to be better children. Your point of view, correct me if I'm wrong, is:
Don't let the government intrude on the raising of children, unless the parents screw up. Then, take the children away. And if you think the parents will not be able to raise the child properly, do not let them have children.
I have an idea for you: let government help parents by giving them better tools to raise their children. Then you are helping fulfill society's responsibility, and preventing some of those children from growing up in neglectful situations.
Your Orwellian fantasy is VERY disturbing.
I know plenty of people I consider to be near paragons of humanity, who were raised in less than perfect environments. Look to history, I'm sure you can find hundreds of people with incredible contributions to society who did not have good parents.
I think that if you are not just trolling, and you really believe what you have written, that you need some serious help. I truly hope you get it, for the sake of yourself and your children, should you have any.
I would guess that most businesses using legacy SCO systems are either tightwads, or cannot afford upgrades. In this case, SCO does not have backwards compatibility for large files (2GB), is this therefore the hostile step they can't afford?
The notion that women are "supposed" to try desperately to hold on to one man while men are "supposed" to want to spread their baby batter everywhere is a product of our culture, and is a cop-out for both sexes.
I disagree. The evolutionary/genetic advantage is for both sexes to cheat. For males, the advantage is to propagate your genes as much as possible, and allow the mates of the females to raise your cuckold children. For females, the advantage lies in selecting an "inseminator" with better genes than your mate, so your children will have a better chance of survival.
So, I believe the answer is:
Men will cheat with anything with a pulse.
Women prefer to cheat with someone more attractive (read: genetically preferable) than their mate.
So, yes, it's a cop out, but I do believe the drive to cheat exists for both sexes.
Just look at the numbers. Either some women are extremely busy, or the numbers are incorrect. Say 20% of the commit adultery and 10% of the women. Who are they doing it with?
Obviously, the women who commit adultery are doing it with two men at a time. Or the men are doing it with eachother.
I think your ire is misdirected at the Democratic Party. There are a host of reasons why jobs are difficult to come by. One of those is corporate profits.
The Republican Party encourages corporations to overcompensate their upper-level management. Where do you think that money is coming from? My pocket, and yours. Which party do you think supports the corporate elite more?
Another issue related to the dams being torn down: Their capacity to produce electricity is decreasing every year. Lower flow and sedimentation are slowly destroying the viability of the dams anyway -- why not bite the bullet and shift to a more sustainable economic model for the river?
To all your questions at once, we can't ever know. If we have secret balloting (which we do, and should, have), no one can know how everyone else voted, except from the tabulation.
You have to trust someone -- whether it is individuals or computers tallying the votes.
Printed records allow recounts. As far as I am concerned, recounts should be mandatory, for all elections. Count once by computer, once by hand. The hand count takes precedence over the computer count.
This bill takes several steps in the right direction.
Accountability. Transparency. Neutrality. These are the pillars of a good voting system.
Working with large files was somewhat confusing, however. To work in OpenServer 6 with files larger than 2GB, we had to use a separate set of Unix applications modified by SCO to work with large files... For applications compiled for OpenServer 5x, the support for larger files in Version 6 may require a recompile or an entirely new version of the application.
Seems broken to me. 2GB is large, but not large enough to be rare. I, for one, would not run an implementation possibly requiring application rewrites, especially when the future of SCO doesn't look promising.
If I'm going to spend the cash on a shaky, possibly very expenseive (for rewrites) upgrade, I'd rather implement a new system -- one that I have more confidence in.
Obviously, there need to be some standards for disclosure. Which is why we have the ESRB. All I ask is that companies are honest and give full disclosure of media they publish.
What happens when one parent of a child dies, as is the case for two of my friends? Again, you are making assumptions without thinking through the ramifications. Does the state then come in, seize the child, and sterilize the living parent?
I believe people who post inanely should have their hands amputated and their eyes poked out, so that there are no inane posts. There should also be pre-certification of Slashdot posters to make sure they are capable of presenting a well-thought-out argument without resorting to knee-jerk incendiary ideas like Mandatory Sterilization.
Seriously, I agree that parents are responsible and should not expect companies or the government to control the content their child see.
However, I think disclosure of contents would be very helpful, without being intrusive. I know several single parents working two jobs, who simply do not have the time to preview everything their children see.
"Some 85 items used in producer George Lucas's cult Star Wars series went on the block after one of the film's original producers Gary Kurtz put them up for sale to help maintain and restore his historic collection." (emphasis mine)
I think the author misspelled "cash out before his collection becomes worthless."
Some 85 items used in producer George Lucas's cult Star Wars series went on the block after one of the film's original producers Gary Kurtz put them up for sale to help maintain and restore his historic collection. (emphasis mine)
I think the author mispelled "cash out while his collection still had some value."
So, the state can go in and take children away from their parents if they disagree with the way the children are raised? How is that not forcing moral standards upon people? Where do you draw the line on acceptable parenting? What if I think it's totally fine for my kids to see nudity and sexual content when they are 14?
Second, it's not any companies and/or goverments job to decide what is or is not moraly appropriate for someone elses children.
Reread your parent post, you don't even have to read it carefully. It says: "If the goverment has to get involved it should be through Child Protective Services by taking the child away from these unfit parents that facilitate the purchasing of unfit material for thier children. (Then euthanize or at least setilize the parents)
Besides being awfully trollish, you clearly are saying the government should enforce morality standards on parents by seizing the children of parents who expose their kids to materials they define as "unfit."
Now I'm going to address your points:
1. First of all, Rockstar did disclose that there is "Strong Sexual Content" in GTA:SA
Seeing as the ESRB ratings are on a sliding scale, "Strong Sexual Content" is not necessarily a good descriptor. How about "Graphic Depictions of Sexual Acts?" I'm not disagreeing that R*/Take2 did disclose content. I would ask that the rating system be more descriptive, and that all content shipped (whether easily accessible or not) be included in the disclosure.
2. Second, it's not any companies and/or goverments job to decide what is or is not moraly appropriate for someone elses children./i>
This is spot on, and I agree with you 100%. All I am asking is that parents be given the tools necessary for this. Ideally, the tools to make this easier.
And I repeat, from my previous post:
Also, the ESRB ratings do not carry any weight of law. Any 10-year-old can legally walk into Walmart and buy an ESRB "M" game. It is a choice, not a legal requirement, for retailers not to offer "M" games to young 'uns.
And I'll add that it is a choice for parents to allow their kids to buy any game.
I suggest that you think about the implications of your suggestions. It seems you are arguing for increased/> government interference with child-raising.
"It's not the job of the government or any corporation to raise your children."
"If the goverment has to get involved it should be through Child Protective Services by taking the child away from these unfit parents that facilitate the purchasing of unfit material for thier children."
Blatant contradiction. If you require the children to raise their kids without help, then deal with the consequences.
Plus, it is the guardians who are responsible for raising their children. Is it too much to ask for companies to honestly, completely, disclose whether their products contain possibly inappropriate material?
Also, the ESRB ratings do not carry any weight of law. Any 10-year-old can legally walk into Walmart and buy an ESRB "M" game. It is a choice, not a legal requirement, for retailers not to offer "M" games to young 'uns.
Actually, it is quite legal to sell the game to minors, of any age. Please do not mistake the ESRB "recommendation" for a binding legal requirement.
The ESRB ratings are there to aid guardians in deciding whether a game is appropriate for their ward.
But you are right, if it was in fact pornography, R* could be in some deep doo-doo. Not likely though, since there are far worse (or better depending on perspective;) depictions of nudity in R-rated movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Distance from the sun and the greenhouse effect are not the only factors that affect surface temperature.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several other factors.
Length of day: Positive correlation with daily peak temps; not sure of the effect on average temos.
Albedo (reflectiveness): The amount of sunlight converted into heat will depend on reflectiveness. The lack of surface water (high reflectivity) on Mars would cause more sunlight to be converted to heat energy.
Considering that Earth is more than half covered by water, I think this could be a HUGE factor in planetary temperatures.
That's the benefit of having the dominant market share, people will accept that it's a problem with them -- accept it enough to keep IE installed, anyway.
Not 90% of the browser market, 90% of my market.
Big difference.
Either IE7 will have an IE6 mode, or it will have to render standard HTML/CSS properly.
I'll take 100 to 1 odds on the first option.
More likely, the developers just do the patches to make it IE7 operable (as opposed to adhere to standards, to make it Opera-able).
How many Firefox users still have IE installed to view those pages? I'd guess over 98%. If you want the large corporate websites to adhere to standards, hit 'em in the pocket, and take your business elsewhere. Make sure they are aware of why you are leaving them.
Boycotting IE7 does not send a strong enough message to the companies that enable MS to continue flaunting standards.
Good point, I didn't think past direct effects.
Though, it seems to me the faster way to make developers code properly would be to boycott companies who allow their developers to make IE-only pages.
This would be similar to boycotting those who advertise during programming you do not like.
And lose 90% of my market in the short term?
Sure, and eliminate 90% of my market?
Not likely.
No company that depends on selling MS for its livelihood will boycott MS (read: PC Retailers, which is the only place to hit MS in the pocket).
Companies cannot afford to boycott MS (too many apps not transferable to other platforms, and too much short-term cash loss).
Exactly how will boycotting IE7 affect Microsoft? Aside from the bad PR, a boycott aims to hit the target in the wallet.
...unless we boycott Windows or, even better, Microsoft as a whole.
Since IE7 will be bundled into Vista, and not purchased separately, there is no way to effectively boycott this product...
There are laws in place to ensure mature content does not get into the hands of minors who are deemed, in general, to be too immature to handle same and this lady circumvented these laws by purchasing something her grandchild would not have been able to purchase on his own (for very good reason). Actually, those laws are in place to ensure that said content does not get into the hands of minors without approval of their guardian. She did not circumvent any laws. She exercised her right, as a guardian, to decide what material is appropriate for her ward.
Please understand that the rights of parents/guardians to decide what material is appropriate for her ward is not abrogated by any law, with the exception of pornography.
Furthermore, the child COULD legally buy the game in question, the ESRB rating system is voluntary, and not enforceable by law. It is the choice of retailers not to allow minors access to those games.
The question remains, did R*/Take2 mislead the consumer regarding content of the published media?
If the game is listed as being suitable for a 17 year old, what difference does it make if it's instead listed as being suitable for an 18 year old? Neither one of them equals a 14 year old. Period. It doesn't matter how mature the kid is, or if he's 10, 14, or 17 years old. What matters is what level of maturity SHE deems the child to be, and therefore to determine what level of material is appropriate for her ward. We must assume that she was making an educated decision here, since that is the basis of her claim, and that therefore she thought her child was mature enough to handle content the ESRB rates as M.
While your standards may be that NO 14-year-old is mature enough for M-rated games, her standards may be different, and she is within her rights to apply them to her ward.
All that matters here is whether or not the game was published with material different from what was discosed, that was misleading enough to warrant a different ESRB rating.
I agree with you, it is a ridiculous lawsuit. However, she does have a legal standpoint.
I did not say that it is OK to neglect your children. But, given limited time in which to raise your children, I think society could help a parent not neglect their children by making sure content is appropriately labeled. Then parents could dedicate more time to interacting with their children, teaching them, and preparing them to be good people.
And yes it is true I beleive it is our societies job (AKA The Government) to protect current and future children from abusive (neglect is abuse) parents.
One of the best ways to achieve this is to enable parents to be better children. Your point of view, correct me if I'm wrong, is:
Don't let the government intrude on the raising of children, unless the parents screw up. Then, take the children away. And if you think the parents will not be able to raise the child properly, do not let them have children.
I have an idea for you: let government help parents by giving them better tools to raise their children. Then you are helping fulfill society's responsibility, and preventing some of those children from growing up in neglectful situations.
Your Orwellian fantasy is VERY disturbing.
I know plenty of people I consider to be near paragons of humanity, who were raised in less than perfect environments. Look to history, I'm sure you can find hundreds of people with incredible contributions to society who did not have good parents.
I think that if you are not just trolling, and you really believe what you have written, that you need some serious help. I truly hope you get it, for the sake of yourself and your children, should you have any.
Makes sense.
I would guess that most businesses using legacy SCO systems are either tightwads, or cannot afford upgrades. In this case, SCO does not have backwards compatibility for large files (2GB), is this therefore the hostile step they can't afford?
The notion that women are "supposed" to try desperately to hold on to one man while men are "supposed" to want to spread their baby batter everywhere is a product of our culture, and is a cop-out for both sexes.
I disagree. The evolutionary/genetic advantage is for both sexes to cheat. For males, the advantage is to propagate your genes as much as possible, and allow the mates of the females to raise your cuckold children. For females, the advantage lies in selecting an "inseminator" with better genes than your mate, so your children will have a better chance of survival.
So, I believe the answer is:
Men will cheat with anything with a pulse.
Women prefer to cheat with someone more attractive (read: genetically preferable) than their mate.
So, yes, it's a cop out, but I do believe the drive to cheat exists for both sexes.
Just look at the numbers. Either some women are extremely busy, or the numbers are incorrect. Say 20% of the commit adultery and 10% of the women. Who are they doing it with? Obviously, the women who commit adultery are doing it with two men at a time. Or the men are doing it with eachother.
I think your ire is misdirected at the Democratic Party. There are a host of reasons why jobs are difficult to come by. One of those is corporate profits.
The Republican Party encourages corporations to overcompensate their upper-level management. Where do you think that money is coming from? My pocket, and yours. Which party do you think supports the corporate elite more?
Another issue related to the dams being torn down: Their capacity to produce electricity is decreasing every year. Lower flow and sedimentation are slowly destroying the viability of the dams anyway -- why not bite the bullet and shift to a more sustainable economic model for the river?
To all your questions at once, we can't ever know. If we have secret balloting (which we do, and should, have), no one can know how everyone else voted, except from the tabulation.
You have to trust someone -- whether it is individuals or computers tallying the votes.
Printed records allow recounts. As far as I am concerned, recounts should be mandatory, for all elections. Count once by computer, once by hand. The hand count takes precedence over the computer count.
This bill takes several steps in the right direction.
Accountability. Transparency. Neutrality. These are the pillars of a good voting system.
Working with large files was somewhat confusing, however. To work in OpenServer 6 with files larger than 2GB, we had to use a separate set of Unix applications modified by SCO to work with large files... For applications compiled for OpenServer 5x, the support for larger files in Version 6 may require a recompile or an entirely new version of the application.
Seems broken to me. 2GB is large, but not large enough to be rare. I, for one, would not run an implementation possibly requiring application rewrites, especially when the future of SCO doesn't look promising.
If I'm going to spend the cash on a shaky, possibly very expenseive (for rewrites) upgrade, I'd rather implement a new system -- one that I have more confidence in.
Obviously, there need to be some standards for disclosure. Which is why we have the ESRB. All I ask is that companies are honest and give full disclosure of media they publish.
What happens when one parent of a child dies, as is the case for two of my friends? Again, you are making assumptions without thinking through the ramifications. Does the state then come in, seize the child, and sterilize the living parent?
I believe people who post inanely should have their hands amputated and their eyes poked out, so that there are no inane posts. There should also be pre-certification of Slashdot posters to make sure they are capable of presenting a well-thought-out argument without resorting to knee-jerk incendiary ideas like Mandatory Sterilization.
Accidental dupe post, doh!
/.
Shouldn't be a problem here on
Good luck with that.
Seriously, I agree that parents are responsible and should not expect companies or the government to control the content their child see.
However, I think disclosure of contents would be very helpful, without being intrusive. I know several single parents working two jobs, who simply do not have the time to preview everything their children see.
"Some 85 items used in producer George Lucas's cult Star Wars series went on the block after one of the film's original producers Gary Kurtz put them up for sale to help maintain and restore his historic collection." (emphasis mine)
I think the author misspelled "cash out before his collection becomes worthless."
From the Article:
Some 85 items used in producer George Lucas's cult Star Wars series went on the block after one of the film's original producers Gary Kurtz put them up for sale to help maintain and restore his historic collection. (emphasis mine)
I think the author mispelled "cash out while his collection still had some value."
So, the state can go in and take children away from their parents if they disagree with the way the children are raised? How is that not forcing moral standards upon people? Where do you draw the line on acceptable parenting? What if I think it's totally fine for my kids to see nudity and sexual content when they are 14?
Second, it's not any companies and/or goverments job to decide what is or is not moraly appropriate for someone elses children.
Reread your parent post, you don't even have to read it carefully. It says:
"If the goverment has to get involved it should be through Child Protective Services by taking the child away from these unfit parents that facilitate the purchasing of unfit material for thier children. (Then euthanize or at least setilize the parents)
Besides being awfully trollish, you clearly are saying the government should enforce morality standards on parents by seizing the children of parents who expose their kids to materials they define as "unfit."
Now I'm going to address your points:
1. First of all, Rockstar did disclose that there is "Strong Sexual Content" in GTA:SA
Seeing as the ESRB ratings are on a sliding scale, "Strong Sexual Content" is not necessarily a good descriptor. How about "Graphic Depictions of Sexual Acts?" I'm not disagreeing that R*/Take2 did disclose content. I would ask that the rating system be more descriptive, and that all content shipped (whether easily accessible or not) be included in the disclosure.
2. Second, it's not any companies and/or goverments job to decide what is or is not moraly appropriate for someone elses children./i>
This is spot on, and I agree with you 100%. All I am asking is that parents be given the tools necessary for this. Ideally, the tools to make this easier.
And I repeat, from my previous post:
Also, the ESRB ratings do not carry any weight of law. Any 10-year-old can legally walk into Walmart and buy an ESRB "M" game. It is a choice, not a legal requirement, for retailers not to offer "M" games to young 'uns.
And I'll add that it is a choice for parents to allow their kids to buy any game.
I suggest that you think about the implications of your suggestions. It seems you are arguing for increased/> government interference with child-raising.
"It's not the job of the government or any corporation to raise your children."
"If the goverment has to get involved it should be through Child Protective Services by taking the child away from these unfit parents that facilitate the purchasing of unfit material for thier children."
Blatant contradiction. If you require the children to raise their kids without help, then deal with the consequences.
Plus, it is the guardians who are responsible for raising their children. Is it too much to ask for companies to honestly, completely, disclose whether their products contain possibly inappropriate material?
Also, the ESRB ratings do not carry any weight of law. Any 10-year-old can legally walk into Walmart and buy an ESRB "M" game. It is a choice, not a legal requirement, for retailers not to offer "M" games to young 'uns.
Actually, it is quite legal to sell the game to minors, of any age. Please do not mistake the ESRB "recommendation" for a binding legal requirement.
;) depictions of nudity in R-rated movies.
The ESRB ratings are there to aid guardians in deciding whether a game is appropriate for their ward.
But you are right, if it was in fact pornography, R* could be in some deep doo-doo. Not likely though, since there are far worse (or better depending on perspective