Do you think it coincidence that the GBA, the DS, and the Wii are the least expensive systems available? I don't. Nintendo knows that many people don't want to pay more for their system than they did for their TV.
These groups are Excellent examples of how to do EVERYTHING wrong. They will never accomplish their goal.
PROBLEMS WITH METHODOLOGY:
1)Any breakthrough this scientist would have found would have been published and used by other scientists in their research, preventing them from having to kill these primates to get that particular result. Stopping this scientist now only means that some other scientist who needed that result will have to start the terrorized research over from the beginning, effectively nullifying the deaths of the animals already sacrificed.
2) The primates killed by the scientist are dying making a permanant contribution to mankind. Compare this to the animals killed by cosmetic companies, who abuse animals testing every new product. If the activists are concerned about animal abuse, they would do better to harrass and firebomb cosmetic company leaders.
3) This scientist kills 30-40 primates a year, according to the article. I don't know the numbers, but I an relatively sure that more animals are killed in the destruction of the rainforest. If these activists are concerned about number of animals killed, they should go after logging company presidents, who kill animals by the thousands.
4) If for some reason the activists are anti-animal research made by scientists seeking to benefit mankind, they should go after the scientsists source of FUNDING, not the scientists themselves. The NIH institute in Washington, which undoubtedly funds the deaths of countless animals in the pursuit of saving millions of lives, will simply transfer the harrassed scientists funding over to another institute to get the desired result.
PROBLEMS WITH BUSINESS PLAN
Virtually every major university or health center does research on animals to some degree. The activist need to realize that the only way to get animal research stopped on a large scale is to pursue appropiate legislation. The problem? Firebombing old ladies is terrible for PR. They will never be able to get anything passed.
This behavior is disgusting for several reasons:
1) This scientist's research on the human brain will benefit mankind. Any breakthrough found will be published and used by other scientists in their research, preventing them from having to kill these primates. Stopping this scientist now only means that some other scientist will have to start her research from the beginning, effectively nullifying the already sacrificed animals.
2) The primates killed by the scientist are dying making a permanant contribution to mankind. Compare this to the animals killed by cosmetic companies, who abuse animals testing every new product. If the activists are concerned about animal abuse, they would do better to harrass and firebomb cosmetic company presidents.
3) This scientist kills 30-40 primates a year, according to the article. I don't know the numbers, but I an relatively sure that more animals are killed in the destruction of the rainforest. If these activist are concerned about number of animals killed, they should go after logging company presidents.
4) If for some reason the activists are anti-animal research made by scientists seeking to benefit mankind, they should go after the scientsists source of FUNDING, like the NIH institute in Washington, which undoubtedly funds the deaths of countless animals in the pursuit of saving millions of lives. The harrassed scientist's money will go to another scientist to do the same work.
This is a short sighted "victory" of there ever was one.
So are you in favor of the legislation or not? You talk about managing the children being the parents responsibility, but speak poorly of the people saying that this legislation is simply dead weight in a bloated beurocratic system.
We can argue on the definition of responsible, but I wouldn't call the passage of this bill the actions of responsible adults. I think this bill is just a gimmick to gather votes and badmouth its opponents, hardly what the voters had in mind when they elected these folk. I don't know the numbers, but probably less than 5% of minors who log into myspace would be affected AT ALL by this bill, so it really protects no one.
This whole bill is a waste of time that congress could spend banning homosexual marriage and violent video games, the two biggest threats our country faces. (sarcasm)
I guess the point I tried and failed to make was that you are taking advantage of a relatively unregulated internet when you call people complaining about government restrictions to Myspace "boneheads".
I also take offense to the idea that people trying to protect their rights (both online and off) from the current political leaders are in anyway "irresponsible". Because Myspace can potentially be used to solicite minors does not justify it being outlawed in public areas (which only protects children who can't afford internet at home). You might as well outlaw Google, because it is a gateway to pornography. Additionally, outlawing a specific list of social websites will only encourage the formation of newer social websites (ones that will be much less in the public eye) to circumvent the poor legislation.
I also have a pretty tough time believing that all the current judges and political leaders have the understanding of technical issues required to make informed choices about regulating them.
I hate those "I have a right" boneheads, too. People thinking they can get all over the internet saying whatever the h...heck they want without being censored.
^SARCASM^
BTW, I'm writing this from a biology lab, so we may have than sarcasm in common
Using this method, two differant people playing the same game can result in very different violence scores. If one person plays GTA to beat up people with a bat for 30 miuntes, and the other tries to finish all of the taxi missions, the scores will be like 90% and 5%, respectively.
Another reason this system is flawed is that it does not take into account the magnitude of the violence. I think most people would agree that running over a hooker for 2 minutes is more violent than getting chased by ghosts for 10 minutes.
As for the sports exeption: tackling, checking, and pushing are probably the violent activities MOST likely to reproduced if a kid sees them on screen.
"If you don't watch the violence, you'll never get desensitized" Bart Simpson
Now, according to Wikipedia, "Waterboarding is due to become a banned practice by U.S. personnel (including CIA officials) pending the release of a revised manual on interrogation procedures." It really upsets me that the Administration is willing to torture its prisoners if the UN turns a blind eye.
Inconvenience is a major feature of parking meters, as they are largely designed to dissuade people from parking curbside long term.
Case in point, check out these parking meter fees near Times Square in New York:
1 hour: $2; 2 hours: $5; 3 hours: $9
Notice how the pricing is scaled to deter long term parking.
These machines DO NOT TAKE BILLS, so you must carry huge amounts of quarters with you.
Conclusion: If cell phone payment methods become widespread in the US, I expect either sharp rate increases or maximum time limits before you must return to the machine to compensate for the removal of inconvenience.
Slashdot Mirror
Price may also play a role.
Do you think it coincidence that the GBA, the DS, and the Wii are the least expensive systems available? I don't. Nintendo knows that many people don't want to pay more for their system than they did for their TV.
These groups are Excellent examples of how to do EVERYTHING wrong. They will never accomplish their goal.
PROBLEMS WITH METHODOLOGY:
1)Any breakthrough this scientist would have found would have been published and used by other scientists in their research, preventing them from having to kill these primates to get that particular result. Stopping this scientist now only means that some other scientist who needed that result will have to start the terrorized research over from the beginning, effectively nullifying the deaths of the animals already sacrificed.
2) The primates killed by the scientist are dying making a permanant contribution to mankind. Compare this to the animals killed by cosmetic companies, who abuse animals testing every new product. If the activists are concerned about animal abuse, they would do better to harrass and firebomb cosmetic company leaders.
3) This scientist kills 30-40 primates a year, according to the article. I don't know the numbers, but I an relatively sure that more animals are killed in the destruction of the rainforest. If these activists are concerned about number of animals killed, they should go after logging company presidents, who kill animals by the thousands.
4) If for some reason the activists are anti-animal research made by scientists seeking to benefit mankind, they should go after the scientsists source of FUNDING, not the scientists themselves. The NIH institute in Washington, which undoubtedly funds the deaths of countless animals in the pursuit of saving millions of lives, will simply transfer the harrassed scientists funding over to another institute to get the desired result.
PROBLEMS WITH BUSINESS PLAN
Virtually every major university or health center does research on animals to some degree. The activist need to realize that the only way to get animal research stopped on a large scale is to pursue appropiate legislation. The problem? Firebombing old ladies is terrible for PR. They will never be able to get anything passed.
This behavior is disgusting for several reasons:
1) This scientist's research on the human brain will benefit mankind. Any breakthrough found will be published and used by other scientists in their research, preventing them from having to kill these primates. Stopping this scientist now only means that some other scientist will have to start her research from the beginning, effectively nullifying the already sacrificed animals.
2) The primates killed by the scientist are dying making a permanant contribution to mankind. Compare this to the animals killed by cosmetic companies, who abuse animals testing every new product. If the activists are concerned about animal abuse, they would do better to harrass and firebomb cosmetic company presidents.
3) This scientist kills 30-40 primates a year, according to the article. I don't know the numbers, but I an relatively sure that more animals are killed in the destruction of the rainforest. If these activist are concerned about number of animals killed, they should go after logging company presidents.
4) If for some reason the activists are anti-animal research made by scientists seeking to benefit mankind, they should go after the scientsists source of FUNDING, like the NIH institute in Washington, which undoubtedly funds the deaths of countless animals in the pursuit of saving millions of lives. The harrassed scientist's money will go to another scientist to do the same work.
This is a short sighted "victory" of there ever was one.
I really thought you were serious ("hard lashing" and "jot of porn" gave you away)
You totally had me going, congrats man.
So are you in favor of the legislation or not? You talk about managing the children being the parents responsibility, but speak poorly of the people saying that this legislation is simply dead weight in a bloated beurocratic system.
We can argue on the definition of responsible, but I wouldn't call the passage of this bill the actions of responsible adults. I think this bill is just a gimmick to gather votes and badmouth its opponents, hardly what the voters had in mind when they elected these folk. I don't know the numbers, but probably less than 5% of minors who log into myspace would be affected AT ALL by this bill, so it really protects no one.
This whole bill is a waste of time that congress could spend banning homosexual marriage and violent video games, the two biggest threats our country faces. (sarcasm)
I guess the point I tried and failed to make was that you are taking advantage of a relatively unregulated internet when you call people complaining about government restrictions to Myspace "boneheads".
I also take offense to the idea that people trying to protect their rights (both online and off) from the current political leaders are in anyway "irresponsible". Because Myspace can potentially be used to solicite minors does not justify it being outlawed in public areas (which only protects children who can't afford internet at home). You might as well outlaw Google, because it is a gateway to pornography. Additionally, outlawing a specific list of social websites will only encourage the formation of newer social websites (ones that will be much less in the public eye) to circumvent the poor legislation.
I also have a pretty tough time believing that all the current judges and political leaders have the understanding of technical issues required to make informed choices about regulating them.
Was that sarcasm, mapkinase?
I hate those "I have a right" boneheads, too. People thinking they can get all over the internet saying whatever the h...heck they want without being censored.
^SARCASM^
BTW, I'm writing this from a biology lab, so we may have than sarcasm in common
Using this method, two differant people playing the same game can result in very different violence scores. If one person plays GTA to beat up people with a bat for 30 miuntes, and the other tries to finish all of the taxi missions, the scores will be like 90% and 5%, respectively.
Another reason this system is flawed is that it does not take into account the magnitude of the violence. I think most people would agree that running over a hooker for 2 minutes is more violent than getting chased by ghosts for 10 minutes.
As for the sports exeption: tackling, checking, and pushing are probably the violent activities MOST likely to reproduced if a kid sees them on screen.
"If you don't watch the violence, you'll never get desensitized"
Bart Simpson
Waterboarding has been controversial for some time. (From New York Times 2004)n g.html
t m
http://www.president-bush.com/torture-waterboardi
The Government didn't do anything about it until the UN specifically asked them to stop.
http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1851.h
Now, according to Wikipedia, "Waterboarding is due to become a banned practice by U.S. personnel (including CIA officials) pending the release of a revised manual on interrogation procedures." It really upsets me that the Administration is willing to torture its prisoners if the UN turns a blind eye.
1 hour: $2; 2 hours: $5; 3 hours: $9
Notice how the pricing is scaled to deter long term parking. These machines DO NOT TAKE BILLS, so you must carry huge amounts of quarters with you.
Conclusion: If cell phone payment methods become widespread in the US, I expect either sharp rate increases or maximum time limits before you must return to the machine to compensate for the removal of inconvenience.