This is getting a little off topic... But I recently played The Witcher, and I was well impressed. I found the plot and the cinematics engaging. It also did a good job of giving the impression that you're actions affect the game world.

I'm currently playing Oblivion, which scales the difficulty with your level, so while being a rpg, it doesn't have the features that the article describes (you advance, but so does the world). I'm finding it well impressive too, in a different way.

I tried a few MMORPG's, and had fun for up to a month or two, but I like to follow a story, and so far no MMORPG has done that for me.

Ugh. I find this really disturbing.

Search engine's shouldn't be responsible for the information they turn up. The people who should be ashamed of themselves are the people posting the images, not Google. It sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, and gives credibility to criticisms of media bias.

I'm personally of the opinion that showing M. Obama as a monkey is racially motivated, but I'm willing to grant that it's not black and white (ha ha). Even if it were... Even if it was a picture of M. Obama being strung up in monkey-effigy by a bunch of klu-klux-klanner's, I don't think censoring the picture is a good idea.

Beyond just violating the principle of free speech, and setting uncomfortable precedences, I think this kind of behaviour is harmful for society as a whole. Let's assume, for the purpose of discussion that these images are racially motivated. Cutting these images out of google searches makes it more difficult, for example, for an individual to fairly research and document the levels of racially charged propaganda out there. Also, the best way to give a movement a sense of solidarity is to persecute or censor them. It's far better to let the racists expose themselves, and then subject them to ridicule, than it is to censor them. Superman defeating the Klu Klux Klan is a good example of this.

Seriously dude, you're vastly ignorant about the history and intent of copyright law.

Copyright law is a compromise: A temporary restriction of our rights of free speech, with the intent of encouraging creative works. Anything from the 50's, 60's and 70's should be in the public domain. Lengthy copyright law robs from the public domain (which is, in essence, our culture) to grant wealth. Under current copyright law, most of that wealth gets granted to oligarchists who perform little useful function. That artists are taking back their copyrights and publishing themselves is positive, in that at least the artists are reaping the rewards of their labors rather than layers and accountants, but it's bad in that the work is more than 20 years old and belongs in the public domain.

Technological innovation in dissemination of information, and reduced costs in distribution, change the cost benefit ration of copyright law, which means we should be shrinking the power and length of copyright law. Unfortunately the oligarchists have very effective lobbies, and benefit from the ignorance of people like you, who have strong opinions despite knowing nothing about the issue, and are unable to value anything using any yardstick other than sums of financial transactions.

On the other hand, having older artists take back their copyrights might be a good thing. Perhaps in the long run it will weaken the copyright oligarchists, eventually allowing society's voice to be heard, as well as that of the expensive lobbyists.

You know, buying a an ebook reader doesn't mean swearing off ownership of paper books. I own an mp3 player AND a CD player, and a Vinyl player. I still buy CD's and records, even though I mostly listen to mp3/oggs. When someone makes an ebook reader worth buying I will own an ebook reader AND many paper books.

Currently I download many more books (primarily through project Gutenburg) than I purchase, but I still buy some. I read the downloaded volumes through my laptop, or occasionally I print them out (what a waste of paper). I'm just waiting for an ebook reader I think I'll be happy with for a few years.

Some of your objections to ebooks are silly, even in the context of currently available readers. Others are reasonable given the technical limitations of current readers, but can easily be overcome in the near future, with only minor technical advances.

• Battery

• Well, that's a big advantage of e-ink. Depending on how slowly you read, I think its very likely that, if not now, in the forseeable future, ebook batteries will last longer than it takes you to read even a sizeable book. When they can get the power consumption down so that a photovoltaic cell keeps it charged, that'll rock, but I can see that taking a while.

• Space: a good ebook reader will fit in your pocket. hundreds of books (or say 5 or 6 books taken on vacation) won't. Advantage: ebook.
• Durability: Regarding the reader, this is a question of good design and contruction. Regarding the content, there's no reason you can't keep your ebooks forever, if you provide sane storage.
• Obsolescence: Insist on open exchange formats like plain text, html, or pdfs. This is simply a question of voting with your dollars. It's why you shouldn't buy a kindle. Since the nook and the sony reader at least support PDF's, they might be acceptable.
• DRM: Don't accept DRM. Many books are available in PDF format, and even more are completely out of copyright and freely available at project Gutenburg. If a publisher doesn't sell an DRM free electronic version of a book you want, buy the paper version.
• Physicality: Well, for me this is a huge win for Ebooks. I have that same collector instinct too, but my home gets cluttered with all of the books, which are in some cases stacked double and triple deep on my bookshelves. I start to run out of shelf space and just box them up or give them away. In the case of my technical books, I want them mainly as a reference, and would be happy to just have them in electronic format, particularly if I had a good reader for them. Again, ebooks just provide you with more options, they don't take options away.

What I'm hoping for is a well built ebook reader that lets me underline and scribble notes, something like the Iliad. Unfortunately the Iliad seems to be buggy and poorly implemented, but the idea is a good one.

I have to disagree with you there. Obligatory service has many merits worth mentioning:

You say "oh no, I won't be able to do and work on the things i'm interested in because I'll be learning how to kill people". Well, that's not true. Unless you sign up as infantry or some such discipline, you'll likely be learning some other skill. I for example, was a mechanic in the marines, which comes in handy every once in a while today, despite the fact that it's unrelated to my work as a computational physicist, or any of my hobbies. My time in the military turned me into a confirmed and active pacifist and anti-war agitator. It was in fact a growing experience. I think a mandatory service system, similar to Swiss system, would be very good for the U.S. 3-6 months active duty for training, and 2 weeks a summer service. Kind of like modified reserves or national guard. Pacifists can volunteer for non-military activities, like aid work, medical services, environmental recovery etc. Heinlein (and I'm not a big fan) got oner other thing right: no officer class: officers start out as enlisted men and work their way up. The swiss do that as well.

Shared service (following the swiss model) then crosses class bounds. Intelectualls have work side by side with working class uneducated joes. One of my colleagues in my studies was a fat swiss kid, who was one of those really abstract mathematicians. He wasn't interested in anything remotely practical, and he had a pretty snobby, effete attitude. Having to live a working class life for a few weeks did him an enormous amount of good, and got him out in the fresh air for a spot of exercise. This is good for national unity, and improves political dialog, since it's harder to get people to group up in us vs them groups.

Mandatory service (following the swiss model) has profound cultural influences as well. Because the military is by a vast majority comprised of citizenry who mostly have better and more rewarding things to do, the military isn't glorified. Because almost everyone is either in the military or has a kid or loved one who is in the military, it's a hell of a lot harder to get a war going. Public opposition is almost immediately against it unless they perceive a real need. It improves the culture of a military reminding it that it's all about the people. It would be a lot harder to get a bunch of students serving their 2 weeks service to shoot on another bunch of students protesting a war, for example. It also pretty much eliminates the chance of a military coup, and reduces the role of the military as a another special-interest power player.

The current military system in the United States is, frankly, obscene. It has probably the worst instance of a class structure in an already highly class aware culture. It draws the cannon fodder from the poorest population, who seldom have other options available to them. The military and the citzenry goes blithely into wars because by and large they aren't affected, and after all the solders chose to join. It has an extremely tribal in group/out group mindset, and because of this screws up the proper functioning our democracy. It's not called the military industrial complex for nothing. Further, the class nature of our culture is so screwed up, we really have people living in tiny seperate realities. My sister lives in a gated community with armed guards, ten foot walls, a private golf course and radio controlled gates for christ sake, and this is meant to be a good culture? Our political discussions sound more like people cheering for different teams playing in the superbowl than they do like informed debates about complex issues.

Shared service would mitigate all of these evils.

Almost any of K.V.'s novels would be suitable for inclusion. Also worth being on the list, and conspicuously missing are Asimov and P.K. Dick. Gibsons neuromancer is interesting in particular for its cultural influence and devlopment of the web and web slang. Finally, Joseph Halderman (Forwever War, Forever Peace, etc) writes some of the most intelligent, interesting speculative fiction out there.

I followed up on your references. I was quite interested to read the usage notes on the word literally:

Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning âoein effect, virtually,â a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning âoeactually, without exaggerationâ: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing. Although this use of literally irritates some, it probably neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning of the sentences in which it occurs. The same might often be said of the use of literally in its earlier sense âoeactuallyâ: The garrison was literally wiped out: no one survived.

Of course language is mutable, and in America we don't have a "Duden" (a reference for what is the the official language). The use (or misuse, in my opinion) of the word has become common enough that dictionaries recognize it. My problem with this use of the word isn't that it makes the sentence unclear... it's obvious what the writer means... it's that it robs the English language of a good word which otherwise has a quite specific meaning. I could come up with a list of 50 or more colorful and effective adjectives to substitute for literally in this kind of context, and the sentence would only benefit from it. On the other hand, I can't think of a good substitute for literal in the original sense of the word.

I do freely admit that my comments have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and that my efforts to guide the evolution of the language are quixotic. I also appreciate having an intelligent conversation on the matter, so chapeau.

Thanks for posting that, I was looking to make the same point. With modern technologies lowering the barrier for publishing and reproduction, copyright terms should be shorter than they were 200 years ago, not longer. Nothing against the heirs, but these works belong in the public domain.

On the same theme, I've been thinking about trademark law lately. Marvel and DC have a co-trademark on the term superhero, which is frankly absurd. Could they trademark Spiderman? How does that work?

By the way, and I'm sorry to nitpick, but I get terribly annoyed by abuse of the word "literally". Literally is not a synonym for "metaphorically" . In fact, it's an antonym for metaphorically. It's also not a synonym for "truly" or "totally" or "badly" or whatever other word you might be able to fit in that sentence. For disney and friends to literally rape the public domain, the public domain would require a body, and representatives of disney and their friends would have to force unconsentual sex on that body. So while your comments are otherwise intelligent and well though out, the misuse of the word "literally" weakens your intellectual position.

Google =10^100.

micro = 10^-6.

Google*Microsoft = 10^96.

Would make for a queer company logo though...

I'm sorry, but you're falling into the "Apathy of Despair" anti-pattern, which is all too common.

It's true that our democracy is particularly dysfunctional, but one only needs to look at American history for the last 200 years to see that positive change can and does occur, despite strong opposition.

Where I lay fault in your previous comment is the phrase "what the president is trying to accomplish is socially impossible". Depending on how one frames his goal, you could well state it's impossible. For example if you say his goal is to "make sure everyone gets good health care without exception, and there are no abuses whatsover", sure, it's impossible, because we live in a world where such absolutes are impossible. But if the goal is to get rid of the worst of the abuses by the health care system, to make sure the vast majority of Americans are covered (to within margins of error, or at least to within people in the system, it's not impossible at all.

However, positive change in a democracy requires motivated advocates. The only reason the health care reform is encountering any difficulty is the huge number of wing-nut and money-fed advocates fighting it. This lunatic and biased (respectively) fringe has, sadly, a very loud voice. It is however a testament to how much effect being vocal and active, even if you are in the minority, can have.

By falling into the apathy-of-despair anti-pattern, and by posting messages encouraging others to do so, you fight against the president, and side with the lunatics and crooks who are trying to keep things the fucked up way that they are. Is that really what you want to be doing?

That said, I'm fundamentally a scientist at heart. So if you believe you can prove that this goal is impossible to achieve, I'd like to see your math and the underlying assumptions. Modelling social systems is pre-natal at this point, so I'm disinclined to take your word on it.

People are, at present, saying very negative things about President Obama's health care bill. Generally what they say is poorly expressed. But certainly they have some reason for complaint. President Obama is trying to accomplish something in a way that is socially impossible. Hillary Clinton tried another confused bill, and her ideas were rejected, also. However, although many people don't like the health care bill, no one seems to think that President Obama intends to profit personally.

Your post is pretty reasonable except for the above paragraph. Whereas the above paragraph was off-topic and uneccessary, I have to admit my entire post is off topic. But I'm compelled to speak up anyway.

Wny would you think that what the president is trying to accomplish is socially impossible? He's trying to bring health care up to the standards enjoyed by the majority of the developed world. His plan represents the minimal change required to the current system to accomplish certain laudable goals. One could say he is trying to provide universal health-care, but one could equally say that he is trying to legislate and regulate away the worst abuses of the health insurance corporations. The system he is proposing (minus the public option), is essentially the system enjoyed here in Switzerland, and I can personally attest that the system over here is so vastly better than the one in the states that it is difficult to describe. I've had a couple of really good job offers in the states in the last few years (I am American), but I've remained here largely because of the broken health care system in the U.S. The practises of denial of coverage, retroactively denying coverage, and the thousands of smaller rip-offs perpetuated by those companies is simply terrifying. It's so bad I can't imagine anyone not having personal contact with at least one person suffering from these abuses, which frankly should be criminal offenses.

Perfection might not be achievable, but an improvement of the status-quo is not only achievable, it's laughably easy to achieve it. It would be very hard to make it worse.

That said, the GPS proposal is laughably bad.

Chances are you're being paranoid.

Most heart rate monitors don't store and allow the download of heart rate data. The ones that do are much more xpensive than the ones that don't. If you're really worried about it, Call the school and ask them what the model number of the hrm is, and go online and look up whether or not it has that feature. You're school is doing pretty well financially if it can afford the ones that hook up to your pc.

Even if stores the hrm data, I doubt they are archiving that stuff. It's a pain in the neck storing my own hrm data. Doing so for a class of 20-40 people? Who has the time? My personal opinion is your concerns fall into the tinfoil hat category, but check with the school and ask them.

HRM's are very useful training tools, and I think it's a great idea to have your kids learn how to use them. It will help your kids identify and develop a feeling for different levels of exertion. They're a great way of making sure you are working at a healthy and productive level. The assumption of all the posts I've read seems to be that the school is being paranoid, but the OP doesn't seem to be sure if the kids are being asked, or are being required to wear the things. If the school is doing it out of concerns for safety, they are probably being excessively paranoid. But whatever the motivation, HRM's are a great tool to teach kids a bit of connectivity with their body, and could very well help them lean good habits for lifelong fitness. I used an HRM as part of my training for a number of years. Nowadays I'm familiar enough with my biofeedback to identify what training zone and level of exertion I'm at, so I don't wear it all the time. But even so, I find it a handy tool from time to time. Sometimes it's useful to make sure I'm not slacking off, sometimes it's useful to make sure I'm not overtraining.

I found the comment rather pithy.

Not only that, but if a thug attacks you, you can call the cops!

Seriously though, the opinion you express here points out a serious problem in America, a lack of faith or trust in law enforcement officials. While it would be possible to reasonably argue that this lack of trust is warranted or not, no rational, well informed person could claim that you don't have some justification to feel the way you do. Every once in a while I tell some recent cop horror story to my Swiss wife, and her jaw just drops. It's almost impossible to believe the kind of behaviour that police engage in, without repercussion, in America.

• cop strangles kid for skateboarding
• cop chokes (and kills) a man suspected of swallowing drug
• cops defend shooting 92 year old woman

The above are just a few examples that came to mind. I can't recall a week going by without some similar tragedy occurring somewhere in America. I think it's no coincidence that so many police brutality and murders by police officers occur in botched drug raids. It's a pretty well understood phenomenon how much the "war on drugs" has twisted and corrupted cop culture, much as alcohol prohibition exacerbated corruption back in the twenties. It creates an "us vs them" mentality for both cops and citizens of inner city neighberhoods. I think the problem was documented most poignantly in a work of television fiction, "The Wire".

The solution however is not looser gun laws, arming yourself, vigilante groups, or any other loony-libretarian nonsense (by loony-libretarian i refer to libretarian extremists, as opposed to rational thinking people with a libretarian mindset). The solution is better policing of our police, reform of the criminal justice system (please support Jim Webb's reform efforts, and drug-prohibition repeal. There are a number of politicians and citizens group working on the issue, so I suggest you please join us and lend your efforts.

Reading the article, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the person carrying the replica did anything remotely threatening. As for:

The person who had thought they'd seen a gunman in the neighborhood had actually seen a Bungie employee carrying a replica Halo rifle back to the studio's offices, Bungie community director Brian Jarrard told me. Recognizing there was no longer an emergency, officers advised Bungie officials to transport the gun more discretely in the future.

Note that the article says the employee was 'carrying' the weapon, and that police advised Bungee to be more discreet in 'transporting' the replica. So although there are no guarantees, the article certainly implies that the replica was just being carried.

Me, I think the police should have advised the individual who called in not to be such a candy ass in the future. My personal, biased, unscientific risk assessment tells me we suffer far more from excess paranoia than we do from random shootings. I acknowledge that random shootings are a real problem in the U.S., but I think the paranoia we live under is a much bigger problem.