Article is talking of an infinite number of 9s after the decimal, which indeed does equal 1. You're correct that a limited number of 9s after a decimal does NOT equal 1.

Yes, you are. 10a - a ALWAYS equals 9a, not 3a. So you would have 9a = 3, which makes a = 3/9 and thus .3333... isn't as weird as .9999... What trips people on the 0.9999... that they think that the number 1 is the unique representation of the value. What this proof says is that 0.9999... isn't a separate number at all, just a different representation of 1. Try to think of it more as a limit probably than an arithmetic if that helps: Each digit added to 0.9999... brings it close and closer to 1, just as ever increasing deltas for a limit bring the limit closer to a value. Take the pattern to infinity, at the limit literally is EQUAL to the value the deltas head to. It's a little hard to grasp infinities sometimes. The same is said of 0.333... Each digit of 3 added brings the value closer and closer to 1/3 until, at the limit, it is literally equal. Or, if it helps, don't think of 0.999... as a separate number at all (it isn't) and just think of it as simplifying to an equivalent value, just as 3/9 simplifies to 1/3.

Ok, I'm big on conservation, saving the planet, etc., but this report is total FUD. One of the charts on this report illustrates the point perfectly: "In 2007, people used the equivalent of 1.5 planets in 2007 to support their activities." So, either we just decimated the earth 3 years ago and are living on some fairy planet now, or we've got some Library of Congress measurements going on here. What next? Earths Per Minute? Earth calories per square mile? Presenting this kind of data is WORTHLESS except as an alarmist view on the matter to grab headlines. Now, there ARE good pieces of well-established information in the report I saw (such as loss of biodiversity, habitat, excess carbon, etc.) but the way this report presents the (glossed over) data is entirely misleading, pointlessly biased, unscientific, and just shameful. Data should speak for itself, and not need headline grabbing lines such as "We're going to need another planet guys! ZOMG, WE'RE ALL DOOMED!"

Am I the only one who doesn't see how Medical Transcription intersects in any way with SEO and Anti-piracy?

Also, I'm saving this blurb from their front page as one of the best, most generic examples of corporate-speak ever:

<Insert Company Name Here> has a blend of technology savvy & process driven dedicated team bringing about a paradigm shift in rendering customized solutions to its clients. We have steadily grown in reach and service offerings with a favorable cost-benefit ratio & keeping pace with the emerging business needs of our customers.

As an actual Tech Artist currently working in the game industry, let me recommend a few things. First, you haven't said what the skill level of these students are. They're fine arts, so that says they've got the art background...but do they have computer 3D experience of any kind? As in, have they used 3dsmax or Maya or some other software before? If NOT, then you either need to scrap the idea of a game class completely and teach a 3D modelling/texturing/lighting/etc. class, OR you need to teach a game DESIGN class and not work with computers at all. That is, design games on paper...maybe even board games, physical games, etc.

Now, if your Fine Art students DO have 3D cg skills, which they will if the school has those classes, then you need to figure out the range of their technical abilities. If none of the students are adept at even rudimentary programming or scripting, then you shouldn't focus on game making so much as the game art pipeline. I'd say you need at least 1 student in 7-10 who will be solely focused on the programming/scripting side of making a game, or no game, even simple game will happen. These people have to be very interested in doing that job for the project, even if they work on the project in other ways as well. Even the simplest of game engines will require scripting to get your game in a playable state. If you do end up going for making a complete game, keep the class size small (no more than 20!) and do no more than ONE LEVEL on ONE GAME project for the full 50 hour class. Do it as a class project, NOT individual projects--working in a group is ESSENTIAL in the industry. Spend the first part of the class teaching about game art pipeline (see below) while your students begin design brainstorming/conceptualizing game. They should be prototyping the game in engine as soon as they possibly can, and get things to a simple playable state (with placeholder art) as soon as possible, so that game design can be iterated upon, and art can have context. Ideally, you should have a prototype of some sort in a month, depending on how much time your students have working on your class. That says that the game design should be ultra simple. Let them try new design variations out if they wish, but it's likely they'll get the best results if they stick to tried and true designs and genres. Just not enough time for a single class to do anything but simple (but possible if students didn't have other obligations of time, such as other classes...)

Anyway, the MOST important thing you could teach art students (apart from what they should be getting from their other classes!) is about working with game art assets and a game engine/editor. Texture Artists need to learn how to texture for game assets (normal mapping, texture atlases, compression, texture restrictions, etc.), Modellers need to know how to work with low-poly objects and high-detail normal mapping, animators on how to work with simpler rigs/skinning and loops, etc. Luckily none of this stuff requires an actual game design: simply fire up the engine and fly around levels constructed by your class. You could work on a portfolio of levels and really learn how to work with a game engine. Artists need to be able to work in whatever editor for the engine their company uses, and they need to know how to create good looking assets that perform well and look good. Make sure your students are working with concept art in the pipeline as well, it's definitely something employers want to see, whether its their own or someone else's.

As for engines that would be good to use. UDK (Unreal Engine) is a great choice for more serious game projects, even if the UDK Editor has a huge learning curve compared to others. It's quite powerful, and will serve any artist that can work with it well. If you've got the technical expertise on your team, I would recommend UDK, otherwise, something else.

I've fiddled with Unity, and it looks very slick. Requires less technical know-how, and way easy to use. Great for first-timers to game engines, but really mostly suitable for more casual games--not that there's anything wrong with it, it just seems its market is the casual and indie games. Which is perfect for a class. This is probably your best bet if you want a complete game from this class.

Torque used to be the only real options for cheap indie/educational, but honestly isn't that great compared to the options out there now. But it's worth mentioning.

If your students don't know how to work with 3D at all, but you still want to do a game class, Flash is your only bet at that point. There's even game engines out their (sans anything but Flash editor from what I've seen). PushButton comes to mind. With Flash you should be able to focus a lot on game design and good 2D art rather than 3D, which is more ideal if you want to focus on game design (not sure why with Fine Art students...)

So to sum it up: Decide WHAT you're teaching (game design, game art, game development, that's 3 separate areas to focus on, and NOT in one class). If Game Design: avoid computers, stick with paper, at most go to Flash. If Game Art, don't worry about teaching game design at all and focus on building levels with all the art assets that entails. If Game Development, build a strong technical team as well as artists, don't worry aboug game design much (keep it super simple!) and stick to the art and iterating on actually building game. You shouldn't be teaching game design in a game project or game art class, and should stay narrowly focused, or nothing much will come out of it for the students. If building a full game project is the goal for the class (and it IS possible, I did a simple game project in college with ~5 people over one semester) then keep things simple so you can get the project finished and done RIGHT.

I don't particularly care about WikiLeak's spokesman, or about the conspiracy theories involving these allegations. What I DO care about, strongly, is rape allegations being used as the reason for stepping down from a prominent position. All it takes is some woman (or man!) to cry RAPE against someone with a plausible story, and before the burden of proof has been presented in a court of law--heck, in many cases, often before police even make an arrest--people demand that the alleged criminal step down. Now, in situations where there may be some potential contact with the alleged victim, perhaps a mandatory leave of absence during the investigation and trial, but to completely step down from your position? It's bad enough that false rape charges can ruin a reputation for a lifetime. And yes, I've seen perfectly good people (teachers) who's lives and careers are ruined, even though they were found innocent. When a conviction comes, sure, throw the guy to the wolves, but in sexual cases such as rape, far too often the public automatically assumes guilty--even after being proved innocent. I, of course, in no way wish to disrespect actual victims of rape (and the majority of rape accusations are real as far as I know), but those not directly involved should mind their own business more and stop with the prejudice. Pet peeve. Ending rant.

2 Hours is a lowball for average american television watching though, which is good for comparison of pricing. See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm which says 2.8 hours per day on average (I've seen it as high as 4 from Nielson ratings). YOU and I may not watch that much TV, but the average american still does. And he's right, comparing it to television with those statistcs, even cable TV, 99 cents is expensive, especially for a "rental." For an ownership price, sure, seems fine to me, but I don't want to own most TV shows anyway, even if I want to watch (though there are plenty I do want to own).

All it takes is $1 dollar (or in this case, 5), and 90% of your "annoying" userbase goes away, where annoying is spammers, cheaters, jokesters, etc. Anyone seriously wanting to cause trouble still will, but bored kids out for a thrill won't bother. In this case, it likely has the benefit of washing out any DOA projects that will just clog up searches. Anyone serious about creating project won't really blink at the cost, since it's so small, even if they don't plan to make money themselves. If you want quantity over quality, leave a user-generated content service free. If you want quality over quantity, charge a nominal fee. Works very well I've found.

No, Richi Jennings who wrote a blog post linking to Bruce Schneier's blog post said that Bruce said that 9/11 made us safer from terrorists. Bruce's claims are insightful, Richi is just stirring up controversy...

"I don't know if you've thought about it (clearly you haven't) but [Apple] is screwed now. What trick will they pull out of their hat now? [Google] and Microsoft have the (gimmicky, as it was in the [iPhone]) [technology]. They have the developers. They have the hardware. Where do you think that leaves [Apple] in 5 years?

But I'm sure you disagree, [Apple] has its fans apparently. I guess the only way we'll know is in 5 years time. I'll come back here to gloat when [Apple] is the Palm of 2015 looking for someone to buy them."

What's sad is the parts of that I didn't need to replace. Yet somehow, I don't think my edit is any more true than the original quote...

Ah, but if all the servers in the US were IPv6, it wouldn't be very long at all until the rest of the world followed suite... Kinda helps with the largest single block of the internet swaps. :P

As someone that works in the industry making software that does performs search analysis, I can tell you that this is only the first pass. Hash matching finds things quickly, but doesn't find everything as you've said. There are many, many research areas going on in frequency analysis, image analysis (skin tone searches, etc.), and others. And then there's good old-fashioned viewing of files to search. Sadly, the software currently out there is WAY behind on the research. I count myself lucky working for a company that's starting to put some of this research to use. Still, hash matching is a very useful tool; remember, most criminals are dumb. Just take this case, where the guy gave his computer to a friend while it still had child porn on it. Often, the best thing they do to hide illicit files is to put them in strange (or hidden!) folders or change the file extension, both of which are easy to detect. Those that do realize that changing their files can hide them better generally have enough knowledge to, say, encrypt their files, which makes things extremely difficult anyway.