All the early games I played were very "crunchy"; D&D, AD&D, Palladium, Twilight 2000 and Traveler 2300. The inelegance of such systems really began to drive me nuts, and I ended up going with Fudge and its variants like Fate. I never really played Gurps very much, but as I recall it was the middle ground between the kind of ultra-loose systems like Fudge and the very complex systems like AD&D. Now, I run a couple of PBeMs; a Palladium Rifts one and a home-brew heavily narrative game in the Harn universe, and dice are rarely used in the Palladium game, and not even part of the Harn game

Because the value of gold and silver is somehow less arbitrary than electronic bank balances.

This. The only time I ever click on them is accidentally.

But you have to realize, most people don't really know half of whats going on behind the scenes as they browse the web. Hell, I don't, I know enough to know how much is going on and how to find out more if I want, but who really looks? All the time? At some point you have to trust trust and everyone has to do it at a high level.

Most people don't have any conception of what a potentially hostile environment they have entered. Browsing the web is like replacing the hand shake with receptive anal sex and going out to a diner party:
"Hi there ReputableSite.Com my good friend"
"Hey there browser, come meet all my friends, we have a private room for 500, and they ALL want to meet you! Oh, is that condom? You need to leave that here or the door wont work."

Coral cores prove, coral reefs are destroyed by changes in sea level. The last big change being a few hundred metres up. So they likley will suffer this time round to. Not really the biggest problem. All that stuff on land going through a rising surf zone will wash huge quantities of debris and pollutants into the sea, now that is the real problem.

Want change, easy, target people's greed. Start running around tagging builds with "UNDERWATER FRONT - PROPERTY VALUE ZERO" stickers and signs, all for sales signs in at risk locations. Bring the real message home, to their rapidly devaluing home and they will start clamouring for real solutions to the problem and not empty treatment of the symptoms of the problem. When they start feeling the pain of falling property values they will start screaming for change to current policies.

Let's be honest that selfie stick rule has absolutely nothing to do with what happened on the ride, that is the excuse. The real problem with selfie sticks is a little more subtle. New digital cameras, unlike old film cameras, can take shot, after shot, after shot with bad ones deleted not costing quite a bit of money each and every time the button is pushed. So old film camera, near enough, good enough. New camera, hmm, didn't like that one, lets try again and again and again, how about trying this or this or etc.. Now if you ask someone else to take the photo, gain limits on how many tries and near enough is good enough.

Basically people taking shot after shot are causing traffic flow problems are around the park. People are blocked from seeing popular places or cough taking their own photograph there. Flows to concessions stands are slowed because people are in the way. It is not one shot with a selfie stick it is hundreds be each selfie stick aficionado.

Realistically the park wants selfie sticks, free advertising as the photos travel around (millions of dollars worth), problem is, they are causing real traffic flow problems as people are not stopping for a say around a minute for a single shot, they are being awkward repeating that shot again and again and again until they get it right and they are not doing just at a couple of locations but all over the place. Also I am sure the park could or already has photo taking concessions. You know pay a buck and get a quick photo emailed to your phone (sneaky huh, money for the concession and email and contact details and photographs on record, taking that into account the can really, really squeeze down the price of the shot).

You can do some smart stuff with the photo taking. Fixed point photo spots, linked to a pre-registered phone. Walk around the park offer of a 10 cent auto shot from a fixed well sited camera, based upon phone proximity (again other revenue opportunities). Toss in a 10 second video for a buck.

You host the ad, you promote the product and basically earning a percentage of revenue from that sale, then you should be liable for the message. You get paid to promote the message, you are liable for the message. A lot more civil suits need to start targeting those who promote false messages and think they are free to tell any lie imaginable, in fact an infinite numbers of lies because 'er' 'um' they are greedy and do not want to take any responsibility at all for their actions.

Flip side. What if someone who had the history of crime obtained de-listing from search results. Another person used search to make sure that person was safe, you know idle quick search. They appeared safe, so they established a relationship. The person with the hidden history then committed the same crime again, who does the victim sue, if they are still living from information that would have saved them from becoming a victim. Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.

Clearly search de-listing should never occur without consultative regard to the publisher of the story and it's accuracy. Technically speaking they are also unfairly devaluing that page, the cost of the effort to research and create has been stolen because otherwise that page with it's adds would have shown up.

Basically this is not about hiding slander pages, that is a fallacy, this is about hiding perfectly accurately pages because the person in question fully intends to engage in activity that other people would reject based upon that persons past behaviour. That is those other persons right. If it is a false slander page, delist it after consultation. You could do a fiscal balancing thing, get both parties the publisher and the person who wants to hide what was published, to put down some money to pay for an adjudication, say $1,000 dollars. The value of the article worth and truth is properly arbitrated and the winner gets their money back and the loser loses all round.

So publisher can let it slide, costs nothing. The publisher demands a challenge and the person wanting to hide their history can change their mind and nothing happens. Else the challenge progresses and the losers pays (most often the person seeking to hide their past behaviour because they know the story is true and accurate and people upon fair basis are not trusting them).

Want faster weight loss add an electric shock to the game ie munching game, eat the healthy food and avoid the bad food, accidentally eat the bad food and not only lose points but get an electric shock. Where you attack those electrodes, your choice but repeated painful negative reinforcement will guarantee pretty fast weight loss and a healthier diet. Of course it might cause public problems if people start screaming when they walk past a cake shop.

Does your book have dinosaurs and hot android sex? I don't just read anything, you know. I have my standards.

How about just giving away you skills and ideas now for free. The measure of your real worth is not you wealth and egoistic philanthropy (which is often more destructive than constructive). The measure of your real worth is who you think you see in the mirror. Who gives a tiddly crap about how main stream media with it's wealth worship ideology treats you now, a billion years, hell just a hundred thousands years, forward or back it is all totally meaningless, only you own perception of what you have freely contributed will define your true worth, a positive or negative worth, contributed more than you consumed and nothing is more consumptive of society than accumulating wealth. You do not have to make money to be of worth to the human society you are a part of and factually the greatest contributions are done for free everyday, those contributions that bind humanity together. Being able to buy more junk and more fully obeying the demands of marketing, than others around does not make you special, unless you think being a victim of marketing somehow makes you 'special' (I remember that as being the euphemism for disabled children, somehow seems more appropriate when talking about victims of mass consumerism, hmm, the 'special' people).

Philanthropy the art of making the myopically greedy look better, at least for a short time. Charity, helping to serve a better a society for the long term with no reward or recognition, just the ones you provide yourself. Which is the greatest accomplishment, which is shared with the many rather than being exclusive to the few and which in total contributes far, far more to the whole of human society.

Suck it up. Very tight drone regulations are coming, get over it and play with a different toy instead. Likely, use restricted to private property with the permission of the owner. Excluded from all non approved public spaces. Temporary permits for specific public spaces at specific times. The new regulations will require quite a bit of effort in the US because it has to make its way through state and local governments but the regulations are inevitable because stupid is as stupid does and anyone no matter how stupid can buy a drone and crash it into something or someone. Bringing them down is all too easy with specific radio frequency jamming devices and catching the individual is easy, just wait for them to try to recover the drone with remote in hand.

If they are smart enough to be Manager, a group leader of UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, than you should be smart enough to check the facts prior to acting perhaps everyone should drop him a line g.rees@ucl.ac.uk and keep the viral social media joke running. Experience is often a better teacher than theory.

If they are older and subject to attacks, the result, "Fuck off, I am too old to bother with this any more see you later". Of course the narcissist who kicked it off to snatch their bit of fame regardless of consequences, they tend to pick their targets to avoid the risk of repercussions. Admittedly the individual involved is likely to be very sensitive breaking three main stream media laws of acceptability, a female academic, an overweight female (overweight men not being subject to the same level of judgement) and of course the more obvious (being far more obvious now thanks to the public display of US law enforcement activities against them), this sensitivity resulting in exaggeration of instances of perceived prejudicial slight even to the point of believing the exaggeration as real. Still a nasty hatchet job for a slice of fame and likely to cause a significant problem with her sheep er followers and likely as a result of screwing someone else career on purpose has screwed her own because clearly the attack was prejudiced by the victim being too old, too white, not very funny and very likely to back down regardless (an easy victim).

You kind of ignored the planning part, factually the most important part. People pay extra for homes in better, quieter more stable neighbours. Let's say MI the grandparent is a dick douche bag and wants to buy up a good neighbourhood cheap. No planning laws, so MI the dick douche bag buys one house a full price and starts renting it out for biker parties, every single night. Neighbours can do nothing because no planning laws and a driven out, new buyers don't want to buy in at full price because of stories about 7 day a week all night biker parties (and drugs and sexually aggressive behaviour and random acts of violence). So this enable MI the anti-planning dick douche bag to buy up all the properties cheap and voila shut down the biker parties and rent the properties at a high return.

People go on holiday to party and because they are on holiday they party every single night they are physically able to. People pay extra to live in quite well behaved neighbourhoods. Inevitably MI dick douche bags turn up trying to exploit this for their own personal greed and those societies grab those arseholes fine the crap out of them and shut them down, whilst the MIs of the world bitterly complain about statism and their being prevented from exploiting every imaginable situation to their advantage and of course screw everyone else.

Funny I have noticed slows downs with windows 7 with upgrades. The culprit being the habit of upgrades turning on unused services which inevitably slow the system down, this especially if you tend to tweak services (disabled, manual, auto, using guides like http://www.blackviper.com/ ), to better manage performance. M$ often, tend to reset services to default settings, less so now than before. Requiring a review of service settings to get performance back.

So likely they simply need to review the services running on those systems and turn off the unnecessary ones. Also the delayed boot for many services can cause, 'perceived' performance issues ie the system appears to be up and running but some services you need to run might still be waiting to boot but you run your application and it runs horribly as back ground services are still booting up, this performance impression is then left behind in the users mind and they become more sensitive to other delays (M$ also did tend to shift more services to delayed start in upgrades).

That problem is caused by M$ seeking to B$ their way through boot up speed tests by simply not completing the process and pretending for tests results it has been done. This forces new tests, no longer to desktop but say from switch on to a website completed loaded in say Firefox. So they might have good to the desktop quicker but that affect was destroyed by slower launching of their applications.