Which is what TFA seems to want to point out. My question is, if a boy had an attractive mother, shouldn't he also have a pretty good chance of turning out more attractive than his dad?

I am no geneticist. I know it's always possible that some dormant gene in either parent could end up making the kid even uglier, but as a general trend, shouldn't both boys and girls tend to be more attractive where one or both parents were attractive?

There's your citation?

I wish I had a mod point for you.

We're talking about a lot of different cultures in lots of different times, I'm sure not many of the average men from each instance would find today's average American woman (The data used was gathered in the US) much more attractive. And of course, if the qualitative assessment of how beautiful a woman is is based on how many babies they make, I'm not sure if they could really agree anyways; I could call a girl a perfect ten, even if she turns out to be barren.

I do find it odd, however, that the article states that today's men are supposedly as aesthetically pleasing as cavemen. This doesn't really fit with the argument they make in saying attractiveness tends to be hereditary. Smells a little too much like bullshit on the. Either that, or the scope of the study is too narrow. I'm failing at looking up any other real information about this study.

ha ha, yeah, I meant the digital restrictions management, usually aimed at vendor installs and special Linux boxen.

I think that tag is mostly reserved for DRM related news...

And I have seen news about linux DRM modules also tagged that.

It's important to note that there is almost never any "preferred" or "special" release of Linux to use. And obviously this flaw doesn't affect people that don't use any security modules.

This is not good news, but it's important news. The kernel's not likely to have a "fixed" re-release for this version, although there probably will be patches for it as well. And when in doubt, just don't upgrade. Not very many machines can take advantage of all of the cool bleeding-edge features that come with each release, anyways. Lots of older versions get "adopted" by someone who will continue to maintain that single kernel release.

It's okay, I've got auto-update disabled.

I'd say that you had better tread carefully when comparing democracy to an online RPG. The researcher did no hacking, and only broke the "cultural" rules. A group of Quake players may have house rules against camping or spawn-killing, but the real "rules" are the only the ones put into place by the designers/developers, not the players, and so-called "spoken" rules don't really matter without modifications or admins to enforce them within the game.

I'm not saying I think your conclusion is incorrect, I just think it's a funny context to draw it from. So in this case, if the high level players are the cultural elite then what does that make the devs?

+1 here,

In much the same sense that art exhibits can be art themselves, and a movie exhibiting artful video clips can also be artfully arranged, so can video games be art.

But due to their interactive aspect, games deserve a slightly different attitude. If anybody took a board game or a pen and paper roleplaying game and treated it as art, it would be hard to take them seriously. In fact, the only real "serious" games are the ones that are based on high-strategy and skill, such as chess or sports or card games. There's nothing really "artful" about those, except that the real art is in the game-playing, as it ought to be.

Of course, everyone has a different idea about what a good video game is. And with the industry seeing a major influx of casual-gaming customer base, the power gamers are seeing less and less stuff aimed at them specifically. Casual gaming is quickly becoming kitsch, as power gamers already tend to view it as.