Large chunks of the AH catalog had been sold separately before Hasbro purchased the AH name/trademarks and remaining catalog, so many of these old favorites are not even in Hasbro's hands. Also, many of them were not made by AH, but simply published by them. Of the ones that are still theirs, they've republished several, and they release another one every year or so (albeit sometimes reworked/updated and renamed).

However, they're not going to release everything, as many of the games are simply not popular enough to actually make any money if they printed it - especially considering the dearth of new games on the market.

AH went bankrupt for a reason - publishing a lot of stuff that had too small of a market - why should Hasbro/WotC republish those mistakes?

Not at all true. WotC is owned by Hasbro, but given a high level of autonomy. Hasbro has even moved other product lines they've acquired under WotC's management (Avalon Hill, for example).

Why is it that the fallout is centered on these companies, instead of on the NSA and GHCQ? Why are these criminal enterprises masquerading as government agencies so completely above the law?

So, does the money actually go to the artists, or just to the publishing companies?

He does no such thing. He says that scientists are good, and then starts listing a few colleges and naturally starts with the ones considered top-tier with the best programs. He stops after a few because otherwise, what, he lists several hundred colleges in this country that give science degrees?

If I were to say "companies that employ top programmers, like Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle, are ..." would you seriously say that I consider anyone working at Valve, Apple, or any other company to automatically not be top-tier just because I didn't happen to mention their company in the short list that first came to mind?

That's funny - I removed your Google Search's wsj.com requirement and the next several results were all rebuttals from much more trustworthy sources.

Let's summarize:

• WSJ is a not a secience journal, but a financial paper with a pro-big-business focus. Also, it's owned by Rupert "Fox News" Murdoch.
• The linked article is written by two of the largest climate-deniers out there, Joseph Bast (effectively owned by the Koch bros., and known as a bastion of anti-science FUD, such as his claiming that there's no proof smoking is bad for you) and by an employee of his, Roy Spencer.
• Their rebuttals of the 97% figure as a "myth" are based on using figures from all science fields. The 97% figure is based on asking only those in climatology fields. (This is akin to deciding that a poll asking football players who the best football coach is can't be trusted because they didn't ask hockey players as well. I mean, they're all sports people, so their opinions on other sports should carry the same weight as those actually involved in that sport, right?)

Exactly where does he say that? He doesn't say that or even intimate it. He's using climate change as an example to demonstrate his point. (A near-unanimous consensus among scientists maintain that climate change is happening and is a serious problem; over 50% of the US population disagrees. This demonstrates that the US population is largely science-illiterate or science-hostile.) It does not follow from this that everyone who disagrees with him on this point is bad at science, but when 50+% of the population disagrees with scientists for non-science reasons (politics, propaganda, FUD) it is a very real indicator that there is a problem with basic understanding of science.

He's not saying "scientists researching this who don't agree with me are bad scientists". He's saying "non-scientists saying the bulk of scientists are liars because they don't want to believe them is a problem".

I have, and I'd agree with what he actually said. In my experience, programmers run the entire gamut from amazingly brilliant to drooling idiot - at about the same rate as most professions. But even there, their knowledge focuses much more upon the areas of science that intersect with computers and technology, and less into the areas of natural science. Likewise programmers are more likely to know about psychology and human nature that deal with aesthetics and information processing and natural interfaces, and less with the psychology of social and societal interaction.

To sum up: He's not saying that developers are science illiterates, but that they're not necessarily any better outside their fields than other non-experts are.

Wow, holy crap is this article being intentionally bad at characterizing what Nye said in the article. The "F" rating was for overall population in the USA (based on the high level of climate denial).

His comment about him writing that you need to be from a top-tier school is wrong, as well - he was taking about how we have top-tier scientists in the US (and gave a few schools as examples) and compared them not to non-ivy schools, but to farmers and CS majors who talk about climate change as if they're experts.

Read the linked article - Nye intimated nothing that the summary does.

You can always have them officially ship it to your home address, but put a "hold for pickup at UPS/FedEx location" instruction on it. Then you just grab it before/after work, or over lunch hour.

I think Dana Gould said it best.

I think that says more about crappy college poetry than the state of computer AI...

But the joke is still bad, and the humor in telling it is situational, depends heavily on the audience, and takes a masterful comedian to pull off.

A good joke, on the other hand, is funny in almost any situation, to almost any audience, and even a bad comedian can tell it well enough to get a laugh.

I'd say the joke is important, too. A bad joke is a bad joke, regardless of delivery. Both are equally important.