A cross between Descent and Tron, with procedurally-generated levels. Haven't had time to try it yet, but it looks worth checking out.

I used to do software for industrial robots. Safety for the people around the robot was the number one concern, but it is amazing how easy it is for humans to give orders to a robot that will lead to it being damaged or destroyed. In practice, the robots would 'prioritize' protecting themselves rather than obeying suicidal orders.

I use the Self-Destructing Cookies add-on. It allows the cookies... but as soon as you move off the page, or close the tab, it dumps the cookies. Sure, I have to re-sign in to some places more, but so what? Add in "clear history when the browser closes" and it's pretty comprehensive.

About the only thing I've run into that it breaks is Disqus logins. But I use a separate browser - which also deletes everything on close - for that.

Ha! Dude, it's not like a walkthrough for a linear first-person shooter. As TFA says, it's algorithms for rearranging the blocks.

My 14-year-old son found an old Rubik's cube and tought himself to solve it using youtube videos in about a week. He enjoyed it enough to ask for a 'speed cube' for his birthday. I don't think he'll be in world competition, but it frequently only takes him tens of seconds.

Me, I manged to teach myself to get one side solved and oriented, but I never figured out more than that on my own. (Nor felt the need to go look up solutions.)

Seems entirely too coincidental.

Set up a website to support my Android app, and after a couple months I started getting a flood of referrer spam filling up my logs. All of it from a couple dozen different netblocks in the Ukraine. I tried a couple different techniques to filter out the bad guys, but at this point I just toss all the netblocks into the reject pile in my htaccess file.

Does anyone actually get legitimate traffic from the Ukraine anyway?

Sure, the real-world violence and power struggles are sad. But from an internet perspective, I have a hard time seeing much to care about.

Yes, but more women take the SAT than men, and yet the ratio of perfect math scores is 2:1 in favor of the men or 2.5:1 after adjusting for the fact that more women taken the test.

Performance in the SAT is not uncorrelated with effort put forth in the math classes prior to the test. That's a variable that's strongly influenced by socialization.

Given the example of things like chess, it would seem that socialization should probably be the default explanation until and unless evidence of other explanations comes to light.

Compare with women and chess.

The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you’d see that difference close substantially. ... So why are there so few female chess grandmasters? Because fewer women play chess. It’s that simple. This overlooked fact accounts for so much of the observable differences that other possible explanations, be they biological, cultural or environmental, are just fighting for scraps at the table.

Ah, okay. Gotta call Poe's Law on this one. It doesn't really matter if you're serious or not - either way, you're just cherry-picking passages to respond to and not addressing the salient points (e.g., the economic question). So, um... have a nice life, I guess.

The only issue I see is that you use too much italic and it makes you look like a wuss.

And your opinion of me is what I care about most, of course. I'm just crushed. :-)

Also I tried to read the articles you linked, but for the most part they suck.

Actually having to process a "flood of boring information" is too challenging or something? Well... okay, then.

I guess you provided that article to make it clear that people with a Ph.d. are competent only if they agree with your specific vision of the world.

I was interested to see how you'd process it. And yes, unfortunately, it went about like I suspected it would. There's a reason why there aren't any flood geologists in the oil industry.

Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone making money doing this? (I can suggest one possibility...)

To both me and gweihir below, your comments both boil down to, "You're wrong!" (Though if we include tone, perhaps it should be "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong, sillybutt!") Even if you're correct about either of us being wrong, absent the slightest argument or indication why we're wrong, I can't see why I should care about your contention.

Well, sure, the creationists primarily care about humans being created by a supernatural deity, sure. The problem is that, to make that work, they have to make a complete hash of pretty much every branch of science - not just biology, but relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, geology, etc.

In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.

Actually, its the Theory of General Relativity that accounts for the observations. Same as the Germ Theory of Disease that account for a huge fraction of observed illness. A scientific theory is not a "hunch", "guess", or "notion". It ties together a huge number of observations and makes testable predictions that have overwhelmingly been tested and turned out to be correct.

BTW, that's the case with the Theory of Evolution. Here's my favorite example. (Some actual math here.) Interestingly, we know the Tree of Life with greater prescision than we know the gravitational constant G!