Most other things are possible to treat given enough money. Cancer IS the biggest issue. Trick is that cancer is not a single thing. Cancer is an envelope word for hundreds of different diseases, which behave in similar way (uncontrolled cell growth), but have very different causes and behaviours. There is no such thing as 'cure for cancer'. You need to find out 300 different cures. I highly doubt that we will find that many in next 50 years, not to mention 10.
I'm partially involved with jmonkeyengine, so it is hardly an ubiased opinion, but how do we quantify 'most advanced' and 'visual tools comparable with commercial offerings?'
In particular, where Godot has noticeable difference compared to what JMonkeyEngine offers?
Two games given as showcase example - they look ok for indie-level games (regardless of companies behind them, they are indie-quality games at best), but so does for example JME based http://www.desura.com/games/pi.... And any of these is _light years_ away from AAA titles done on commercial engines - because problem is not only with engine, problem is with having millions of dollars to spend on asset creation.
I'm all for healthy competition in open source engines. But touting statements like 'most advanced' and 'only' is not really fair.
So was the US not practising Christianity in the 1850s?
I think that US is right now pretty much ashamed of the situation from before 1850s. Possibly muslims in 2170 will be also ashamed of what was happening today... but does really religion allow you to be 150-years retarded?
It is not that Islam is really that much worse than any other religion. It is that muslims are still living in 14th century, while rest of the world moved on.
Crusades were bad. Same bad or worse than current muslim terrorism. But they were almost 1000 years ago!
I don't think that anybody defends 12th century christianity as being more 'enlightened' than islam. This comparison is especially bad if you compare it to islam back then, which was a lot more 'modern' than christianity.
But we have moved on since then. We have even moved on since XX century age of dictators. Compare muslims to IRA if you need to, but not to crusades.
""Global warming is bringing more frequent and severe heat waves, and the result will be serious for vulnerable populations," said Dr. Amanda Staudt, National Wildlife Federation climate scientist."
So, is Dr Amanda misguided or not - please note she says about _current_ events, not only about possible future developments? Or is it that all pro-global warming weather incidents are ok, but all things which do not fit it in trivial sense are 'hard to model'?
What you say makes perfect sense and I fully agree with that. Issue is that it is same thing I sometimes observe with any extermist groups. You have some braindead fanatics and some smart people, both under same banner. Fanatics is telling and doing things which are clearly wrong. People opposed to that are attacking them - and then smart people jump in and say proper things, explaining that these fringe fanatics are not representing their opinions, they are clearly misguided and you should not pay attention to them. But somehow, you never see these smart people smacking fanatics on their home ground. They only appear to defend the case against opponents, not to put their own extremists into line.
Are you willing to stand up against Dr Amanda on pro-GW site and explain to her that she is jumping at sensational conclusions and that few random heat waves are in no way indication of bad effects of global warming? Risk getting called denialist just because of pointing it out? Or it is just an form of Taqiyya, where on one side these are general trends and non-obvious relations, while on different forums everybody is slapping each other backs when one weather station reported record high temperature in March?
Yes, for example when filling out census in Russia, it is very important to put that you have 2,000 children (Lena and Igor). If you put just 2, people would consider that you are just rounding it off.
This even appears in the food market - you need to specify that you want to buy 1,000 egg, otherwise, given current economic troubles, they could cheat you and try to sell you only 0,945 of one, which you would notice only at home when your cake fails.
It has one bug for me. Control lag. It many cases, there is over 0.5 second lag between keyboard and mouse input. Sometimes it works ok (still 100-200ms probably), but soon drops to 0.5-1s. And if I alt-tab out of the game and go back, lag goes up to 10-15 seconds before going down.
Wonderful graphics and animation. Working quest system. Engaging story line. And entire game experience broken because I have to spend 15 seconds trying to jump down from 1-foot tall fence, because of 1 second lag misinterpreting all my controls.
This is non-trivial amount of land. I'm not sure how much space tree needs to grow properly - let's assume 10m^2. In my country, we have around 40mil people. 10 trees per year per person is 40.000.000 * 100m^2, which is 4.000.000.000m^2, which gives 4000km^2. Each year.
Entire land area of country is around 300.000km^2. 30% of it is already forest. 60% is agricultural land.
What you are suggesting is planting 1.3% more area of forests each year. In 50 years, there would be no agriculture anymore - just 90% forest and 10% rest. In another 5-6 years, there would be just forest.
I think that you can achieve same effect without planting forests. Just starve all people out by destroying all agriculture lands in one big go, planet will heal itself. Not that there will be anybody to care.
I do not own enough ground to plant 10 trees per year.
Unless you are proposing cutting all the forests to get free land which can be given to people so they can plan 10 trees per year.
But at least they're trying eh?
Are they? What of the thousand obstacles which are in the way of this flight they have actually _solved_? Can you point to any tangible technical advancement or solution which came out of this group? Not as a fancy animation with no details, but as a real item.
Imagine kid who wants to send his garden rocket into space. He gather materials, research, fire off 10 prototypes, but best of them raised only to 1000 meters. He gives up. Yes - you can say 'at least he has tried'.
Now compare it with other kid, who has done a cryon drawing of rocket in space and goes around asking his parents, friends and strangers to fund his rocket - and he spends that money to buy more crayons. Producing even 1000 cryon drawings of his rocket does not count as 'he has tried'. Producing a full autocad diagram of it and failing to put it together because of lack of manual skill - maybe, but not cryon drawings. And this is all this group is doing, they just do marketing and nice looking 3d animations without any backing in reality.
There is a huge difference between things like
'I wish your mother die of cancer',
'if you open you mouth again, I'll find your house and burn it'
"Women have less IQ than men and you are best example of it"
"I could answer you question, but you are too dumb to understand it anyway"
and things like
"I think that all muslim people are terrorists"
"Whoever believes in God is stupid beyond saving"
"Immigrants have 7 less IQ on average and are gaming social benefit system"
There is a difference between personal threat, personal offense and generic not politically correct statement (even if it is wrong). But I have a feeling that all of them fit nicely under broad term of 'hate speech' and while first category is used as a driving point, it is all about shutting up third category - making it illegal to make any generic statement which can offend anybody imaginary world. Of course, people will argue that statement "All muslim people are terrorists" really mean "we should deport/waterboard/kill all muslim immigrants", which can easily fall into first category... but same way you could interpret facebook post "I don't like my math teacher" as "let's buy guns and go Columbine on him"
My personal opinion is that direct, person _threats_ should be punishable/forbidden. But I will defend my right to say to other person that he is stupid because of the things he said, things he believes in and I want to be able to make it generic ("All people believing in homeopathy are dumb").
I'm wondering how Hatred will be commented by games-cause-violence community
It is a bit like selling reverse crosses, pentagrams and virgin blood packaged with D&D rulebooks in 80ties would be
I'm generally quite tolerant game-wise, but I must say that Hatred crosses some line for me. But same is true for some movies (Saw, Human Centipede etc), which seems to be 'ok' for mass distribution, so probably something is wrong with me in this case.
Entire Department of Labor budget is around 12 billions.
I suppose that 80 billions (if true) would come mostly from Department of Defense - I can easily imagine IT costs of various top-end fighters/bombers/missiles etc being quite high.
In any case, it doesn't really matter. Costs of storage is not an issue here. Legal reasons, maintenance, politics - but certainly not cost of few tapes/harddrives.
Do you only drink well water? Cuz guess what: bottled water is tap water.
Bottled water from male-only communities. Drinking water bottled by women will make you grow soft.
Seriously, is rain filtering out that stuff? If yes, then bottled water from mountain regions should be reasonably clean. Especially from Brokeback Mountains...
Until recently, solar panels used more energy to produce than they were providing. They make perfect sense for moving energy producing into isolated places (sattelites, middle-of-nowhere lamps/lights, autonomous devices etc etc) - but they were not a solution for getting rid of coal. Still, 'tree hugging hippies' were pushing them as a solution to everything even tens of years ago, without doing any cost/benefit analysis. Not to mention my friends putting them on roof of their houses in north of Germany to be 'nature friendly'.
They are indeed a lot more efficient now - but it is still not a real solution for the majority of energy. We need stable, 24/7, continous energy generation. Solar (outside possibly really specific regions), should be used as convinient, portable, non-connected low-power generation, rather than being a main source of energy.