Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:trademark not copyright (Score 1) 494

[quote]There are almost an infinite number of ways to structure a maze[/quote]

Not really. Consider you're limited by corridor width and overlap rules of some kind. Also, certain maps do not make for a playable game experience (routes of escape and choke points are things to consider). In addition, maps in games like this tend to exhibit some sort of symmetry which further limits the number of maps.

On topic, do developers really have a copyright (or some other claim of ownership) to maze layouts? That seems far-fetched.

Comment Reduncancy of RNA codons (Score 1) 196

One reason a mutation does not necessarily result in an error is the redundancy of the RNA codon. Multiple triplet RNA codes can code for the same amino acid (DNA->RNA->Amino Acid->protein). Some amino acids or coded in 4 unique triplet RNA sequences. So, even if an error is made, the result is often a synonymous mutation - one that codes the same amino acid. So if RNA polymerase picks up an A instead of G at this spot for some reason - it might not matter anyway.

Comment The reason this happens... (Score 3, Interesting) 486

Lengthy prison sentences are a product of, not only politicians and the War on Crime, but corporate ownership of jails. There is a financial and electoral incentive for putting people in jail. The growth of the prison population has grown dramatically in the last 50 years as a result of the commercialization of the penal system.

Comment Re:Great, more Elitism in Government (Score 1) 76

Whether I take this definition:

A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.

Or this one:

The best or most skilled members of a group.

I still want those people in governance positions. Certainly when posed with this question I prefer elite to rabble.

Comment Re:Troll?! (Score 1) 795

Social security is a great example. Before social security, a large proportion of seniors were living in poverty. This proportion was lowered greatly. Now-a-days, people are living longer so it makes sense to increase the age of payment for social security. People should be working longer and should plan for it. This fact alone suggests that there is a growing well of productivity in the economy that is yet untapped. In other words, no we can't maintain the status quo for social security. But if we abandon it entirely, a bunch of people will be pushed into poverty (a result that may end up hurting the economy a lot more in the long wrong). The solution is to raise the age of first payment and convince the boomers they need to work longer because they are getting the benefits of advanced medical care. Cutting all social programs doesn't make any sense. It will just make the lower income earners suffer and inevitably lead to less growth because of the downward cycle of poverty (no money, no education, no opportunity).

Comment Re:Troll?! (Score 1) 795

The reason I don't see it is that your argument is, essentially, everything that happened which was viewed as positive over the last century was actually a huge negative in disguise. I don't buy your premise that the debt is fundamentally beyond payment nor that the only way to balance the economy is to confiscate massive amounts of money or disband the entire military. Cuts need to be made, the entire economy is not a total loss. I find it hard to believe that you actually believe this considering your ' Stop Koolaid Politics' moniker. It's straight from Glenn Beck.

Comment Re:Troll?! (Score 1) 795

I see this as overly pessimistic. Unless our economy is fundamentally unable to produce any wealth, and people decide all taxes are for suckers, the debt is still at a payable level. It's been higher, historically and has declined (as a percentage of GDP) as recently as the 90s.

Comment Re:Troll?! (Score 1) 795

The housing market collapsed because people lost faith in the loans. China and Japan might decide one day that US debt is worthless, and in doing so would wreck not just our economy, but theirs, and probably the world economy as a whole. So it is a dangerous game, and at some point we do have to pay it down, but comparing it to the housing market is like comparing the US to a nation like Ecuador, or some other nation that needs debt relief. Also, as a percentage of GDP, we are only now approaching WW2 levels. The debt decreased as a proportion of GDP during every presidency until Reagen, and has been rising ever since. The original 'Keynesians' did pay it down after it got us out of the great depression, all the way down to 30%. Take that for what you will.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars. -- J. Paul Getty