Creative marketing scores free publicity from a major news network (which will be copied by another, another I'm sure.) Most companies might pay 10 million for that. Applying the (Durden) formula -

A new marketing campaign built by my company punks people over the email. Someone gets offended, looses sleep even, and decides to sue for damages. But, the new marketing strategy also spreads word of mouth, people go check it out sign up, stories get posted on major new sites that ones that post stuff that matters.
Now:
should Toyota initiate a recall of their marketing campaign? Take the number of punked ads in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, Toyota doesn't do one. (ie. If the cost of potential mitigation over crazy lawsuits is still less then the revenue generated from increased public awareness of their product-ego-props to Toyota.)

A game with both long term and short term goals is important. To keep a kid interested you need short term gratification, but obviously complex problem solving can't be done in 15 minutes. I thought that Sim City mix both well because with 15 minutes of play you can make some improvements, but you are always working towards a challenging goal that feels great when you complete it. And you are allowed to stop and come back to it letting you brainstorm while you are off the computer on how to expand and improve your city/people. Also, if you make a mistake, you can see the effects but you don't necessarily have to start from scratch. Overtime, you get better at planning and thinking out your decisions. You use trial and error then you start to predict (accurately) what might happen if you put something in place based off previous experience. This is applicable to real life. With little puzzle games you only get the instant gratification of solving something right away and you don't utilize your long term planning skills. Also, you learn how to control and manipulate multiple variables - a key for scientific inquiry latter on.

RIP Michael Jackson!

You are saying by changing 0.00001% of your genetic code to affect a phenotype is "playing god." By that argument, ANYTHING humans have done over the course of our presence on this planet to alter your phenotype (these are the proteins that are expressed giving you all your traits, such as hair color or round red blood cells or whatever) is "playing god." So, if you dye your hair, are you playing god? If you take medicine to lower your blood pressure, are you playing god? If you move to a more tropical environment and eat only fruits so you lack the bacteria to digest milk products, are you "playing god?" And besides, how is changing something superficial like eye color MORE like playing god than downregulating the expression of the Her2 molecule (which has been linked the breast cancer)?

Think about how you have obtained your opinion on why this sort of procedure of gene targeting is evil--was it from a credible source?--or is it rehashed opinions from your childhood religious or conservative leaders--or even movies like Gataca that you've seen. There were MANY periods of time where the utilization of science was thought to play god. Why do we even allow vaccinations? After all, a vaccine causes a phenotypical modification of new antibodies that would not have necessarily occurred naturally (or in "god's will" as you would argue).

And another huge point. We have freedom of religion in this country right? Don't I and others have the right to not believe that ANYTHING we do is "playing" god's will or not believe in a god's will? By altering a small genetic sequence in a cell to change the pigment phenotype in an iris of a child is not playing god. And if it is, there are far more things humans have done to "play god" that you should worry about.

I was reading the thread under the article and wanted to quote a couple opinions.

obamautopia wrote:
"Fact: Gravel roads are more dangerous because they are more slippery due to loose gravel and potholes. If gravel roads were superior for transportation safety - then why isn't the interstate and the autobahn merely gravel roads? Why not city streets?

Fact: Gravel roads put more dust into atmosphere as anyone who has followed the choking dust of a vehicle moving ahead of you on a gravel / dirt road can tell you.

Fact: Gravel roads require more frequent oil changes - thus using more oil and dirty oil filters to dispose of. Also more air filter changes. Also more fuel filter changes. Also more car washing. Also more tires. Also more windshield replacement and fabricating glass requires a tremendous amount of energy.

Fact: Gravel roads are less fuel efficient. In one study in Bogota, Columbia, fuel consumption was reported to be 25% higher for a vehicle moving on a gravel or earth surface than on an asphalt pavement.

Fact: Gravel roads wear out vehicles faster meaning more consumption to replace the parts, many of them steel parts which take an enormous amount of energy to fabricate and "carbon footprint" for the idiots who think anthropogenic "Global Warming" is anything other than a Leftist Agenda."

And another guy wrote, goomygoomy writes,
"I don't understand the problem. Why would you complain about PAVED ROADS, being turned in to GRAVEL ROADS? It's just CHANGE. I thought you all VOTED for CHANGE? Well...You've got it. Michigan, the Great Liberal Basket Case, is leading the way. As goes DETROIT, so goes Obama Nation. Aren't you IDIOTS bulldozing your towns down? This is UNCHECKED LIBERALISM. This is Obama SOCIALISM."

stoptherhetoric wrote:

"Nothing like a page full of ignorance from gommygoomy to start the day! People don't even take the time to read, they just spew their garbage! The Story CLEARLY states that Michigan Counties have had to revert to gravel THE PAST 3 YEARS!!!!

Do I need to remind you the last 3 years, W was President!!"

If you keep reading, you'll notice it all boils down to a huge administration blame game. Reminds me of other discussion boards I've seen...

"The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes"

No no no. It's a series of tubes, powered by hampsters running in rotating wheels. You're right about these microkernels you speak of--we must "embrace" them, for they are the food that power the hampsters. With the power of the microkernals, these super hampsters can then secure the internets from "enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material," and soon the internet will become a big truck that you can dump anything on.

... beyond flamebait. Is it even worth expelling energy towards a rebuttal to this? It would just be preaching to the choir.

No, its wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man! Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man! Going to space! Try Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man!

With robotics coming such a long way since the 60s, it is more efficient and cheaper to just send robots to do all the exploring and data/sample collection in space. Until the average American thinks the cost of human presence in space is a priority for the tax payer dollar, space flight will have to be unmanned in the meantime. We are just going to have to wait for China or another rising global leader to send humans to Mars until the US population is willing to put in the extra effort and dollar to compete in a second space race and reinflate their ego as the "pioneers of space".

Too bad they published this before Planet Earth was filmed. Otherwise, Attenborough could be all, "These penguins create such a great trial of excrement, it can be seen from space. In fact, if this excrement was edible, it could sustain an entire village of people for 5 years..."

...the BBC documentary Planet Earth skipped over. No, it was all pristine, white landscape with cute penguins huddled together. Not once did they show a dirty red-brown shitty trail aftermath of their voyage. Next time I watch that, I'm going to look very closely at the background.

Or get the New One Button Mac! Even more simple.

I was replying on how to support the claim that there exists anatomical differences in this area. An fMRI would show this--there would exist on average a larger left parietal lobe (if the theory claimed by rogers was true). This is the data that would help support the idea of greater neuronal presence in this area. PET or light scattering imagining would show difference in metabolism. fMRI would not.

No, the problem is whether or not it is **American** girls in these classes and in this study. Look at the swarms of Chinese and Indian females that take up these majors in the American universities. You'll find that these cultures don't have this "gender gap" or separation with these subjects. This may be due to these cultures not having the option of taking the social sciences. I would like a breakdown of what race/culture make up these woman that are obtaining these Ph.D. If it is mostly foreign born, then we are looking at a socialized root of the mathematic gender gap problem--not an anatomical/physiological difference that develops in male and female brains that causing the difference in mathematic performance.

Also, Winny from the Wonder Years got a Ph.D. degree in math. She's hot.

I have studied Neuroscience for years and obtained a degree in it. You mention spatial ability differences between the sexes and you attribute better performance in spatial problem to more neurons being dedicated to "spatial centers" in men. I believe your argument would be more effective with some citations of this. I mean, at least link to an fMRI scan between two genders while they solve spatial patterns. And does more neurons equate greater functionality? Look into, it's not the case. Whether or not these spatial centers in the parietal lobe have a difference in neuronal metabolism between the genders while they solve spatial problems is a better question to ask. You are right in one thing, a spacial difference does exist.

A review of 646 articles summarizing gender differences in spatial ability is found here.

Your rationale behind it...is another story.