Not directly; the real world cash values of ISK and property in-game is derived from trades between players, for the most part. CCP's primary income comes from subscriptions and novelty items sales, much like WoW. (It's just that CCP accepts in-game currency as a subscription fee proxy, which makes it seems like CCP is getting a windfall from value destruction, when it’s simply value they already received a long time ago.)

Project Aon is an effort to post the old Lone Wolf game books to the webpage medium...

http://www.projectaon.org/en/Main/Home

I'm also seeing similar book apps in the App Store which give the player a chance to pick starting stats to influence gameplay progression. (One I found involved the player RPing as a dragon, hoarding treasure and defending territory from other dragons and human kings and wizards. I forgot the name, though.)

Your post is why I stopped posting to Slashdot and have focused on more modern sites like Hacker News. You deserve a +5, Informative, but I don't participate here enough to get mod points.

Sarcasm failure detected, Keptin!
Behold, the mighty Whoosh!

The rationale for giving the the boxes wasn't to support an advertiser's market base, but to insure the government had guaranteed viewer capacity when mandating nationwide broadcasts like emergency messages or State of the Union addresses and so on. It's not just the advertisers who have a vested interest in having everyone watch TV...

> Seriously though, attempting to legitimize them as "Graphic Novels" is just spin
Actually, this was invented as a form of spin. In Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, he illustrates how Will Eisner's early attempts to make serious fare (like A Contract With God) would be marginalized, despite being one of the first comics long enough to be a book, rather than a magazine, which most comics were up until then.

A kind of "Poor Man's Mathematica;" pity it's never been made Universal... (It was a minor miracle that it was Carbonized in the first place.) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwidholm/MathPad/

This has only been true historically with the consumer models. The models that Apple designates for "professional" usually upgrade much easier. My current G5 has full access from a side door (as well as the current Mac Pro line) and even my old LC and 4400 had easily accessible PDS and PCI slots when the case is slid off. (My iMac G4 was the only machine I had I couldn't upgrade myself.) It's just that, as the "ease of use" brand in the industry, Apple's more famous machines are the all-in-one and laptop units that have the more cramped assembly and design.

It really is frustrating how intensely climate science is doubted and denied. Economics - a far softer science with a (so far) vastly greater impact on human society - gets a staggering amount of leeway by comparison.

Because of its scope and visibility, disciplines like Economics can get away with the Big Lie effect. Climatology, which is more subtle and relatively young, suffers from the Cassandra problem instead. Sad, but true...

Notice that including the article text, the linked comments there and the comments here, you are the only one who explicitly referred to the original documentation that spelled out this tradition: the RFCs. Both RFC 1178 (which is only mentioned as a tag on the article) and your quoting 2100 are the only references to this. It seems most 'Net users don't have a sense of history any more... I haven't even heard much in the way of the creation of now RFC lately.

I don't remember high level languages being considered "proper" for commercial development until the late 80's at the earliest. When the Mac was first introduced in the mid-80's, it was still considered important to write all the system and OS code in 68k assembler, with apps only begrudgingly being written in Pascal. And on the PC side, games and certain networking heavy apps were still written in x86 at late as the mid-90's. It was only with C, which was originally considered a "high level assembler" did many development houses consider such programming "real" development. (And even into the late 90's, I still saw inline assembler used in places for "performance reasons," an idea not taken seriously anymore by most due to how compilers have advanced in recent years.)

Well I'll be snookered... it's true!

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=hormone+imbalance&t=1000

however I don't understand how my television can't compensate for that and limit accordingly.

Some can and do. My parents (back when I was in college) had a nice feature on their TV set called "Smart Sound" that did do normalization across TV channels and commercial breaks just fine and we always left it on. However, apparently it wasn't a popular enough (or noticed enough) feature of TVs to stay on the market, as both I and my parents have gone through 3-4 sets since then, and we haven't seen a similar feature since.