Yep, Lode Runner is another game I had on the apple2.
Yeah, far too much of my childhood was spent in arcades so I have seen and played it, but I preferred scramble for side scrolling helicopter-like games, so chop lifter didn't eat too much of my money.
I think a friend also had the colecovision port that I've played.

As it was in your childhood...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1NpZxn860M

What, you don't think new and unusual attractions draw onlookers? What fucking world do -you- live in?

The highly-decorated houses of my childhood back in the late '60s would have most of their street blocked by families who drove over to gawk at them. People haven't changed since then, believe it or not.

I think having a conversation about evolution versus creation can be fruitful. As a former lifelong agnostic who has experienced it, I can testify of the brainwashing that goes on the other side of the fence. It starts out early in childhood books and cartoons, then through public education, television, science fiction and movies. You're raised all of your life to believe the secular creation narrative, and your friends and family who believe as you do reinforce this belief. You are self-deceived into thinking your information filter is very large and sophisticated when it is very small and full of personal bias.

That can be why people have an adverse reaction when evolution is called into question. To them it is reality and if you were to remove that cornerstone their idea of the way the world is would come tumbling down with it. If someone doesn't understand their need for Jesus, it is a hard thing to consider accepting.

If only she picked up a book, or asked someone, instead of asking questions into thin air of nobody. Is it any surprise no one could tell her what tiny organisms were evolving all that time ago when she asked a brick wall?

There is no scientific evidence for God, there never will be and never has been. If there is any type of supreme being, it is almost certainly quite unlike anything any of us could imagine, and i see absolutely no reason to believe a random muslim version of what it is over a random christian, or a random anything else. I may as well make up my own version as adhere to someone else's version, because there's just as much evidence for that as anything else!

I see no reason as to why there shouldn't be some kind of existence after death - we thought we were the only thing that existed until recently... we may have gotten better at understanding the reality we find ourselves in, but it is no less wondrous or magical for all that. Why should there be anything? And if you can't answer that, then why should this be the extent of it?

My childhood question was basically "what comes after death?" - i got my answer after studying a lot, but the answer is "anything could happen." And i quite like that answer as opposed to a more definite one.

And here you have it: "'Why exactly are all the main characters in ‘Frozen’ white?' my husband asked a white friend recently. She responded thoughtfully: 'Well, the movie is set in a Nordic, cold place — you know, it makes sense, right?' Annoyed, my husband countered, 'The movie has a talking snowman.' It’s funny, and sad, where we draw the lines for what’s acceptable in fantasy movies. Somehow a talking snowman makes more sense than, say, a black Norwegian."
"Fortunately, as children so often do, my son rose to the occasion. He bought his parents’ awkward explanation of how 'Harry Potter is a made-up character, and he could be any color.' Yes, for a moment, he quietly resisted; he knew that Harry wasn’t just any color in the movie. But then his enormous childhood imagination took over, and he decided he could be Harry for Halloween after all. I’m not sure I want to know whether my son imagined away Harry Potter’s whiteness or his own blackness."

Link to full article here.

The reason why these campaigns will get nowhere: the subtleties asked for are sometimes too arbitrary and too subjective to expect large numbers to go along with it and because women are not always mind readers (contrary to what this one may think), and misinterpretations can easily occur. Some dangerous psychos and sociopaths actually come across as being quite "charming," while some friendly and innocuous comments may be interpreted as being rather creepy. So, campaigns like this will get nowhere in actually changing anything for the better.

The skills of understanding context will continue to devolve as communities break down (along with families and childhood education). Increasingly, we are living in a society of strangers, and this is yet another result of the statism that progressives continue to defend. See, it's all about feeling safe. And without community, contexts that feel safe become more scarce. A state-driven "society" is not a community.

Meanwhile, in reality, the very attempt to legislate behavior like this will serve to further develop two trends: the "catcall" culture they so dislike and something along the lines of what's going on in Japan, the other opposite. Despite what this video attempts to portray, I have already heard the complaint many many times from women that they either get harassment or they get no attention at all.

And this'll be yet another "I told you so" that they'll miss.

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."

Ya, but then you suck at being a dad.

I read that as well. However I was alive then, and very clearly recall the R rating from my childhood.

Favorite characters from childhood and recent TV together? Thank you.

Sounds like a very large simplification for something. You can't honestly think that the reaction was due to one single incident? And if you're sensible enough to realise that, are you genuinely suggesting that the black community is appropriately represented in prison and crime statistics?

Try and avoid racism when you reply.

I think you're living in a dream world. The abolition of slavery is only a generation removed, do you really think that many of these people have had the same opportunities as you have? Whether it be by design, by accident or what have you? I imagine your close ancestors were allowed to accumulate property and status in a way that their ancestors weren't.

That's not a recommendation for guilt, merely that unless you've lived their life in their world you have absolutely no idea what it's like, and you will only ever understand childhood and development (which form your opinions and beliefs) from your own perspective. So don't be too quick to judge others for their situation. I'd like to see how you fared if you grew up in the same environment.

You make it sound so simple to vote for black people... as though it's that simple, as though the democratic system in USA and UK alike isn't riddled with corruption, where money is power, and everyone is opposed to changing the status quo? How many of those in power know what life is like in a black community, to know what the problems are and how deep the divide runs between them and the councillors for their place of residence? ... I've got so many criticisms i don't know where to begin. You've got some points, but they're buried.

Spinning the iphone - it is possible to do, i've played with that effect with a tv remote as a kid, trying to flip it over once and catch it. That's when i found out about Dzhanibekov effect. I think that basically more mass lies along the plane in which it is spinning, and it either isn't balanced or isn't precisely stable as it's released, and so there is a net centrifugal force acting on the phone in the direction that it begins to rotate (if you don't do it right), gently at first but the further it goes into its spin the more it reinforces itself and it flips. (that's what i remember from childhood, but the wikipedia article itself is accurate so double check) I'd like to investigate this effect in space/vacuums though, it's still interesting.

The water one - this is just one scientific opinion and i imagine many exist, but i can't find any true source on this. My immediate reaction to his explanation about the uniform electric field is to consider the field projected by the cup - prior warning simplifications are rife. Approximate the electric field emitted by the negatively charged cup as being normal to the surface at any point on the surface. You bring that field towards the water, and if there is indeed a more positively charged side, then it would experience a force in an electric field. We can safely believe that the water molecules will fall facing in all directions (fluid dynamics ensuring a nice distribution of particles within the stream allowing us to believe that), and any that are not pointed exactly parallel to the electric field will experience some kind of force. However water can also have a meniscus, which might encourage the water to "stick together" a bit and head towards the negative source, but i'm not sure about that in a flowing/falling context.

The fundamental point here is that an electric field is introduced to the water which responds by moving towards the source of the field. He hasn't shown me anything to doubt the standard explanation, and i don't understand why he thinks that the molecule wouldn't experience a force if it is as described. Without using electric charge to explain it, and i'm quite certain it isn't magnetic (the only other associated phenomenon), he's basically saying it's magic?

@robbersdog49 got the cane and cereal ones, and the teabag one is of course just the fact that the burning teabag heats nearby air, hot air rises which causes cooler air to rush in from the side and below, which causes a bit of an upwards current of flowing air, and when the remnant of the teabag is light enough, it is lifted by that force. As it burns lower, there's less fuel (paper) and it's less hot, so the force drops, so it only happens when it's nearly ash and very light. The last piece almost doesn't make it.

I wonder what sort of stuff would be on american television if they were imprisoned and illegally settled by another people? Are we also to call le resistance terrorists too? Polish ghetto uprising? They are similar to Hamas. But fortunately, that occupation didn't last long enough for children to grow into lifeless, soulless terrorists who had every shred of humanity ripped from them when they saw their childhood friends, pets, family ripped to pieces by indiscriminate shelling. God, if you didn't hate "the people" who did that beforehand, you would after. I don't support Hamas, but you can't possibly try to suggest they wouldn't exist anywhere else given the same circumstances. And furthermore you can't act like Israel's death tally is anything but an investment in MORE TERRORISM.

The numbers matter though - the numbers you see represents a massacre. If you took time to look it up, you'd find the majority of those killed in Palestine were women and children - something like 700, and it's rising, so even if you counted every Palestinian male above 18 was a terrorist using a child as a literal human shield, that's still more Palestinians than terrorists. This "human shield" thing hasn't been proven in any kind of article i've seen anyway, and i suspect it's simply to dehumanise them for western palatability.

It's the world's biggest concentration camp. Even the UN are beginning to say words to the effect now, do you think they go against American interests for fun?

Given the balance of women and children killed to men, and even allowing every man to be considered a terrorist, how can you think that 700 women and children to two is a matter of equality in everything but weaponry, and how can that be used to justify continuing on this path of destruction? Surely 700:2 has to be a good argument for a different approach?

I'm not after an argument here man, i'm trying to explain the other viewpoint.. More PEOPLE are dying by Israeli weapons than combatants, that is not a good way to end the hatred that leads to terrorist attacks..

*promote hummingbird anatomy! I have a few come to my yard every now and then, and they are just amazing.. Wish I could have the feeder up, but it keeps being taken over by wasps.. Which scare the crap out of me! (oh childhood and being fearless and stupid.. The effing sting hurts like hell!)

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)