Slashdot Mirror

DS9 also did really well when it had to compete against Babylon 5.

Urban legend has it that J. Michael Straczynski went to Paramount trying to sell his idea for this innovate new space opera whose central focus was life aboard a space station. The way I've heard it told, the studio brass sat there nodding silently and appreciatively during the pitch session but ultimately said "Thanks, but No Thanks".

Then, mysteriously, a new show appeared featuring Star Trek themes and ...whaddya know! many spacefaring races mingling in intrigue and commerce on a space station! Go figure, what were the odds of something like that happening? Two shows with nearly identical scenarios hitting the air at roughly the same time? ;)

But to tell the truth the Star Trek folk were just doling out a bit of what they got back in the 60s (okay a bit of a stretch, but bear with me here). According to William Shatner in his book about the making of 60's series he told of how Roddenberry approached (I think it was CBS) trying to sell his "wagon train to the stars" (making an attempt to appeal the success of a show called Gunsmoke) to the execs there. One major selling point was how cheaply the show could be made because of his "similar worlds theory". The theory in question states that given the enormity of the universe there is a mathematically possibility that other worlds could have evolved similarly to the earth. That being the case, depictions of allien races could be achieved cheaply through inexpensive costuming techniques and alien landscapes could be achieved through location shoots. Like their Paramount counterparts of the 1990's, they sat there and said "Interesting, good, but ultimatly no thanks". Then...lo and behold look what hits the air before Roddenberry can get the okay to do Star Trek...

From this page:

With a fractured skull and a bashed in nose, he was blind for some days, but he pulled through, and six months later he joined 80 Squadron at Elevsis near Athens, Greece, that flew Hurricanes now instead of Gladiators. With a whopping seven hours training on Hurricanes, he managed to shoot down two enemy bombers. This squadron and 33 Squadron of famous ace Pat Pattle (the whole RAF force in Greece, 'all twelve of us') fought against great odds but had to pull out of Greece with heavy losses. He gives a very unglamourous insider view of the 'Battle of Athens' in which Pattle was killed.
80 Squadron was reassembled in Haifa, Palestine. From here, Dahl flew missions every day for a period of four weeks, but then he began to get blinding headaches that gave him black-outs in the air, and he was invalided home to Britain.

I have three issues with this remark.

The second issue I have is the glibness and superstition underlying your remark. In effect, you are claiming "Since we put a man on the moon 45 years ago, we should be able to put a man on Mars today." If A, then B in spite of the dubious comparability of A and B. There are laws in the physical world, that even lawyers must face up against. There is no magic, moving masses from here to there has a cost. The journey to Mars is long and dangerous, and the difficulty and cost of safely transporting human beings is as yet incomprehensible. We have many needs and attractive projects facing us, and this one seems vastly expensive with very little payoff. It may not even be possible given the practical constraints it will face. Note that I didn't say impossible per se, but impossible in practical terms.

Thirdly, your remark is as politically naive as it is popular. Why is this project being proposed? For its scientific value? To quench our thirst for exploration? Because it is a realistic goal for humanity to one day migrate to Mars? Because there will be a huge trickle down of technology that will solve our earthly problems? No. None of those are motivating reasons for those who are in a position to move the project forward. Frankly, I think those reasons are simplistic at best.

Much more banal reasons are at work: funneling money to companies that are part of the current administration's political power base, military rivalry with China, political trickery in an election year, and yes, Roman Circus.

My underlying point is that we should not allow ourselves to be deceived and robbed, and our future as a nation and as a planet mortgaged and foreclosed in exchange for political trinkets.

IBM: Please tell us what this case is about.
SCO: No! You must first give us all source code to every iteration of AIX and Dynix!
IBM: Bite me.

This comment isn't entirely unlike one here from a month ago.

Apparently the first will consist of Michael Brant, Winifred Coburn Brant, Francis Seeney, Olga Seeney, Ward Smith, Mary Jane Lyle Smith, Sergei Rimsky, and Eleanora Rimsky.

If you look here you'll find a wonderful book called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". It chronicles many different financial and social schemes and trends which, in the end, amounted to nothing. My favorite story in the book (and maybe one of the more applicable here) is about speculation in tulips in fifteenth century Holland. While I'm not going to say that SCO's stock price is nothing but a delusion, it wouldn't be hard to make a case for it. People are greedy, people often make decisions rashly or for the short term, and people follow crowds. SCO stock wouldn't be the first thing or the last to be valued only due to speculation, and short term gains in stocks (such as 2.4% dec 26th) can be caused by a change in the weather, not any actual news or information. There is potential value in SCO stock - they could take their 5% chance of winning and turn it into a billion dollars - and perhaps the stock price reflects only that, peoples valuation of it as a lottery ticket. Perhaps the fervor of the speculation will push it to 50, like the tulips, or perhaps people will finally come to their senses and the price will bottom out even before a trial.

I think that MMOs would have proved the futility of a purely communist economy.

(Be kind, people; my Nomex underwear is in the wash.)

I do acknowledge the possibility that some as-yet-uninvented variation or hybridization of Marxism might prove viable in the real world. I think it highly unlikely, but who knows what a powerful socioeconomic sim coupled to, say, an equally powerful genetic algorithm engine might come up with?

News in the mother tongue appears to be spreading!

>It's a two tape video

Indeed it's very good. But before being a documentary, it's a book. And as often, the book is even better than the movie.

One of the better projects in Linux Toys is a Linux based telephone answering system.

Another great book for starting your own bidness: You Need to Be A Little Crazy: The Truth About Starting and Growing Your Business

I just like the book...no vested interest involved. We need more entreprenuers and less paycheck earners to keep this economy going!

>>so STFU about not liking HDTV.
You can always count on the 12-year olds for the insightful comments. *sigh*

No where in my post did I say that I don't like TV. And, contrary to your suggestion, I have seen HDTV, it is impressive, and I am looking forward(in a strange sort of way) to the day that my 61" screen kicks it so that I can upgrade.

What I do not like is the fact that upgrading to HDTV is being made mandatory. Why incur the added expense for something as non-essential as a television? Why not allow market forces to dictate the adoption of HDTV? Why must it be legistlated? Again, where is the benefit to the consumer by discontinuing the use of the analog frequencies and requiring people to upgrade their televisions?

The manufacturers gain by the added revenue relized from forcing people to replace all of their TVs. The broadcasters gain by raising their advertising rates disproportionately to cover the added cost, as well as adding DVD-style restrictions on use. The government gains by reselling the analog frequencies at a much higher cost. The consumer gains, how? By being able to watch "The Bachelor" in a higher quality?

It might be beyond your comprehension to understand the term "corporate welfare" but you would probably cut down on your trolling dramatically if you did a little reading. At risk of being accused of invoking the Ayn Rand version of Godwin's Law ( as well as giving you something to *shudder* think about), you might want to check out Atlas Shrugged.

Do yourself a favor: stop watching TV and read a book.

This one is a great addition to the book shelf, I know how to do certain things related to security n J2EE by using the docs and coming across them in my line of work, but this book clarifies nicely why you are actually doing it and provides better language specific ways of doing things that might now occur to you.

Also, it introduces nice security concepts in a clear and easy way which self taught coders might not have come considered before.

I got my copy from Barns & Noble which was a couple of dollars cheaper than amazon.

Cg is first thing I thought of when I saw this post... I need to read the project page, but it seems to me, Cg would be the technology to learn given it's strong corporate backing and maturity.

Well, what did you expect an USofAmerican to answer?

War is their business.
Its always been their business

Now, Im likely to be modded off topic or troll or something else altogether, but think for a moment. The USA has fought INNUMERABLE wars since its inception (does anyone dare to list them....?) and is #1 (by a very long long shot) in Arms Purchases* and Arms Exports.

*
2004 USA Arms budget: $401Billion
2004 "Potential Foes"(bad guys/evil ones/terrorists/tyrants/satan's warriors/communists/leftists/whatever/anti-capital ists/opponents-of-american-plutocratic-imperialism ): $130 Billion (Includes Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cuba)
2004 "Allies": $240 Billion (Includes the 18 countries of NATO other than the U.S.; also includes Japan)

So, USA spends almost equal amounts on ARMS as the rest of the world IN TOTAL....

In 1900's, when Wrights were building their planes, why *wouldnt* they think of war? While US of Americans like to believe they are peace-loving and fair "mind our own business" nation -- and are ALWAYS surprised when characterized otherwise -- are really a nation of War-Makers .... and have been for some time. Iraq and Afghanistan are *not* aborations, are not "special circumstance" but completely business as usual.... the Wrights knew it then, but were seemingly more honest about it.

I'm sure there is SOME unifying philosophy behind Windows. I have no idea what that might be, nor would I wish to. But I found this book about the philosophy of UNIX very enlightening when I read it back in the day. It was an epiphany for me at the time to realize that there WAS or could be a philosophy behind an operating system. But this was the book that made the concept clear for me.

I considered a USB coffee cup warmer for my husband until I read that it only keeps coffee lukewarm. I also considered the WFS-1 wifi detector, which is far superior to the Kensington model, but I nixed that because it doesn't distinguish between open and closed networks.

If we were filling stockings for grown-ups, I'd have gotten a bunch of Cyberguy Power Strip Liberators, which double your outlet access and are only $2.39 each. I have some and love them.

I was going to get my puzzle-loving brother-in-law a Shmuzzle Puzzle, but the U.S. rerelease, which had been scheduled for Dec. 3 on QVC has been postponed indefinitely. Canadians can buy them over the counter.

Some of the geekier presents I ordered for my nieces and nephews, all of whom are of course brilliant:

• Harry Potter Wizard Chess and Chess for Juniors for 8 year old.
• Skyrail Suspension Marble Run for artistic 9yo and engineering 5yo.
• Smart the Dog LEGO set for 9yo (also considered Motor the Monkey set.
• Techno Blocks, "the world's only preschool remote-control construction toy", for my 5yo engineer.
• Terry Pratchett's delightful Bromeliad (fun for ages 5 to adult) to begin reading aloud and then leave behind.
• Grow-a-Frog kit for 8yo naturalist.
• Geometric and creative Images coloring kit for artistic 6yo.
• Cattus Petasatus [Cat in the Hat] and a Latin dictionary for a sister-in-law.
• 500-in-1 electronic project lab for grown sister-in-law because you're never too old to learn. (Note the large discount over the Amazon price.)
• Disney's Princess Magical Dress Up software to encourage my 6yo niece to wrest the family computer from her 8yo brother (although that may be futile, since we're also giving him a Real One Arcade subscription).

Slightly less geeky gifts:

• Family Classics 50 Movie Mega Pack 12-DVDs at only $29.99

I considered a USB coffee cup warmer for my husband until I read that it only keeps coffee lukewarm. I also considered the WFS-1 wifi detector, which is far superior to the Kensington model, but I nixed that because it doesn't distinguish between open and closed networks.

If we were filling stockings for grown-ups, I'd have gotten a bunch of Cyberguy Power Strip Liberators, which double your outlet access and are only $2.39 each. I have some and love them.

I was going to get my puzzle-loving brother-in-law a Shmuzzle Puzzle, but the U.S. rerelease, which had been scheduled for Dec. 3 on QVC has been postponed indefinitely. Canadians can buy them over the counter.

Some of the geekier presents I ordered for my nieces and nephews, all of whom are of course brilliant:

• Harry Potter Wizard Chess and Chess for Juniors for 8 year old.
• Skyrail Suspension Marble Run for artistic 9yo and engineering 5yo.
• Smart the Dog LEGO set for 9yo (also considered Motor the Monkey set.
• Techno Blocks, "the world's only preschool remote-control construction toy", for my 5yo engineer.
• Terry Pratchett's delightful Bromeliad (fun for ages 5 to adult) to begin reading aloud and then leave behind.
• Grow-a-Frog kit for 8yo naturalist.
• Geometric and creative Images coloring kit for artistic 6yo.
• Cattus Petasatus [Cat in the Hat] and a Latin dictionary for a sister-in-law.
• 500-in-1 electronic project lab for grown sister-in-law because you're never too old to learn. (Note the large discount over the Amazon price.)
• Disney's Princess Magical Dress Up software to encourage my 6yo niece to wrest the family computer from her 8yo brother (although that may be futile, since we're also giving him a Real One Arcade subscription).

Slightly less geeky gifts:

• Family Classics 50 Movie Mega Pack 12-DVDs at only $29.99

I recall a Coase book containing lectures and the point was that transaction costs determined the size of a firm. If internal external transaction costs were lower than internal transaction costs, the company would no longer be a profitable concern compared to a group of companies all interacting with each other.

The last thing of his I read was The Firm, The Market and the Law and that was at least 10 years ago, so my memory is sort of fuzzy. I do recall that Coase conveyed his thoughts with fantastic clarity. Don't be turned off by the dreary title. One simple question Coase poses is "Why is there more than one company?" and the answer is less obvious than what you first think.

I think you forgot to mention another of their great books -- Foundation for Object / Relational Databases: The Third Manifesto by Chris Date and Hugh Darwen.

In it, they re-iterate their ideas up until now, integrate other stuff, and show how database concepts are completely orthogonal to the object concepts often brought up: datatypes don't matter for relational theory, but they're important for your final database. There's algebra, and then there's math. Relational theory is about the algebra, database systems are about math across different domains, using that algebra.

If you want a book that clearly states what's wrong with today's RDBMS implementations, go right there. Oh, and SQL is the wrong place to learn db theory.

As to learning database concepts in general -- it really shouldn't take long. The theory is so simple, it's amazing. And yet people -still- don't get it, when the whole thing can be explained in, what, a few minutes?

Access has terrible problems teaching you good sql (even for a bad language, there's such a thing as good coding in sql) -- a lot of what you learn won't port well.

I would recommend grabbing several different free (open-source) database engines, and playing with all of them. Change from day to day. My class in college didn't require us to use any particular system for our homework, though the school provided Access. At work, I was in the middle of converting from a Paradox database to a multi-tiered application using Interbase/Firebird. I wound up using all three for assignments, just ... because.

Grab Firebird, Postgresql, maybe Mysql (kinda lacks some of the advanced sql features) ... and keep Access around for the graphics ideas (just to show students how a database can be exposed to users in a GUI, how tables are laid out, etc.)

Teach them that database concepts are separate from implementations, teach them some of the things that go wrong with said implementations, and how to work around a problem several different ways. Temp tables, subselects, unions ... There are many ways of solving any given problem. Some products will force you into a given solution, but students should be taught the problem-solving skills essential to databases.

And did I mention that aside from db theory, they should be taught how to -get- the information out of users and managers? To find out what a business actually -does- when all they'll tell you is how they do their job right now? Even after you find all that out -- database design is a tricky thing. Many ways to solve a problem. Some allow for future expansion, some less.

I'd suggest a lot of practice building an entire system -- getting requirements, doing the design, and coding some of the queries needed. Not just doing queries on a given design.

Oh, and let students work on each other's designs. Let them yell at each other for making it difficult/impossible to get certain information from a database. That's fun too.

...you might also want to get GNU Autoconf, Automake and Libtool. It gives a pretty good overview of the standard GNU C/C++ source building tools.

It also has a couple of handy little chapters in there on doing some basic stuff, like how to build and load a shared object library. Not rocket science, but it's nice to have it explained clearly.

...without the slashdot referral fee, from Amazon and B&N

There will never be a permanent settlement on the moon. It's pretty well known by now that there is not enough water there to sustain any kind of colony of any sort (that ice cap turned out to be way too thin).

Scientific advances always have their naysayers. People who say "Sorry! Can't do that 'cause... x". Given the above statement it's reasonable to assume you would've told the Wright brothers "Heavier than air flight? No way!" had you been alive during those times.

Well, to establish a permanent moon base, they'll have to do things a little like the way they did on the USS Enterprise. They will have to recycle.

Hardly handwaving.

If you have specific objections, raise them. But don't call something handwaving just because you haven't read it.

-- MarkusQ

eye lub j00 4ll, hi sillymonkier!

trollkore owns j00.

You don't even own yourself. You own nothing. Your trolling is merely revenge fantasies of the impotent. You are truly impotent.

...don't know who D Knuth is...

Doctor Donald E. Knuth is a professor at Stanford. Right now he is working on his books, The Art of Computer Programming. He has three of about five volumes done so far. Very good books, well worth the $150 price even if you don't get them on sale.

The Art of Computer Programming.

Home page at Stanford.

But these rules were created before many advances were made.

For instance, you aren't likely to find everything you want at an online store in three clicks. If you are looking for jewelry or specialty blank CD media, you may get to your category in three clicks, but there are still a dozen clicks beyond that to see the full contents of the category.

I would be interested in seeing what kind of tasks users were asked to perform and rate their "three-clickability" (terrible term). Almost anything involving a store, inventory, or selection process voids that "rule" for the end result, but not for the category.

Perhaps it should be rephrased that the user should be able to get to any content-space in three clicks instead of a page.

Pricewatch gets you to content in two clicks.
Outpost has three clicks to content on the sections I checked - one click, really - two for refining.
ice.com has one click to content, and then two for refining.
Barnes & Noble has three clicks to content.
Even eBay has three clicks to content.

Some things will never change.

Since the 1950's, our country's greatest libraries have, as a matter of common practice, dismantled their collections of original bound newspapers and so-called brittle books, replacing them with microfilmed copies. The marketing of the brittle-paper crisis and the real motives behind it are the subject of this passionately argued book, in which Nicholson Barker pleads the case for saving our recorded heritage in its original form while telling the story of how and why our greatest research libraries betrayed the public trust by auctioning off or pulping irreplaceable collections. The players include the Library of Congress, the CIA, NASA, microfilm lobbyists, newspaper dealers, and a colorful array of librarians and digital futurists, as well as Baker himself -- who eventually discovers that the only way to save one important newspaper is to buy it. Double Fold is an intense, brilliantly worded narrative that is sure to provoke discussion and controversy.

This is a reflection of those men and not Xianity.

Funny, I say the same thing about the men who started and continued the Inquisition, and many other travesties of history. These people are not "Christianity", they are a mar on the name that many many more have carried and expressed far more faithfully.

Such men have always triggered a considerable amount of resistance and resentment from the religous establishment.

Sometimes "establishments" can rot at the core. "Establishments" are still just people. Don't confuse "establishments" with true Christianity.

Xianity has always had a dark side that would allow it to be mired in theocracy.

As I said, there is no dark side to Christianity. There is a dark side to mankind, which Christianity recognizes: sin. The core message of Christianity is God's love for the world, expressed in Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. There is no dark side to love. It is the dark side of man to pervert any authority given to it for one's own gain. Large monolithic power-weilding establishments are best avoided for this very reason. Most of the Founders of this country knew this, having seen the abuse of power in Europe, and created a limited government for this very reason.

There are even xian factions now in the US that would gladly institute their own version of a Taliban regime if they had the power to do so.

I'm sure there are religious organizations that would love to weild authority for their own gain, just as there are secular organizations that would. But I wouldn't consider these religious organizations "Christianity" any more than I would consider many current government institutions "constiutional". Don't confuse the message with the people that pervert it. Just because our government sucks doesn't mean I think we should throw out the Constitution. Just because many people have hurt others "in the name of Christ" doesn't mean we throw out Christ's teaching.

I'd recommend a book, if you have the time. It addresses the dark things that Christendom has done, but shows that they are far outweighed by the good. It includes citations. There are far more "unsung heroes" than there are "infamous miscreants" if anyone bothers to look.

I guess this XML book is a must read for anyone involved with the creation of those bracketed documents. The Table of Content looks promising anyway. Even mentions ASCII :)

A pretty good book to read if you are interested in gaming professionally, is Monster Gaming, by Ben Sawyer. Not only does it outline the competitive online gaming community, it delves into mods and other cool stuff like customization & configuration. The book has a foreword by Angel Munoz, the founder of the CPL, and cover art by Id legend Paul Steed. While Monster Gaming is not about becoming a CPL athlete, it is about being a better gamer.

The number of wicked web links in there is enough for any gamer to drool over. I've been thinking of doing a Slashdot book review of it, too.

I think hearing will be harder than sight. There's more processing that goes on there.

Have you ever listened to speakers of a foreign language and wondered where one word ends and another begins? I know enough Spanish to get my point across, but cannot understand fluent Spanish directed at me.

Here's a book that goes into some depth: Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy , ISBN 038078209X. The first few chapters go into the mechanics/chemistry/biology of how sound waves hit the ear, causing neurons to be fired, and all sorts of stuff. There are about eight layers of abstraction between "here's an interesting disturbance in the air that's found its way into my ear" and understanding language.

A friend of mine today told me about an amazing database oriented programming language known as "K". I've been in IT for many a year and NEVER caught wind of it, in any way. My friend said that he first encountered it in the late 90s at a few dotcom startups and it was presented to him as a way of interfacing with the kdb highspeed relational database. Typically, it's supposedly used amongst people who write programs for re-insurers (insurance companies that insure insurance comanies...meta-insurance companies if you will) to run just about every financial model conceivable. Why? I asked. Because it is FAST.

It is able (again, according to him for I know nothing of which he speaks) to predict market performance with scary accuracy. This is a claim of which I'm extremely dubious because I do NOT believe (as Burton Malkiel points out) that past market can in any way predict future performance. However, I digress...

But supposedly these k prediction models currently in us base themselves not solely on data from past market performance, but every form of economic condition imaginable.

But my real question is WHAT THE BLINKIN' HELL IS 'K'??? My bud is not a programmer, so my asking questions like "Is it procedural? OO? Aspect Oriented?" went nowhere. Ever see the look a dog gives you when you make a funny noise with your mouth that confuses him?...not to be condescending toward my buddy just 'cuz he doesn't know what those things are. But tust me for that is exactly the look he made. Which is the look I made when confronted with another single character programming language of which I was unaware.

So, again I ask, WHAT DA HECK IS 'K'???

While im too lazy to argue this, Ayn Rand has already done it for me.

And you have a 1/100,000,000 chance that a van full of kevlar-wearing miltiamen with night-scope goggles and oodles of weaponry break down your door and take whatever they want without fingerprints, or make you do it for them as they hold your girlfriend with a grenade in her mouth.

More seriously, some biometrics are more unique than others...but most are pretty good. Things like facial thermal patterns (blood veins under the skin) or retinal patterns are supposed to be twin-proof. Also, did you realize that even those super-strong 8096-bit RSA keys or elliptic-curve keys also reduce to just a number! They must not be secure either. It's all a matter of risk/cost. The main problems with biometrics are false positive/negatives, reputability, and norevokability. But uniqueness, although a legitimate metric, is usually not the main problem.

You should definitely read Ferguson and Schneier's book Practical Cryptography (ISBN 0-471-22357-3).

Read the short bio linked above, it is really a must for anyone interested in computers.

Thanks for the link, it was pretty good. You also might want to check out Tools for Thought by Howard Rheingold. I'd consider it required reading.

I recommend that everybody read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. The author basically went undercover in several entry-level jobs (including Wal-Mart, house cleaning, and hotel housekeeping) to see if she could make ends meet.

cuZ yu0 All SlAshD0tters SuCk and Cmdr Lam0 think5 I hav3nT b33n p0tty tRaIneD yet (h3 5ez s0 in d33s b00k aNd 1 d0n't luV 60d5m4k aN|) 1 4m fU3led w1t d4 P0\/\/3r oPH SATAN

Also, LOTR does not inspire stuff like this.

DES MOINES, Iowa (Dow Jones)--McDonald's Corp. (NYSE:MCD - News) characterized a published report that it plans a massive digital song giveaway promotion as "pure speculation."

It's "pure speculation". Notice they didn't say anything against/for it. Speculation is a very neutral term. Merriam Webster says:

Speculation: an act or instance of speculating

And speculating means: to meditate on or ponder a subject

McD is still WORKING ON IT! Doesn't mean they've decided one way or another, it's just that they're thinking about IT! Before /. issues a retraction, try RTFD (Reading the F**king Dictionary). Can we set up some kind of dictionary fund for /. editors? Like this or this?

The reviews and reader comments (5 star average from readers) on the linked page should convince you if my bare word doesn't.

-- MarkusQ

the CEO of Red Hat now says that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but may be ready in a few more years.

CEOs are known for their business acumen, but not necessarily for their techincal knowledge or skills. I've even read in one really great Apple history book that Apple engineers lambasted Steve Jobs as "non-technical" and considered him unfit to make "technical" decisions. I don't know that much about the RedHat CEO, but this may be a similar case.

Yumpin' Yiminy! You mean the game shows Frodo and Sam battling and killing Shelob, Frodo getting trapped in Cirith Ungol and being rescued by Sam, and Gollum biting the ring off of Frodo's finger and falling into the pit of Mount Doom? It would be cool if the game showed the 'scouring of the Shire" (which will NOT be in the movie). This book has been out for Yeesh, RTFB already!

The reason they work is not beacause there's some sort of cool hack involved, but because you're almost certainly eating less calories.

Well, to use your term to your post I say "bullocks". If you've read Atkins' book, you'd know that it is a qualitative, not a quantitative diet. That is to say, you can eat as much of the permitted foods on the diet you are allowed and none of NONE of the baned foods and you will lose weight. It's all a matter of regulating the blood's insulin levels *NOT* regulating calories.

In my own personal experience calorie regulated diets do NOT work, but carb-regulated diets like Atkins certainly do. Your body stores carbohydrates in your bloodstream and in your muscles. When you deplete your body's store of carbs by restricting yourself to 20gm of carb per day (ridiculously low!) during what is known as the "induction diet" (this phase is only meant to last about two weeks) you are depleting that store of carbohydrates so that your body will turn to the next logical source of energy which is fat. And since and Atkins dieter will typically be taking in more protein than most other diets one is less likely to suffer the deterioration of muscle tissue that is likely to occur under calorie restricted diets. You can literally eat yourself SILLY of the permitted foods and still lose weight on Atkins, which is why your claims that there is calorie restriction to blame for the weightloss is ludicrous! Without going into exhausitve detail, I can say that I may eat a plate of 20 or so chicken wings with bleue cheese dressing and top it off with a bowl full of whipped cream for desert (very low in carbs, but not in calories!) every noght and I will lose weight!

The only drawback to the diet that the good doctor acknowledges is that the diet as designed is typically lacking in many of the essential vitamins and minerals that you get from eating fruits and vegetables while not on the diet. For that he recommends using a dietary suppliment. But restricted calories? Dude, seriousely. Read the book.

Richard Preston's book, "The Demon in the Freezer" talks about a few groups of scientists that did this experiment. The first group, a group of Australians, made the discovery by accident. The original goal of the experiment was to use Mousepox to make the mice infertile. It turned out that it made a super lethal version of the disease. They published their findings in an attempt to promote some awareness of how easily a benign virus (Mousepox in nature is fairly harmless to mice... it rarely kills and most have a very strong natural immunity) can be turned into a weapon.

By the way, if you are interested in this topic, the book is great. The Demon in the Freezer

And Clinton/Gore actually caught and punished those responsible. And somehow they managed to do it without destroying our civil liberties. Can you say the same for Bush? If Gore wins it's quite possible that 9/11 doesn't happen... read the "Operation Ignore" part of Al Franken's new book went into Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, etc

Somalia was handed to Clinton/Gore by Dubya's Dad if you may recall. And at least when Clinton/Gore made interventions they typically had more support (NATO in Kosovo for example) then the "Coalition of the Willing", that (the last time I checked) was the Marshal Islands, Poland, Australia, Tongo, and Israel. Oh, and the Brits (so what if 75% of the population was opposed). It was that administration that proposed the clipper chip

Yeah, and the DCMA passed both houses of Congress with little debate and more or less "bipartisan" support. I think this is more ignorance on the part of politicians (in both parties) then evil intent. "Oh, hey, the Lobbyists think it's a good idea" And the clipper chip never happened anyway did it? At least Clinton/Gore knew when they were beaten. It was people associated with that administration that warned against the dangers of rap music and video games.

I worry about the dangers of rap music and video games. The difference between Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney is that Clinton/Gore fought to see a rating system (ESRB) imposed that would let the public decide for themselves. God knows what Bush/Cheney (or Ashcroft?) would do if they got this particular bug up their ass. Probably declare the software publishers and rap artists enemy combatants and lock away the key ;) Now if Buchanan, Nader or Brown had won the election (by some miracle), then things would have been different.

WTF???? You bet things would be different if Buchanan had won. We'd have automated machine gun nests on our southern border killing people as they attempted to cross. Our Forigen Policy would probably be somewhere between 1930s vintage isolationism (look how well that worked out for us at Pearl Harbor) and "Nuke-em-all and let God sort em out". While I personally hate Ralph Nadar (he put Dubya in office as far as I'm concerned -- betraying everything he claimed he believed in), and I don't know much about Brown (time to Google him some), how the HELL can you lump Buchanan into the "things would have been better" category? The first government "hand slap" against Microsoft happened during those years.

This one is more on topic so I figured I'd save it for last. I think at the time the majority of us were happy to see something (ANYTHING) being done to curb MS. I remember my rage when I read the initial report and realized just how far MS had actually gone in crushing my beloved Netscape. And BTW, it was the Bush administration that made the Justice Dept back off and accept this "settlement". I don't know if breaking up the company was the right answer, but I do know that with Gore in office we'd likely have a more effective solution then we do now -- or we would eventually after MS exhausted it's appeals. Sorry Billy, but the Feds have more money then even you do.

More to the point, there is no Starship Enterprise, freak.

Yet! I have seen the historical records of the future! Bear in mind we're only in the 21st century, bub! PATIENCE, my lad! And the early part of the 21st century at that! Why, we've only just gotten past the Eugenics Wars and we have another World War to get through sometime in the mid-21st century! We still have issues of crime, hunger poverty and economic plenty for all! You can't build one of these beauties over night, y'know! ;P

See this pathetic moron ? He just said " It's a standard part of US employment law that if you are indeed an employee rather than an independent contractor that any intellecual property that you generate does in fact belong lock stock and barrel to your employer." Of course he probably meant to say that is was standard part of Copyright Law to treat "works done for hire" separately from other works. With that vague mush of ideas about tradmarks, patents, copyrights, and whatever legal fiction he heard in the coffeeroom buzzing around in his head, he probably doesn't even realize that a patent can only be received if and individual or individuals, flesh entities, sign a statement under penalty of perjury to the effect that "I, _____, did invent a . . .". All this "employer owns patents" stuff purely comes as a result between a contract between you are your employer, subject to all the uncertainties of contract law without even getting into the additional problems the employment relationship brings into it.

It's pretty standard for an employment contract to require you to assist in every manner possible in getting any patents. However they can't require you to break the law, i.e., perjure yourself on the patent affadavit. If you don't think you are getting any economic benefit out it, don't sign it; let them fire you and in the ensuing dispute tell the judge they required you to submit a false document to the Federal Government as a condition of your employment. They try to convince the judge they know the statement is true.

Another fun one is when management tries to hand out signature spots on the patent as resume perks or spirit awards to various people not involved in the invention. As the parent poster noted, most patents don't amount to beans; but if such a patent gets disputed, and the opposing team is tipped off, they haul up the a few of the signatories on the patent into depositions, squeeze them a bit, and walk away laughing. It usually never hits the courtroom in those cases.

I know of 2 people who perjured themselves on patent applications as resume builders. Both shit bricks when I gave them copies of this book, thus driving home the reality of what they had done, right after the company was purchased by a larger one known for it's patent litigation.

However, I have never heard of anyone actually getting a felony conviction for lying on a patent. Personally, I think that should change. Six months in medium security sounds about right.