Slashdot Mirror

anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed.

And her main entrance is like a turnstile at the Haunted Mansion compared to how tightly her back door is locked down.

Really? That's contrary to what I've read. So perhaps there's hope for the iPad yet... for those that are into that sort of thing? Myself, I only ever use the front entrance; hence I avoid Apple's products.

Besides, some places have legislation which criminalizes such activity.

Are you sure?

Actually, there are blocking strategies which ISPs could use that put the onus on the copyright owners to identify the bad content, and would have reasonably limited collateral damage eg, DMCA-style graph takedown.

You can do copyright enforcement on the wire without DPI, without blocking all bittorrent, and putting the onus on the copyright owners to directly identify infringing content. I think this would be a horrible idea , but you can do copyright enforcement on the wire without blocking all BitTorrent.

And blocking all BitTorrent is very difficult for an ISP to do today. Even an actual sensible BitTorrent policy, such as only blocking pure uploads (seeds and leeches), while also providing web space for customers to distribute their own content, creates a massive PR Fecal Tornado that no US ISP would dare risk again.

I think many people on slashdot are missing the point. Like this guy point out blog This is a great device for people who want to consume information, not produce it. Sure, it might not have flash, but is Flash the future?

\As far as I'm concerned toolbar == spy-ware. Google jumped the shark and joined the ranks of Yahoo, MSN and Happy-smiley-spy-ware-toolbar the day they created one and started shoving it down people's throat.

No techie I know installs any toolbar in IE or Firefox.

Programmer, admin, etc. of 20+ years. I've used Google Toolbar for 2 years. It's a nice tool. I like the highlighting features and the page-rank display. Translate integration is nice. I could get everything that Google's toolbar gives me in a suite of other addons, but I don't need to. I never use the various funky buttons, but i do like the gmail mailto: integration.

The only poor souls that seems to be stuck with them are non-techies, who usually have at least 3-4 toolbars and they "don't know how it happened".

I explicitly download and install it. I don't know who these people you know are, but their browser fail is not my problem.

It's also amazing to watch them browse the web, they almost never use the address bar, it's either the Google or Yahoo toolbar's search box

I almost never use the toolbar's search, and I don't turn on the integrated search feature (where it replaces the basic search widget) because I use many other forms of search (corporate intranet search, amazon, Wikipedia, etc.)

I would be surprised if this was actually a "bug" and not a feature, sounds like a great bug to have for a data mining company.

Why on Earth would they want to do such a thing. They practically drown in data. Pissing off customers in order to get a dribble more (from what I understand the bug showed up in IE8 when you turned off the feedback but had not yet restarted the browser... which is an awfully narrow segment of their user-base).

My love for Google is diminishing faster than the DOW in 2008.

Yes, I can understand. A company that puts out a toolbar cannot possibly restore your faith in them by continuing to be the largest backer of open source development as well as a massive contributor, backing large humanitarian and charitable efforts and speaking out against government violations of privacy that go far beyond giving you the choice of installing a toolbar.

How could you have been blinded to their abuses.

That's right, you're now supporting microsoft by choosing to not use windows, or internet explorer.

Holy shit! I think I may have called this one, indirectly. Windows 8 to Feature Fully Virtual Monopoly

"The actual operating system of Windows 8 will be provided by other organizations, but it will have exclusive Microsoft branding, including a wide range of monopolistic features."

I wrote it regarding NZ schools still having to pay Microsoft whether they use their software or not, but it applies here as well.

"Propaganda?" That you can tell a Jew by their appearance?

One of the following people is a Jew. Guess which one, based solely on appearance.

http://www.bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wenn5124071.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_biSEHaU4ycc/SINwRevEQSI/AAAAAAAAAzY/PJ6en-1YQaQ/s400/anna_faris_15-1024.jpg

I rest my case.

You can use ClickToFlash on Safari in 10.6 to tell the Youtube site to serve the H.264 iPhone version to your browser instead of the flash version too - much nicer.

Or, as of last week, you can have YouTube give you H.264 videos with HTML5.

The PS3 is by far and away the most open of any mainstream console. Sony likes to ram its proprietary standards down people's throats but the PS3 is a pretty open device as far as these sort of things go.

"Pretty open" is relative...

Great point. See here for an example.

While indeed this opens the door for PS3 hacking, the PS3 has not yet been fully "hacked".
See http://streetskaterfu.blogspot.com/2010/01/ps3-is-hacked-urban-legend-continues.html

The security architecture of the PS3 is designed in a way to prevent hacks like this to fully compromise the system.

Another interesting read, by Kanna Shimizu, http://dslab.lzu.edu.cn:8080/members/zhangwei/doc/Cell_Broadband_Engine_processor_vault_security_architecture.pdf

about a change that takes a single second to undo

There's around 8 million Ubuntu users. Google has approximately 72.1% (vs 17% for Bing)

This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.

The old way would mean about 15 days of lost time

You think it's more likely that a CEO made a moral choice? Don't make me laugh. If morals had anything to do with it, they would never have gotten into China in the first place.

They made a plausible argument that they had ethical and business reasons for wanting to be in China. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html You may not agree that they meant it, you may not agree with the merits of the argument, but it's reasonable to me to believe that they meant it. It's entirely possible and very common to make a moral choice and be entirely wrong, in hindsight. It's even reasonable to try something you think might not work out, just in case you're wrong about that. CEOs are human, too, and want to make money, sleep well, and love their friends and family as much as anyone else does.

To suggest that CEOs en masse have no morality is not sensible. A CEO can be compromised by his obligations to shareholders, that he may or may not be a complete asshole, or be so insulated from the real world by his position that choices might be made which you or I would deem immoral is entirely reasonable. Any of those I'd agree with, except when applied to every business executive, everywhere.

You make a lot of good points, and sure we have seen a lot of change in the last few hundred years (including multiple genocides of people like the Native Americans who were in the way of change to the land they claimed). The older historical evidence is that in a place like Rome with a slave economy, you were pretty much either a wealthy land owner, a merchant, or a slave. There was maybe a little wiggleroom for an underclass who competed with the slaves and of course there was the military. (There was not much of a "middle class"). As James P. Hogan suggests in his sci-fi books like Voyage from Yesteryear, we are undergoing a "phase change" to a new economic order. If robots can do work about as good as most people for less cost, and better design means most work does not need to be done, then where does that leave everyone who is not a wealthy land owner (or some equivalent in today's USA, owning some other monopoly on something like patents and copyrights and mindshare so on)? With robots and computers as the new intelligent slaves (until they revolt? :-), who needs humans to be physical slaves, merchants, or soldiers? How can you have an underclass that can survive if they are competing with robots who can do everything much cheaper? It would be a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions, as Marshall Brain outlines, with a very few left owning everything and all other humans in concentration camps. Unless we have a different social order that moves beyond the notion that a right to consume has to be linked to productivity through formal employment.
    http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
    http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/
    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear
    http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

Emphasis mine. Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country. Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China? What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?

I'm not saying hard evidence has been provided one way or the other (I'm not even sure it could be proven one way or the other unless someone claims ownership) but the only evidence the accuser offered up was this. Not that the "algorithm was only known to Chinese" nor anything as simpleton.

What they need are the following things:

1) A legal environment which bitch slaps parents who bring frivolous lawsuits.
2) A competitive market for services.
3) Less politicization.

For God's sake, schools are considering getting rid of science classes because they "need more money for struggling minorities." That is how severe the need for privatizing and depoliticizing the process is. The politically correct would rather pull everyone down so that no one is left behind (because we're all not moving forward) than see a less equal, but more competitive (and eventually cheaper) marketplace for educational services.

There are excellent reasons to believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation. It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Soon, we will develop technologies to tap into this energy for propulsion and energy production. Placing satellites in orbit will be a thing of the past because we'll build legions of self-propelling vehicles that can maintain a fixed (or changing) position relative to the surface of the earth without having to be in orbit. Floating sky cities, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours. That's the future of energy and travel.

Physics: The Problem with Motion

Here's a better solution. This design connects to the cell phone audio output (so you don't have to open the phone) and has a DTMF decoder chip, so you send it tones to make things happen. That at least gives you some protection against random phone calls.

Windows 8 to Feature Fully Virtual Monopoly

"We already have some schools switching to other operating systems. This new version of Windows will allow them to do that while still claiming to be 'Windows only.' "

fully sarcastic blog entry here.

Since July 2007, I have developed and maintained a dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 network for my employer. Considering the recent news, I will be publishing more on my internal work ASAP. Here's what you can do to get started...

1. Most offices can run off a single IPv4 static IP address: the majority of my sites use 192.168.1.0/24 internally.
2. For permanent internal IPv6 access, I route Unique Local Addresses to each site. All the company uses a /48, with each site its own /64. You can also co-route global address ranges with IPv6: so I have a second set of addresses based on a /48 I get from HE.net's tunnel broker; I've been able to switch to that from SixXS subnets without having to reprogram 200+ internal DNS entries because of the ULA range.
3. I use tinc to link together my IPv6 sites over IPv4 Internet: this is the original work I did back in 2007; I've long since figured out how to dynamically route with OSPFv3 instead of static routes.
4.I've been regularly blogging about my IPv6 findings in my tech blog, as well as collaborating with a friend or two via StumbleUpon & Facebook. http://unquietwiki.blogspot.com/search?q=IPv6

http://ragemonkey.blogspot.com/

Irelands Blasphemy law will extend to the internet if given a chance.

I recently started a blog Abstract Beliefs that some may find interesting.

Wanna know where god came from? How about what should be obvious contradictions in religion that require as much effort to apply suspension of disbelief as what you use when you see a fictional movie?

To have religious leaders communicating in the openness of the internet, can be a very good thing, so long as they don't censor what they might oppose (The catholic church exonerated Galileo in the early 1990's - lots of good it did him).

Its time to properly address the issues and errors of our philosophies..... Imagine open source religion.

There is open source religion, its called a bunch of arrogant atheists, grouped together on electronic machines spewing their hatred for something they don't care about, just wanting to destroy it for their own selfish pleasure.

Irelands Blasphemy law will extend to the internet if given a chance.

I recently started a blog Abstract Beliefs that some may find interesting.

Wanna know where god came from? How about what should be obvious contradictions in religion that require as much effort to apply suspension of disbelief as what you use when you see a fictional movie?

To have religious leaders communicating in the openness of the internet, can be a very good thing, so long as they don't censor what they might oppose (The catholic church exonerated Galileo in the early 1990's - lots of good it did him).

Its time to properly address the issues and errors of our philosophies..... Imagine open source religion.

If US government want and have these, why wouldn't China? It's not that far fetched, and it's probably better for Google to say it was some virus planted on their system rather than have news all over the internet that China has such in place too. And it could be that US operations didn't know about it, Google China is its independent operation after all and why they're maybe pulling off.

This supposition just raises more questions in my mind though. 1) What do you mean by "independent operation" because it's still a subsidiary of Google and I'm sure utilizes much of the exact replicated technology. 2) Why in the world would Google enforce an American law in China? 3) If Google were providing this intercept data as access to the Chinese government then why in the hell would the Chinese government break in to steal email data from human rights activists? (From the original source, they suspect it was the government because the target was 'accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists') Why would the government need to gain malware access to the system that's put in place for them to access?

It just doesn't add up in so many ways. Every explanation seems to have more questions behind it. I'm almost tempted to say this was someone from Baidu or a criminal element in China or Russia that covered up all their tracks except those deliberately left to be political. But I'm getting into tin foil hat territory there.

I think it was AT&T or Verizon that we had /. article recently about how US government used their backdoor tons of times to gather info and that it would had been impossible to handle manually. Why wouldn't Google, one of the largest US companies, have similar system?

All big time communications operations have to worry about this. It sucks but it's the law. The question remains, however, what is that doing in China and if they're doing it for Chinese law, why did the government need to hack their own system set up to serve them?

When I blogged about this the week before last, I was relying on an article in Computer World which talked about the intruders gaining access to "a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users."

Global Temperatures This Decade Will Be The Warmest On Record...
...And It Will Be Exploited By Those Who Fail To Understand The Reasons For The Rise:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-temperatures-this-decade-will-be.html

Believe me, everyone in climate science knows about climateaudit.org .

Steve McIntyre was shown to be gravely incorrect multiple times (more than I can care to count), yet I don't remember him admitting his mistakes and revising his views.

As far as I remember, he was able to muster only a few words deep in the comment threads.

You can see examples here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/mcintyre/ - yes, there are whole sections of blogs dedicated to McIntyre-misinformation.

I like this one: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/01/auditors-resolutions.html

The problem is, the deniers believe that even one error in a summary report means that the science is wrong, while the scientists are all aware that, yes, it's a bitch, but indeed, sometimes typos creep through.

The problem is that gullible idiots like you make unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the scientific evidence based on no more than faith. And every piece of evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored.

The problem isn't with the "deniers" who are pointing all of these problems out. The "deniers" don't deny climate change or even global warming. They just deny the right of censorious assholes like you to claim that climate change is a) unprecedented and b) caused by man-made fossil fuels without actual engineering-quality reports showing either of these things to be true or even likely. They aren't the ones in denial - it's you.

The smell from underneath the IPCC bandages is pretty bad. The proxy reconstructions of past climate have been shown to be heavily cherry-picked and badly done statistics, the measurement of surface temperatures by NOAA and NASA appears been heavily manipulated to show warming, as has the temperature records from the Climate Research Unit relied upon for the calibration of climate models - and is the subject of several independent investigations for possible scientific fraud in the US and the UK.

But you'll ignore it all because it comes from "deniers" and you'll invoke preposterous conspiracy theories involving fossil fuel companies while ignoring the cosying up of nearly entire fossil fuel industry with the alarmists.You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of the scientist who made the original bad claim on Himalayan Glaciers claiming millions from the European Union to investigate the problem that he knows doesn't exist. You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of Rajendra Pachauri and his willingness to fill his pockets with cash all the while exhorting everyone else to embrace the New Poverty of enforced energy rationing to Save the Earth from Global Warming that no-one knows is even happening to any great extent nor even a serious problem that can be "fixed".

Those aren't typos. The entire climate science story is falling apart as scientists investigate clear evidence of fraud, conscious manipulation of evidence in order to deceive and junk science.

The "deniers" are not the problem - its the neo-creationists like you who keep waving away that "there's nothing to be seen here - move along" while the Global Warming Hysteria explodes behind you.

And yes, I'm a liberal. A very angry liberal.

If you mess with the bear, you have to be prepared for the claws.

In most CIS countries the police are corrupt. They have to be to survive, as their official pay is between 50 to 200 USD per month. And you need about 500 USD, so do the math... And you can see the picture.... Now if you also count the men in uniform who own cars that cost upwards of 6 figures "While making 200$"..

Or this guy:
http://tap-the-talent.blogspot.com/2008/12/judge-who-borrowedharvested-2mhr-2m.html

Got the money via an OIU...

In these systems the only people that are caught are the ones that are disliked by their higher ups, or the ones that turn out to be in the wrong time in the wrong place and then used as examples to others on the inside, as for the press-release the police will say "We are fighting the corruption..."

Innovation means taking risks when going into directions that may not immediately turn a profit form time to time. Google has been doing this with their 20% rule http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/googles-20-percent-time-in-action.html for quite a while now and some nice projects have resulted. If this philosophy, which often enough might not result in immediate profit for the company is to be stopped the way you seem to have in mind, then the very thing google stands for could be lost. In the end, turning to profits like that might be the best way to commit suicide for a company that relies on innovation, good PR and fanboyism as much as google.

Because courts of law is where evidence, including written depositions are methodically considered.

They are far from the only place.

In legal terms, the Gospels are written depositions and not hearsay. They are recorded testimonies of eyewitnesses who heard and saw what they wrote about. Hearsay by definition is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor.

Well, you've used some fancy legal terminology there -- "written deposition" -- but you've also shown a clear lack of understanding of what hearsay is:

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

So, for example, even supposing the Gospels were penned directly by people who actually saw and heard Christ, they have only his word that he's the Son of God, and not, say, a demon. Thus, that part alone is by definition hearsay.

As for the Gospels themselves, I would hope a "written deposition" would have, at the very least, a signature. We don't have that -- nowhere within any of the Gospels does the Gospel author name himself.

I would apply more rigorous standards here, however. Consider the eyewitness testimony of this woman. Granted, even if it were accurate, it would not be sufficient; our legal system does not allow murder simply because God said so.

But the more important question is, do you believe her?

If you do not have any witnesses or other admissible evidence, such as depositions, that is writings of other eyewitnesses, you have no case.

You are correct -- I have no case.

That is because I am not trying to establish something -- you are. The burden is, and always has been, on you.

Suppose I said you were right about the rules of evidence. Would that make you happy? Is your goal really to convince me that you are right about the legal system, or is it to convince me that you're right about the existence of God?

If it's the latter, you have a lot of work to do, work you've been avoiding.

A court as well as historians will assume the statements in the written documents are true.

Do you assume the Illiad is true?

I don't either, but that does not make by itself the written depositions of the eyewitnesses untrue.

Then why is it that when people claim to hear voices, we lock them up, instead of pondering whether or not they might actually be hearing something? Why is it that if someone today said "I am the son of God," or "I saw a UFO the other day," we tend to assume that there is a chemical imbalance in their brain, rather than that what they said is true?

Or are you saying that we should open the gates of the asylums and assume that everything everyone ever said is true, no matter how insane they are?

The more I study the Bible, the more I come to the conclusion of its truth and divine authorship.

What is divine about condoning slavery, rape, forced marriage, stoning, genocide, mutilation of the dead (including genital mutilation), genital mutilation of infants, religious intolerance (including stoning any relatives who worship another god), vengeance, and wholesale, wanton destruction?

A sheep that has wandered willingly and purposefully away from the shepherd is by definition evil. Anyone who will purposefully not humble himself under the rightful rulership of Almighty God is evil. This leaves you out, because presumably you are still willing to submit to truth WHEN you find it.

Then why does it not also apply to the same people mentioned in that bible verse? In fact, why am I not included? If I do find "truth", certainly, I will have to accept it,

I agree that the OP point on sunlight not being good enough is fishy, although on a practical basis you are just not going to get enough vitamin D from sunlight living the typical mostly indoor life in the Western world. But, the OP does indirectly bring up a cutting edge area of research about what is normal vitamin D levels and how have humans evolved in different settings to process different levels of vitamin D (like in the plains, the forest, the seashore, and the frozen icy wastes of the ice ages, and with different skin pigmentation in each setting). So, there remain a lot of unknowns.

But, the rest of it as far as recommendations is legitimate according to the emerging science, even if there are, as you suggest, caveats that for some few people with rare diseases issue that may be made worse by supplementing.

You can find a vast amount of scientific papers at this site:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Here is one 2009 study that is there:
"Vitamin D for Cancer Prevention: Global Perspective"
http://www.oncologystat.com/journals/review_articles/AEP/Vitamin_D_for_Cancer_Prevention_Global_Perspective.html
"RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is projected that raising the minimum year- round serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D3, or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium."

For most people in industrialized countries who spend most of their time indoors, to get that level, you have to supplement in the range the OP mentioned. However, as Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council suggests,
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
you need periodic blood testing to be sure you are getting the right amount. Here is another blog entry from the blog the OP mentioned on this too;
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another resource:
"A Consortium of Scientists, Institutions and Individuals Committed to Solving the Worldwide Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic"
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/
They have been coordinating blood test results with supplementation levels.

Experts still disagree about the best level for vitamin D in the blood, but in general, it is way higher than what most people have. Here are Dr. Mercola's suggestions, which are close to Dr. Cannell's , but higher than the Grass Roots Health groups:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/23/vitamin-d-deficiency-part-one.aspx
Dr. Mercola suggests sunlight is the best source.

An audio interview with Dr. Cannell on some of these issues:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/audio/dr-cannell-one-radio-network-interview-11-12-09.mp3

Like everything, there are probably limits to this advice. In that radio interview Dr. Cannell mentions one person (Trevor Marshall) who disagrees. Here

Milk provides only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

Milk provides only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

Guess what - the federal government is wrong. *gasp* I know, I'm shocked too! ;)

Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

Guess what - the federal government is wrong. *gasp* I know, I'm shocked too! ;)

Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

On the contrary: Milk and other fortified foods provide only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If the bottle just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

On the contrary: Milk and other fortified foods provide only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If the bottle just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

Most people in the USA are vitamin D deficient, and it has been linked to depression, schizophrenia, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, autism, influenza, and more. More on getting the right level of vitamin D through using D3 gelcaps or other means:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Or another item on that blog on blood testing if you supplement:
  http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another site:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

A quiz on vitamin D:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/09/06/test-your-vitamin-d-knowledge.aspx

"Might Influenza be Little More Than a Symptom of Vitamin D Deficiency?"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/21/avoid-flu-shots-vitamin-d-is-a-better-way.aspx

Many people suggest the right amount of sun exposure may still be best, but it is hard to get. If you have darker skin and work indoors, it may be almost impossible even in summer to get enough sunlight far from the equator:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml
http://curtisduncan.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-michelle-obama-is-more-likely-to.html

Most people in the USA are vitamin D deficient, and it has been linked to depression, schizophrenia, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, autism, influenza, and more. More on getting the right level of vitamin D through using D3 gelcaps or other means:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Or another item on that blog on blood testing if you supplement:
  http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another site:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

A quiz on vitamin D:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/09/06/test-your-vitamin-d-knowledge.aspx

"Might Influenza be Little More Than a Symptom of Vitamin D Deficiency?"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/21/avoid-flu-shots-vitamin-d-is-a-better-way.aspx

Many people suggest the right amount of sun exposure may still be best, but it is hard to get. If you have darker skin and work indoors, it may be almost impossible even in summer to get enough sunlight far from the equator:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml
http://curtisduncan.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-michelle-obama-is-more-likely-to.html

Yes the amount is still absurd, but at least the principle that the statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages has been invoked and vindicated. My blog post is here: Jammie Thomas verdict reduced from $1.92M to $54,000 and my Slasdhot submission is here.

Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be "harsh" and that, were he -- rather than a jury -- deciding the appropriate measure of damages, the award would have been even lower than $54,000. But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages, it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.

Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.

And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.

Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist

I find that my laptop has entirely replaced my desktop, given that I can hook up an external screen and keyboard/mouse and external storage/NAS.

I also find that I use my iPhone for a lot that I previously would have had to run on my computer for, like e-mail, browsing, checking the weather forecast.

I see the future of computers morphing into something with a size similar to a phone and that desktops and laptops entirely disappear. There are only two problems left to solve:
- Large high resolution display capability on a phone sized device. A crude solution is an external monitor interface, but I can also see some kind of e-ink fold-able interface or beamer like technology. See for example this: http://www.phonesuit.com/products/MiLi_Pro_iPhone_iPod_Video_Projector-18-10.html
- Keyboard input and other input. This I think is the hardest nut to crack.

Already phones as powerful as a ten year old computer. Most people don't need more, only 3D games really require more. I find that the iPhone is not just a phone, it's a truly portable computer. It fits in your pocket. It's Star Trek's "Communicator". I think the future is a device that has about the size of a pack of cigarettes/phone, and is able to somehow solves the display and keyboard problem will be the only computer 90% of people own in 10-20 years.
It will have some kind of docking station ability to extend it's storage, network and gaming capabilities and for backup. Heavy processing will happen on specific systems that you just interface with over a network.

Imagine a world where people carry around devices the size of a pda/smartphone that will be able to display an interface onto most flat surfaces, using a combination of beamer and camera technology for both display and input. All computers have been placed with opaque or transparent screens on which these devices can run at full resolution, and places like Starbucks will also have places with such panes, or maybe just a bit of white wall.
http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2006/04/projector-keyboard.html and http://www.supplierlist.com/photo_images/187860/holographic_transparent_screen.jpg is what I'm thinking.

One problem I might overlook is the power consumption/heat output such a compact device would have. It could be what will be it's main limiting factor.

I think the computers of today will morph into real Personal Digital Assistants.

Google offers videoconferencing, and I believe it is free (sans the cost of the cheap USB camera you will have to buy).

Check out this article, then check out the links for it on Google's site...
Google to offer Video Conferencing