Instant mental image of you standing on a freeway off-ramp with that crudely scrawled on a piece of cardboard, 40oz'er in the dirt by your feet.
That was quickly replaced with a mental image of you standing outside The Blackhat Conference exactly the same way.
THAT was quickly replaced with a mental image of you standing on a Redmond freeway off-ramp with that crudely scrawled on a piece of cardboard, 40oz'er in the dirt by your feet...and getting a ride.
The first application I tried could not be analyzed due to it being a 15mb file (Aura Free Video Converter) as the Anubis site only allows files smaller them 8mb.
Interesting, but not very useful in the context of the OP, nor does it address the bandwidth limitation of a dial-up connection.
"These are autologous stem cells (meaning YOUR OWN). No harvesting from anyone other than you."
And, finally, we come to the heart of the matter.
TFA states: "The FDA seems to have taken the stance that all stem cells (whether used autologously or not) are drugs."
THIS is what is at issue here. The good Doctor is simply forcing the FDA into a position to either back down from that assertion or validate it somehow. He is forcing debate on the issue.
Just what, exactly, constitutes a drug. The Doctor argues that this is a "treatment" or "therapy", no different then a skin-graft or banking your own blood supply, and he makes a valid point. The actual substance used is from the body it came from. Did it become a "drug" simply by removal from the patient's body?
MASSIVE amounts of money are on the line here, especially if the very definition of the term "drug" is altered as a result as it would also alter the markets associated with drugs. The BigPharma are already trying (and succeeding) in getting patents for stuff that we ALL already possess, and seek to make a profit from those patents.
Who, exactly, do you think their competition will be in this market? Who ELSE might be able to supply YOU with the stem cells needed for such treatments? You! The only viable means the Pharma have to compete is growing their own supply and then make it harder to use your own cells. Enter the Lobbyists and FDA Guideline Revisionists.
In addition, I think that since we are talking criminal action here, we should also take DNA samples from the perpetrators of this heinous crime and see if there is some genetic correlation between the people involved and the crimes they committed, then use this data to weed out such miscreants from society before they can do any more damage.
"You may as well wonder "why do they sell blank paper, yet complain about the counterfeiting of currency?"
Well, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't selling THAT particular paper, nor the dyes or security strips.
Not only did Sony push for the general acceptance of the format, but then they went on and became the world's top seller of portable cassette tape RECORDERS.
Again, from Wikipedia...
"Some devices were also capable of recording. The highest quality Sony Walkman recording cassette deck was the Walkman Professional WM-D6C. It was introduced in 1984, and became an instant success because of its long battery life."
But it seems someone at Sony had some inkling of what was coming down the tracks and tried to derail the runaway train, too late and without success...
"Amid fierce competition, primarily from Toshiba (the Walky), Aiwa (the CassetteBoy) and Panasonic, by the late 80s, Sony upped the ante once again by creating the PLAYBACK-ONLY WM-DD9, launched in 1989 during the 10th anniversary of the Walkman (five years after the WM-D6C) and became the holy grail for a niche group of cassette Walkman collectors." (my emphasis)
Cassettes, CDs...it is all the same. They broke their own business model, if selling music was their intention. Sometimes I wonder.
"...the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"
I believe that would be your business model that did that. That model died the moment the industry went from vinyl to magnetic tape.
Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?
Here is the nail in the coffin, Sony. (From Wikipedia)
"Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge."
You try and figure it out. I'm still at a complete loss to explain this. Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted? And still?
Trying to explain to the ostrich that the hyena can still see him is a waste of time as it is pretty damn hard to hear anything with sand in your ears.
If you read the steps required to get such proof, you might understand why I wouldn't bother.
I am not going to reformat to prove a point on/. when some MS monkey will just mod me down anyways.
If I remember correctly, the differences were the services listed running under svchost.exe, and more importantly, the differences in reported memory usage by svchost.exe per Process Explorer. They should have been exactly the same, but were not.
Why would the exact same list of services running under svchost.exe use different amounts of memory when reported by two different versions of Process Explorer?
Again, I would have to reformat my Win machine in order to be more specific and I am not going to do that. But YOU could.
Funny that the link you provided is comprised ENTIRELY of mirrors for sites that no longer have v10.20 available. Many of those mirrors were dead. The only versions that were available there are v9.3 (very old version with many of the functions of 10.20 missing) and v10.21, the first MS version.
Thanks for lending some credence to my original post. You simply validated my assertion that MS has pulled as many old versions from the web as they could possibly get away with.
I stated my opinion, in such a way that anyone can verify it for themselves...and get modded a Troll.
I give up. Slashdot has gone to the dogs. Half the articles are shameless advertising, moderation has been hijacked and the important stuff is quickly buried in the crap.
The fact that Process Explorer v10.20 (or older) was from a NON-MS source is why I trusted it.
Alas, the current incarnations have MS fingers all over their insides and that trust is now gone, as far as I am concerned.
Process Explorer v10.20, Revo Uninstaller and Unlocker pretty much give the user full control of a Windows XPsp2 machine. And they are all free, as in beer.
Microsoft bought Sysinternals because Process Explorer was outing them in terms of what they were doing COVERTLY on Windows machines.
I proved this to myself by using the latest version of Process Explorer, copying the results, wiping my hard drive (I was about to do a reformat anyways and decided it was a good time to do some experimenting), reinstalling the old, PRE-MS version of Process Explorer (v.10.20)...and getting different results as far as what Microsoft was running in the background. I simply compared the results, and they were different...on the exact same Windows install. I do not remember what was different, nor do I care. The point is that they were HIDING something from Process Explorer (any version post 10.20) now that they had control of the once-3rd-party app.
Another slimy thing they do is retroactively replace older versions of Process Explorer with the new version ON DEVICES THAT DO NOT EVEN RUN WINDOWS.
I have numerous thumb-drives that I have wiped entirely clean and installed my own selection of tools and open-source apps on. I then loan them to friends to fix their own machines (as well as provide them with non-MS, non-Adobe alternatives). All of these drives have Process Explorer v10.20 on them. Often, they would be returned only to find that the v10.20 had been over-written with the latest version. It took me a while to figure out what was going on. ANY version of Windows, post XPsp2, has the latest version of Process Explorer buried in it somewhere and will AUTOMATICALLY over-write any old version, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS FOUND. So, if you have v.10.20 on a thumbdrive and plug it into a post-XPsp2 machine, the machine will change the executable on the drive to the latest version without permission. I now have to keep a known-clean version of v10.20 secure from such monkey business.
Good luck finding version 10.20 though. I ended up having to get my copy from a CHINESE server, as Microsoft had cease-and-desisted everyone offering the old versions even though they were not charging for it.
To be blunt, I do not trust Sysinternals or any of their products anymore.
I was moved around so much when I was a kid that I ended up going to 22 different public schools(no money for private) by the time I dropped out in 10th grade and took a job.
Why did I drop out? It was most certainly not for a lack of desire. I WANTED to learn. The problem was teachers that were too obstinate to recognize that I had exceeded the level of knowledge that the rest of the class was just beginning to grasp. "I learned all this last semester in my last school." I would say, and then they would promptly go about teaching me things I already knew. They refused to accommodate my level of learning and understanding, and instead forced me to sit and stagnate. It got to the point I simply cut class and spent my entire days in the public library learning things I knew I did not know but knew I NEEDED to know. I spent more of my high school years in the public library then in class. One librarian figured it out simply by watching me rolling around book-carts loaded with textbooks instead of comic books or something to that effect. She should have reported me to the school for truancy...but never did. I have no doubt why she chose not to report me.
I passed my G.E.D. in the 99th percentile with zero study time beforehand, thanks largely to my OWN desire to learn. I simply did not have the patience for 2 more years of stagnation.
All of that being said, unless you WANT to learn, it is not likely to happen. One cannot go through life expecting to learn without putting out the effort that learning requires. An ineffectual education system, while most certainly a part of the problem, is not the root of the problem. Apathy on the part of students is the problem. Many want the perks of education, nay...EXPECT IT, but are unwilling to do the legwork to actually learn.
You can only blame the teachers so much. The rest you can blame on apathetic students and diploma-mills.
My mother used to work for this guy that owned the scrap-yard next door to his house.
His kids spent a great deal of their time driving junked cars (the ones they could get to move) all over the lot when their dad wasn't working in the yard. Basically turned the entire place into a junk-yard race track, driving real cars, at real speeds, until they couldn't get them to move anymore.
They were 10-11 years old.
All of this was perfectly legal, and their dad encouraged it stating that it was his opinion that by the time they were old enough to get a license and legally drive on public roads, they would know how to drive better then most adults.
In the process, I imagine they also became quite good at getting damn near any kind of car moving again.
Even after all these years, the logic of the whole thing still impresses me. Learning from your mistakes is an important part of learning. He just provided them with a means of doing so without anyone getting hurt.
If I am remembering correctly, when I lived in Alaska, one could be held CRIMINALLY liable for not pulling over and helping a stranded motorist. It was a very different situation then in most places, though.
A dead, stranded car in -40F temperatures could kill you quite quickly, especially if everyone passing you just kept right on going. Leaving someone on the side of the road could spell death for them, and sometimes it was quite a wait between cars. You might be dead before then next one came by.
There was always someone that would voice concerns about being forced to help a serial killer, but common sense usually prevailed and the law stood. Not sure if it still does.
My boss once explained his own solution to me.
If his car broke down in the middle of nowhere, at temps that could kill, he would simply stop his car right across the road, if possible, forcing the next car to stop. If that didn't work, his next step would be to set it aflame. Even if that didn't get someones attention, he figured he would, at the very least, stay warm until the fire trucks arrived.
"For the web comic artists, being able to present their archives or create a 24-page comic in near full-sized and color is absolutely amazing."
So Apple gets to sell you a home computer AND a netbook (with a phone you say you don't need) all so you can do what you can do on the home computer...well, anywhere?
Looking at the specs on the iPad (and knowing what kind of hardware you need to do any REAL graphics processing...20 layers of Photoshop is going to lock up solid on an iPad), I'm guessing you're going to be doing most of it on the home machine anyways.
So, you essentially bought Apple's sales pitch hook, line and sinker.
"If you paid attention to the Twitter feed when the iPad was announced, the jokes were coming from a lot of hot and bothered women. This is one area where they let their hair down and get nasty."
Ok, I understand this is Slashdot, and all, but this comment is just so pathetic. For me, this comment is a perfect example of the power of marketing and how even supposedly "tech savvy and thus obviously intelligent" people fall for the lamest marketing.
I don't "pay attention to the twitter feed" because I quickly realized it is the ultimate rumor mill, NOTHING more. The Marketeers planned it that way folks. It is a marketing rail that some people actually CAN use for other purposes, but realistically use for...well, gossiping.
As for the devices they are "gossiping" about, the changes from one generation of device to the next, even across developers, is so minutely incremental that only those with disposable cash can afford to keep up with "the latest" (which is all they are really doing. The latest "incarnation" is rarely anything that novel or different). The features are of limited value to begin with. Really, how many fucking ways do you need to communicate with someone? Do you really need access to the web when you leave the house? Can't you get through a few hours without consulting an electronic device for insight?
The Marketeers have finally figured out how to milk the "Tech Savvy and thus obviously intelligent" crowd...and let the tech savvy still think they are making informed, intelligent decisions about the technology we humans really need. The iPad ain't it, folks.
Think about it. This is what amounts to a highly over-priced Netbook with a phone jammed in it. Net result? Your COMPUTER is now locked to service contracts.
It all reeks of the old "getting one up on the Joneses" meme that, in the past, primarily inflicted the insecure-but-somehow-rich, yet now pervades the tech geeks as well.
It always seemed a little odd that evolutionists minimized such interactions as the bacteria that lives on, and IN, us as little more then a symbiotic relationship.
The idea that some genetic material might actually be passed from ourselves to these bacteria, or the other way around, seemed to make sense. I'm not talking about large chunks of DNA, but rather a codon or two every dozen generations, or something to that effect. Given that mutations/variations are more likely to occur in two species, as opposed to one, that symbiotic relationship might have accelerated genetic changes in either, or both, species. Who knows, maybe our ability to digest some specific foodstuff (a foodstuff that we previously relied on a bacteria in our gut to help us digest/process) was derived from genetic material that originally came from a bacteria that had the ability but was passed on to us a codon at a time. Just an example.
This leads me to the question of whether or not our preoccupation with sanitization/sterilization of our own bodies might be having some detrimental effect on our EVOLUTION. Is our wiping out species, to the point of extinction, actually limiting the evolutionary process, in essence limiting variation in the exchange of genetic material?
Slashdot Mirror
Instant mental image of you standing on a freeway off-ramp with that crudely scrawled on a piece of cardboard, 40oz'er in the dirt by your feet.
That was quickly replaced with a mental image of you standing outside The Blackhat Conference exactly the same way.
THAT was quickly replaced with a mental image of you standing on a Redmond freeway off-ramp with that crudely scrawled on a piece of cardboard, 40oz'er in the dirt by your feet...and getting a ride.
The first application I tried could not be analyzed due to it being a 15mb file (Aura Free Video Converter) as the Anubis site only allows files smaller them 8mb.
Interesting, but not very useful in the context of the OP, nor does it address the bandwidth limitation of a dial-up connection.
"These are autologous stem cells (meaning YOUR OWN). No harvesting from anyone other than you."
And, finally, we come to the heart of the matter.
TFA states: "The FDA seems to have taken the stance that all stem cells (whether used autologously or not) are drugs."
THIS is what is at issue here. The good Doctor is simply forcing the FDA into a position to either back down from that assertion or validate it somehow. He is forcing debate on the issue.
Just what, exactly, constitutes a drug. The Doctor argues that this is a "treatment" or "therapy", no different then a skin-graft or banking your own blood supply, and he makes a valid point. The actual substance used is from the body it came from. Did it become a "drug" simply by removal from the patient's body?
MASSIVE amounts of money are on the line here, especially if the very definition of the term "drug" is altered as a result as it would also alter the markets associated with drugs. The BigPharma are already trying (and succeeding) in getting patents for stuff that we ALL already possess, and seek to make a profit from those patents.
Who, exactly, do you think their competition will be in this market? Who ELSE might be able to supply YOU with the stem cells needed for such treatments? You! The only viable means the Pharma have to compete is growing their own supply and then make it harder to use your own cells. Enter the Lobbyists and FDA Guideline Revisionists.
I hope the good Doctor has good lawyers.
"...and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine."
Inspection?
Of what, and by what means?
I hope this isn't what my paranoid, overly-cynical mind is translating it as.
Maybe the concern should not be so much about the idea of taxation, but what those taxes are actually going to be spent on.
Prison. Yes, sir.
In addition, I think that since we are talking criminal action here, we should also take DNA samples from the perpetrators of this heinous crime and see if there is some genetic correlation between the people involved and the crimes they committed, then use this data to weed out such miscreants from society before they can do any more damage.
Especially in Texas.
"You may as well wonder "why do they sell blank paper, yet complain about the counterfeiting of currency?"
Well, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't selling THAT particular paper, nor the dyes or security strips.
Not only did Sony push for the general acceptance of the format, but then they went on and became the world's top seller of portable cassette tape RECORDERS.
Again, from Wikipedia...
"Some devices were also capable of recording. The highest quality Sony Walkman recording cassette deck was the Walkman Professional WM-D6C. It was introduced in 1984, and became an instant success because of its long battery life."
But it seems someone at Sony had some inkling of what was coming down the tracks and tried to derail the runaway train, too late and without success...
"Amid fierce competition, primarily from Toshiba (the Walky), Aiwa (the CassetteBoy) and Panasonic, by the late 80s, Sony upped the ante once again by creating the PLAYBACK-ONLY WM-DD9, launched in 1989 during the 10th anniversary of the Walkman (five years after the WM-D6C) and became the holy grail for a niche group of cassette Walkman collectors." (my emphasis)
Cassettes, CDs...it is all the same. They broke their own business model, if selling music was their intention. Sometimes I wonder.
Although I can understand your confusion on the matter, I think this is the thread you were looking for...
http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/19/1514258
"...the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"
I believe that would be your business model that did that. That model died the moment the industry went from vinyl to magnetic tape.
Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?
Here is the nail in the coffin, Sony. (From Wikipedia)
"Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge."
You try and figure it out. I'm still at a complete loss to explain this. Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted? And still?
"Depends on who's picking the facts ... "
Atheist: "I'll believe it when I see it."
Non-Atheist: "I'll see it when I believe it."
Trying to explain to the ostrich that the hyena can still see him is a waste of time as it is pretty damn hard to hear anything with sand in your ears.
"There is no recorded instance of anyone "disappearing" when they became an atheist."
Whew. Thank God. I was starting to get a little worried.
If you read the steps required to get such proof, you might understand why I wouldn't bother.
I am not going to reformat to prove a point on /. when some MS monkey will just mod me down anyways.
If I remember correctly, the differences were the services listed running under svchost.exe, and more importantly, the differences in reported memory usage by svchost.exe per Process Explorer. They should have been exactly the same, but were not.
Why would the exact same list of services running under svchost.exe use different amounts of memory when reported by two different versions of Process Explorer?
Again, I would have to reformat my Win machine in order to be more specific and I am not going to do that. But YOU could.
Funny that the link you provided is comprised ENTIRELY of mirrors for sites that no longer have v10.20 available. Many of those mirrors were dead. The only versions that were available there are v9.3 (very old version with many of the functions of 10.20 missing) and v10.21, the first MS version.
Thanks for lending some credence to my original post. You simply validated my assertion that MS has pulled as many old versions from the web as they could possibly get away with.
Why?
Ok, now I KNOW MS shills are moderating Slashdot.
-1 Troll?
I stated my opinion, in such a way that anyone can verify it for themselves...and get modded a Troll.
I give up. Slashdot has gone to the dogs. Half the articles are shameless advertising, moderation has been hijacked and the important stuff is quickly buried in the crap.
The problem is a matter of trust.
Who here actually TRUSTS Microsoft?
The fact that Process Explorer v10.20 (or older) was from a NON-MS source is why I trusted it.
Alas, the current incarnations have MS fingers all over their insides and that trust is now gone, as far as I am concerned.
Process Explorer v10.20, Revo Uninstaller and Unlocker pretty much give the user full control of a Windows XPsp2 machine. And they are all free, as in beer.
"Think about how we all learn grammar..."
i thunked we all learnt grammers from da web. lol
kthanksbye
Microsoft bought Sysinternals because Process Explorer was outing them in terms of what they were doing COVERTLY on Windows machines.
I proved this to myself by using the latest version of Process Explorer, copying the results, wiping my hard drive (I was about to do a reformat anyways and decided it was a good time to do some experimenting), reinstalling the old, PRE-MS version of Process Explorer (v.10.20)...and getting different results as far as what Microsoft was running in the background. I simply compared the results, and they were different...on the exact same Windows install. I do not remember what was different, nor do I care. The point is that they were HIDING something from Process Explorer (any version post 10.20) now that they had control of the once-3rd-party app.
Another slimy thing they do is retroactively replace older versions of Process Explorer with the new version ON DEVICES THAT DO NOT EVEN RUN WINDOWS.
I have numerous thumb-drives that I have wiped entirely clean and installed my own selection of tools and open-source apps on. I then loan them to friends to fix their own machines (as well as provide them with non-MS, non-Adobe alternatives). All of these drives have Process Explorer v10.20 on them. Often, they would be returned only to find that the v10.20 had been over-written with the latest version. It took me a while to figure out what was going on. ANY version of Windows, post XPsp2, has the latest version of Process Explorer buried in it somewhere and will AUTOMATICALLY over-write any old version, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS FOUND. So, if you have v.10.20 on a thumbdrive and plug it into a post-XPsp2 machine, the machine will change the executable on the drive to the latest version without permission. I now have to keep a known-clean version of v10.20 secure from such monkey business.
Good luck finding version 10.20 though. I ended up having to get my copy from a CHINESE server, as Microsoft had cease-and-desisted everyone offering the old versions even though they were not charging for it.
To be blunt, I do not trust Sysinternals or any of their products anymore.
Any time you combine a political organization and money transfers, SOMETHING is bound to go wrong.
And even if doesn't, it is sure to come back and haunt you. Probably right in the middle of your bid for Governor.
Bullshit. Bullshit, I say.
I was moved around so much when I was a kid that I ended up going to 22 different public schools(no money for private) by the time I dropped out in 10th grade and took a job.
Why did I drop out? It was most certainly not for a lack of desire. I WANTED to learn. The problem was teachers that were too obstinate to recognize that I had exceeded the level of knowledge that the rest of the class was just beginning to grasp. "I learned all this last semester in my last school." I would say, and then they would promptly go about teaching me things I already knew. They refused to accommodate my level of learning and understanding, and instead forced me to sit and stagnate. It got to the point I simply cut class and spent my entire days in the public library learning things I knew I did not know but knew I NEEDED to know. I spent more of my high school years in the public library then in class. One librarian figured it out simply by watching me rolling around book-carts loaded with textbooks instead of comic books or something to that effect. She should have reported me to the school for truancy...but never did. I have no doubt why she chose not to report me.
I passed my G.E.D. in the 99th percentile with zero study time beforehand, thanks largely to my OWN desire to learn. I simply did not have the patience for 2 more years of stagnation.
All of that being said, unless you WANT to learn, it is not likely to happen. One cannot go through life expecting to learn without putting out the effort that learning requires. An ineffectual education system, while most certainly a part of the problem, is not the root of the problem. Apathy on the part of students is the problem. Many want the perks of education, nay...EXPECT IT, but are unwilling to do the legwork to actually learn.
You can only blame the teachers so much. The rest you can blame on apathetic students and diploma-mills.
My mother used to work for this guy that owned the scrap-yard next door to his house.
His kids spent a great deal of their time driving junked cars (the ones they could get to move) all over the lot when their dad wasn't working in the yard. Basically turned the entire place into a junk-yard race track, driving real cars, at real speeds, until they couldn't get them to move anymore.
They were 10-11 years old.
All of this was perfectly legal, and their dad encouraged it stating that it was his opinion that by the time they were old enough to get a license and legally drive on public roads, they would know how to drive better then most adults.
In the process, I imagine they also became quite good at getting damn near any kind of car moving again.
Even after all these years, the logic of the whole thing still impresses me. Learning from your mistakes is an important part of learning. He just provided them with a means of doing so without anyone getting hurt.
If I am remembering correctly, when I lived in Alaska, one could be held CRIMINALLY liable for not pulling over and helping a stranded motorist. It was a very different situation then in most places, though.
A dead, stranded car in -40F temperatures could kill you quite quickly, especially if everyone passing you just kept right on going. Leaving someone on the side of the road could spell death for them, and sometimes it was quite a wait between cars. You might be dead before then next one came by.
There was always someone that would voice concerns about being forced to help a serial killer, but common sense usually prevailed and the law stood. Not sure if it still does.
My boss once explained his own solution to me.
If his car broke down in the middle of nowhere, at temps that could kill, he would simply stop his car right across the road, if possible, forcing the next car to stop. If that didn't work, his next step would be to set it aflame. Even if that didn't get someones attention, he figured he would, at the very least, stay warm until the fire trucks arrived.
Better then dead.
"For the web comic artists, being able to present their archives or create a 24-page comic in near full-sized and color is absolutely amazing."
So Apple gets to sell you a home computer AND a netbook (with a phone you say you don't need) all so you can do what you can do on the home computer...well, anywhere?
Looking at the specs on the iPad (and knowing what kind of hardware you need to do any REAL graphics processing...20 layers of Photoshop is going to lock up solid on an iPad), I'm guessing you're going to be doing most of it on the home machine anyways.
So, you essentially bought Apple's sales pitch hook, line and sinker.
"If you paid attention to the Twitter feed when the iPad was announced, the jokes were coming from a lot of hot and bothered women. This is one area where they let their hair down and get nasty."
Ok, I understand this is Slashdot, and all, but this comment is just so pathetic. For me, this comment is a perfect example of the power of marketing and how even supposedly "tech savvy and thus obviously intelligent" people fall for the lamest marketing.
I don't "pay attention to the twitter feed" because I quickly realized it is the ultimate rumor mill, NOTHING more. The Marketeers planned it that way folks. It is a marketing rail that some people actually CAN use for other purposes, but realistically use for...well, gossiping.
As for the devices they are "gossiping" about, the changes from one generation of device to the next, even across developers, is so minutely incremental that only those with disposable cash can afford to keep up with "the latest" (which is all they are really doing. The latest "incarnation" is rarely anything that novel or different). The features are of limited value to begin with. Really, how many fucking ways do you need to communicate with someone? Do you really need access to the web when you leave the house? Can't you get through a few hours without consulting an electronic device for insight?
The Marketeers have finally figured out how to milk the "Tech Savvy and thus obviously intelligent" crowd...and let the tech savvy still think they are making informed, intelligent decisions about the technology we humans really need. The iPad ain't it, folks.
Think about it. This is what amounts to a highly over-priced Netbook with a phone jammed in it. Net result? Your COMPUTER is now locked to service contracts.
It all reeks of the old "getting one up on the Joneses" meme that, in the past, primarily inflicted the insecure-but-somehow-rich, yet now pervades the tech geeks as well.
*prepares to be carpet-bombed*
And another thing!
Where the hell are these guys getting D&D manuals and dice?
I can think of one method, but man, those 4-sided dice have GOT to hurt. I don't even want to THINK about the manuals.
I would venture to say that most VIOLENT criminals are already of a Chaotic Neutral alignment. They quite simply don't give a fuck.
Lawful Good? The first thing that comes to mind is TV Evangelists. You know, that preachy, self-righteous Paladin that nobody can get to shut up?
I am having a hard time deciding which belongs in prison more.
I agree.
It always seemed a little odd that evolutionists minimized such interactions as the bacteria that lives on, and IN, us as little more then a symbiotic relationship.
The idea that some genetic material might actually be passed from ourselves to these bacteria, or the other way around, seemed to make sense. I'm not talking about large chunks of DNA, but rather a codon or two every dozen generations, or something to that effect. Given that mutations/variations are more likely to occur in two species, as opposed to one, that symbiotic relationship might have accelerated genetic changes in either, or both, species. Who knows, maybe our ability to digest some specific foodstuff (a foodstuff that we previously relied on a bacteria in our gut to help us digest/process) was derived from genetic material that originally came from a bacteria that had the ability but was passed on to us a codon at a time. Just an example.
This leads me to the question of whether or not our preoccupation with sanitization/sterilization of our own bodies might be having some detrimental effect on our EVOLUTION. Is our wiping out species, to the point of extinction, actually limiting the evolutionary process, in essence limiting variation in the exchange of genetic material?