This teacher needs to be disciplined, maybe not for making the joke that got misinterpreted, but for not taking responsibility for it.
Exactly, I completely agree... my point was just that their decision of suspending the student I believe was a just decision... it's not like he did something illegal, just against school rules, whether he was given 'virtual' permission or not... the teacher should take responsibility for it or be punished, yes, but suspension I think is isn't that harsh a punishment for the student anyway...
So yes, do something about the teacher, but don't say the student didn't deserve the consequence...
Yes but in your analogy, the banker also took charge of the alarm company in question, speaking for it when it couldn't know any less. By saying the alarm company will reward the winner, he steps out of bounds of his authority (or presumed authority) as banker/manager and lies (even if jokingly) about the actions of the alarm company. And should be held accountable for that.
This teacher essentially did the same thing, saying that the software company would reward the winner, and that he wanted %10 of the cut... so yes, he should be held responsible.
HOWEVER, the student, if common sense is not alien to him, should have realized that the dare, being posed against an active and private system, was not a - 'go ahead and hack the school, all of you, and start whenever you feel like it, for this reward'...
it was like announcing, say, plans for building a new gym. They wouldn't say go ahead and play some basketball before the construction is finished, and they wouldn't say not to go play basketball before it's done either. It's common sense that you would wait until it's done before using it, especially if there's red tape around it saying 'caution - under construction'.
The teacher talked about a dare in class for a sensitive system that was in use by the school. On his side, it was a joke, so he wouldn't say to ask him beforehand to take up the challenge. But from the student end, that wasn't an open invitation for any student in the class to go hack crazy on the school. He should have realized that he should have asked or notified the teacher, if anyone, that he was going to attempt the dare. The nature of the dare wasn't just a teacher giving out a homework assignment.
I still think both the teacher and the student should be punished accordingly. Don't give out dares that are unfounded (and untruthful), and don't accept a sensitive dare where those you affect aren't restricted to the giver of the dare, or you could be asking for trouble. It's common sense...
On a larger scale, it's like creditcards.com - they were essentially saying, even with just their name, we've got the best security and no one hack it! It's just inviting hacker's to break in... for bad intentions and good... if the good guy gets through, how would they know if their intentions were good or not? They didn't ok the guy to hack their system so they'd know about it, so they're gonna charge the hacker. It's common sense - he should have called the company to say - hey guys, I'm gonna try to hack your site, here's my info so you know I'm legit. Otherwise, you just know there's gonna be problems.
Agreed:) I actually was guiding my teacher through most of her comp-sci classes... we were both learning, but I had more of that natural programmer grasp and state of mind... she asked for suggestions on where to go and what to teach:) that's the fun of being a good student...
computer skill and programming/hacking are mostly natural traits of a person... you can only learn so much, then it's up to you, your desire to keep going and improving.
But don't ignore, as you put it, your school and surroundings... be a part of it and help it, or it'll fear you:)
Teachers conspiring against displiked students? Come on... I was one of the best (if not the best) computer students in my year and a within a couple years in highschool... I never once got in trouble for anything computer / security related. Why? Because I didn't do anything with my skills that would be looked upon as a security risk or hazardous to a system by teachers or anyone else who may be in charge, whether they knew what they were talking about or not.
I think the teacher should own up to the challenge he posed, but get real, the student being innocent because he hacked a system on a dare that was given by someone who didn't have the right to issue the dare?
'This kid' should have gone to the system administrator or someone in charge - not going behind someone's back - even letting the teacher know he was going to take him up on the dare - and got permission before doing anything that could be seen as a threat.
If you want to be a 'good' hacker, or a praised and intelligent computer person, you have to do things in a way that people will see as friendly, not possibly threatening. Otherwise it's called Infamy... famous bad guys... or good guys with a bad rap, and no one (apart from other good bad guys) is sympathetic to his cause.
MHO, hopefully he's learned his lesson. BOTH of them. Teachers shouldn't give out uninformed challenges or dares that they aren't willing to account for, otherwise have some guts take responsibility for an unforseen success. Students, if your intentions are good, TELL someone before you carry out your intentions! It's common sense people, really...
Molten Lava? (I can just see the terminator's dying wish as he's melting away, holding his pet mouse in the air... now there's a tear jerker!)
Re:I know I'll be modded down, but bear with me he
on
Warez and Abandonware
·
· Score: 1
Right now, I respect IP laws. I don't trade in warez, I ripped all my mp3's from my own CDs. But that's not because I think the reasoning behind IP is valid. It's because I've agreed to live in the United States, and part of that agreement is abiding by laws whether I agree with them or not.
Exactly... the law is there for good reason... people who abuse the law are to blame. IP copyright should be a choice by the creator, and respected by the consumer. Just because YOU don't think it's worth money to buy yourself doesn't mean you should uphold that person's belief that it is.
I mean hey, if you don't think it's worth it, and you want it free, make it yourself. You want free software or music cuz you don't want to pay for it, get the (C) holders to change their position on copyright. If they see that no one is buying it, they'll see what they can do to embrace the 'free' movement. Don't rip people off because you don't think they deserve what they're asking. If it's worth ripping off, it's worth paying for, somehow.
IP and copyright laws should be up to the true owner. If someone wants to release something free, all power to them. If someone doesn't, respect that. If no one buys their product, maybe they'll understand and give up or embrace the movement. Just don't start a rebellious movement against laws that are put in place to protect people's rights of freedom. Freedom includes the freedom of choice to sell wares and be compensated and backed by law, not that you should get all your wares for free if you simply don't want to pay for it.
Respect people's business decisions, it is after all, their life and their decisions. If business isn't working by their decisions, they'll change to reflect the market.
If the market is in freeware, they'll find some way to continue making money from another source. Just don't rip their hard work off if they want compensation. That's what the law is for.
For things like the RIAA, sure, there could be abuse in their decision... so find a way to change their decisions without breaking the law... embrace music that is free by the creator's choice, so those that aren't free will see they're not making money and change... be smart not rebellious.
Actually, the video they have linked from the story above is the video of the P3 Honda robot... The story is about the Sony robot which is 19.7 inches tall. The P3 is 120cm, depicted in the video.
They could have done a better job organizing or explaining it. I was wondering too, since/.'s article talks about the Honda robot, but links to the Sony article... there's a link there to jump to the honda article - which should have been what/. linked too...
Thanks, no I realize that's not a fully scientific reasoning for the existence of dinosaurs during man's. It's a very minimal explanation. The Creation/Evolution debate is one of my favourite topics and I'm always open to new scientific evidence. I, for one, am very factual, and the way I can see anyone being convinced without a doubt is through true scientific method and evidence, otherwise it's a matter of faith either way <gasp>:)
Think, how can one pop one's ears by holding one's nose while attempting to exhale if the cavities aren't connected
You can look at that two ways - that pop is our body equalizing pressure. The connection may be there so that our inner pressure can be equalized based on the enrvironment we're present in. It doesn't prove that ears evolved from gills...
Sorry, here's another thing about dinosaurs & man...
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.
Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.
Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.
However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.
"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.
There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science
From 17 Evidences Against Evolution by Kevin Martin, #12 Article
Again, research helps. I'm a middleman, I'm not saying either way, I'm just looking for complete arguments/theories from both sides. Personally I'm believing less and less on the large-scale universal history theories.
To answer your comment about the pineal gland, read this, or go to the website linked below.
The pineal gland is most astonishing in its nature. As its name implies, it is a cone-shaped body (Conarium pinealis, pine cone). It is reddish in color, about a half inch in length, and not much larger than a grain of wheat. It is attached to the roof of the third ventricle of the brain. It weighs about two grains. It is hidden away at the base of the brain (to which it is attached by the hollow pineal stalk) in a tiny cave behind and above the pituitary body. it is composed, in part, of nerve cells containing a pigment similar to that present in the cells of the retina which is an expression of the optic nerve-- this strengthening the argument for its ancient function as an eye. The lower part of the gland points backward.
The secretion of the pineal gland, called pinealin, acts as a restrictor for all the glands of internal secretion. By its checking activity on the other endocrine glands, it gives the baby time to grow in bulk, which is its chief business during the first two years of its existence. during these two years the baby should quadruple its birth weight. The pineal acts as a sort of general supervisor over all of the other glands.
The accepted belief of the nineteenth century anatomists was that the pineal gland was a useless, wasteful, space-consuming vestige of a once important structure. For a long time, in fact, up to a few decades ago, the pineal was believed to have no present function at all, or at least no ascertainable one. That it might be a gland of internal secretion was a popularly despised theory. Late observations, however, have related the pineal to muscle function. There is a singular muscle shrinking and deforming disease, known as "progressive dystrophy," the cause of which has been an unsolved mystery to the medical profession. By means of the X-rays, late studies of the pineal in relation to this disease have shown it calcified, that is, buried in lime salts, which signifies that where it is weak, or no longer functioning, the muscles do not receive the proper amount of nourishment.
It has further been discovered that the pineal regulates the coloring of the skin by varying the degree of light ray reaction. That is, it controls the action of light on the pigment of the skin. It is the light within that reflects the light without.
The pineal also produces the normal physical and mental development of the brain cells and the normal development of the cells of the organs of reproduction. The rich blood supply of the pineal is suggestive of its active functioning rather than that it is only the persistence of a vestigial organ which during the course of evolution has outgrown its original use.
To summarize: The pineal gland secretion (1) prevents a too early sex development in the child, and thereby promotes normal puberty; (2) it favors activity of the creative force, which tends to develop both the brain and the organs of reproduction normally; (3) it gives the vigor which tones up the muscles; (4) it influences the body by varying the degree of light ray reaction; that is, it controls the susceptibility of the body to light; (5) it influences the skin pigment by causing a marked transparency of it due to a contraction of the pigment cells.
Taken from: The Mystery of the Ductless Glands by Max Heindel, Chapter 7 Essay Ch.'s 5-8
Helps when you do some research:)
Anyway, you fail to explain the age of mammals and why it lasted 65 mil. years.
Proof is the essence of truth, or it's only a theory based on faith.
Or a denser atmosphere... a denser atmosphere would have a higher cnocentration of required gasses, including oxygen, and would also supply more requirements for a smaller heart and organs...
not necessarily less gravity, just denser atmosphere, which would be easier on muscles, plus higher concentration of oxygen and longer life spans...
..any FPS game out there right now? Why doesn't someone attempt at recreating one or more of the Myst maps in UT or Q3 format? They could make for some great deathmatch mods or teamplay maps... would be smoother and more people could enjoy a possibly higher framerate with all the movement functionality (for mr.'I need my strafe ability!')...
HTML is not a programming language; it is a markup language. Huge difference. Yes, sorry, shouldn't have phrased it like that:) it is a markup language and not programming in it's strict sense. Generally, you are programming the browser to interpret the code and send results to the client, and should be treated as a programming language. Web browser implementors are free to choose which tags to support, and to degrade gracefully when unsupported tags are encountered. This is a too-often-forgotten but fundamental feature of HTML and the Web This too is true... however, a good browser is considered as one which complies with the standards and has option for it's own unique enhancements, without degrading standard content or making it difficult for the 'programmers' to make a standard page which should work on all browsers. With HTML, the content is supposed to be nominally readable even when all tags have been stripped. This is not analogous to C code, wherein if all of the "code" were stripped, we would be left with nothing but comments, in what would be a thoroughly useless -- and utterly uncompilable -- program This is true. But if you look at the underlying code of html, the browsers are what determine what happens when an unknown function is found. Because this is (and should be) standard to HTML, it can be considered part of the HTML language - just as you use include files in C which contain underlying code which tell what certain functions do, the 'include' files in HTML are what tell it what to do when it doesn't know what to do. The difference is that Netscape ignores unknown code and all associated with it in order to avoid bugs that may appears as a result, which follows standards, and in ways makes it much easier to code for a general audience on multiple platforms and OS's. IE on the other hand takes unknown code and interpolates what it may mean in order to display the most likely result if it understands, otherwise it returns the error. Both cases are good in certain cases. But for general public, if your target market contains all systems, Netscape is the better choice for development because it follows (more closely) to the standards and lets people know whether or not it is correct syntax. While if they chose to include code that continues to display the best result, it may increase popularity among the general non-developing public, it's far better for the coders so they don't get sloppy in coding and have to keep coming back to fix bugs that get reported by scattered individuals on systems (if they're using standard supported client software). That's the whole point behind standards - if the code is standard and the client is standard, and there's still a bug, you know it has to be a programming fault. It also means that you don't need to code duplicate functions that slightly differ for every instance of a 'version' of a standard client. Standards should be the same on all systems, and enhancements should be known and used at the developers discretion depending on their target audience.
The problem here isn't that MS introduces new innovations, the problem is that functionality that exists (or should exist) between all browser equally is slightly different, forcing developers to have to code applications twice or more.
If MS decides to 'innovate', all power to them - we still have a choice to use it or not. But if they make their own version of a function with no support for the standard, that's what screws people up.
Take this - HTML is a Programming Language. How many C programmers do you see having to allow for slight differences in compilers? C is C, it IS the standard. That should be the same with HTML.
Plus, as Netscape does, a compiler will NOT compile a program if there is a slight flaw in the structure or syntax of a program. Netscape ignores anything that has any contact with a bug in the code - for example, tables without correct syntax... this is the way it should be. Even to the point of warning the person viewing the page that there is a bug in the code.
Ideally, each browser SHOULD be equipped with a standards compliance algorythm that checks all code, THEN debugs 'enhanced' features that are unique to browsers... and I mean each browser, to legally be released as a web browser, should implement this standard module, perhaps released by the W3C. How about that? Comments?
The one thing that keeps getting to me is why people worry about losing rights when you're being protected?
Why worry unless you're doing something wrong?
I could care less if the government monitors my every move, traces my steps or asks for information about me... I have nothing to worry about! What could they find? I have full freedom, all my rights to free speech, I don't do anything illegal... I would love to have someone watch over, with the same security, other people who I don't have time or knowledge to cover my rear.
I'm happy with security as long as the security they give is legitimate (ie in the ends does not end up in the wrong hands or harmful in any way). If I find the security is faulty, I'll speak up, find another source of safety or join the masses against bad leadership/government.
I won't go out demanding complete privacy and freedom to do what I want, because I know if everyone had that ability, this world would be one massive hell hole of crime, paranoia and chaos... think in bigger terms, not 'why should I be stopped doing this because -my- intentions at least are good'... if your intentions are good, then why worry about divulging necessary information for security reasons, if the enforcer is legitimate, and everyone must go through the same procedure to ensure safety?
sheesh people, security and privacy is good, but do not expect full coverage and to still remain in a sane, safe world!
I think with those long drawn out attack runs Cruise made, from what I gathered he was around a corner and thought ahead that the guy was there... like with the pidgeons, he was around a corner and saw them take off, realizing it would cause a commotion, and the bad guy saw it, but (of course) didn't think much over suspicion about it, so Cruise took the long quick run and jumped around the corner, and smashed his face... the other ones I got the same impressions you did, but I was in the grey about whether it was a completely visible run or not...
According to sightcouns.com, all they offer are one time downloads. You download the file (EXE which becomes an ASF video), which takes the 15-20 mins broadband, and you have the file as long as you want it. Whenever you want to watch the movie or whatever it is you downloaded, it prompts you for payment information (credit card, o course) which is verified over SSL and the ASF becomes viewable for a set period of time until it becomes disabled.
This is currently how their system works... for big name movies like they were talking about, who knows if they'll think of something new.
I'm just waiting for someone to hack the encryption or expirey checks so you just need to download the video, run the crack, and you've got it.
Even then I can see people 'defending' the bootlegged ASFs they get off the net, saying they purchased the download. I dunno...
I agree that this is too early for the net though... not enough interest, and the quality of video still isn't good. Now that we have DVD, and NO PLACE will stream dvd quality video for years at least, it's not really worth the download of a large video file, especially when you have to pay for it.
Storage is the other big issue. So many people have movie collections over 100's... how many people have 30GB spare for video storage?
I can see however, from the legal lines, something like this taking off for a company like SightSound.com. If their service costs them nothing, and they sell their product, they're making money, and they won't care if they get pirated. And especially if it is made illegal for the files to be pirated, they'll have the law behind them. - They can make money with no worries whatsoever.
All in all, we'll just have to see where things go with it...
You don't like Slashdot.. Slashdot doesn't like you. No-body forces you to come here and pull your "sand in the vaseline". And yet still you are here. Why is this we ask? hmm look at that hotmal address.. who pays your bills??
If you hail Open Source so much because it gives everyone a say in the result, then how could you get defensive when someone criticizes something about Slashdot? Are you saying you feel like cutting off everyone who has something negative to say about it? Now that's open...
So anyone with a good/bad word for anything/you/ consider worthwhile deserves flaming... Personally, I believed the/. story when it started. As soon as the update came out that it was a non-issue, I knew things like this would errupt.
1) Give/. a break for posting stories as they come... 2)/., be more careful about the 'opinions' expressed in the articles, cuz of something changes, it can come back and slap you in the face...
This is yet another example of a piece of "amazing" new technology which net magazines like Wired love to write about. They are always promising something which is a "quantum leap" ahead of current technology, but it's always 5 years down the line. And then, 5 years later do we see this? No, it's just more of the same.
What is it about the net that encourages these places to publish this sort of rubbish?
So what about Popular Science? The point behind tech magazines and tech news, at least personally, I like to see new ideas and innovations, whether or not they will be successful in a few years.
One of the things I think contribute to the notion that this stuff isn't successful is simply because by the time is does come around, so much more has been improve that it doesn't seem like a big leap... -- ever wonder why someone who hasn't seen you for 10 years is struck by 'how much you've grown', and yet the person you've known since then notices nothing? It's perception...
Right now, anything 5 years down the road seems almost too good to be true. When we get there, it's either been done to death or we've slowly got to the point where it's no big deal, and we forget how good it was when we first heard about it.
I say good work Slashdot, I/we love to see new technologies posted as news, simply because it encourages inspiration, creativity, ideas and enlightenment.
>Really now, please name one software product EVER that has been bug-free.
Ever see hello.c?:)
It's interesting, none-the-less... you could technically consider a bug the inability to handle an event associated with the program, no? If someone opens the program and changes a byte which causes a malfunction in the program, that could be considered a bug...
Theoretically, the bottom line is you could never have a truly bug free program. A truly bug free program would be able to catch any change to itself and correct the problem before an error occurs. Beyond invalid variable values, what if someone changes the name of a function? What if a virus infects the application? Essentially, you could consider the program to have a bug if it couldn't handle and/or correct a predictable fault...
Wake the FUCK up!!! Netscape was around and becoming the market leader before M$ even heard of the Internet. M$ made IE free (dumping is the term) to displace Netscape. Classically illegal behavior.
Umm... try reading is whole message. That's exactly what he was saying!
Slashdot Mirror
This teacher needs to be disciplined, maybe not for making the joke that got misinterpreted, but for not taking responsibility for it.
Exactly, I completely agree... my point was just that their decision of suspending the student I believe was a just decision... it's not like he did something illegal, just against school rules, whether he was given 'virtual' permission or not... the teacher should take responsibility for it or be punished, yes, but suspension I think is isn't that harsh a punishment for the student anyway...
So yes, do something about the teacher, but don't say the student didn't deserve the consequence...
Yes but in your analogy, the banker also took charge of the alarm company in question, speaking for it when it couldn't know any less. By saying the alarm company will reward the winner, he steps out of bounds of his authority (or presumed authority) as banker/manager and lies (even if jokingly) about the actions of the alarm company. And should be held accountable for that.
This teacher essentially did the same thing, saying that the software company would reward the winner, and that he wanted %10 of the cut... so yes, he should be held responsible.
HOWEVER, the student, if common sense is not alien to him, should have realized that the dare, being posed against an active and private system, was not a - 'go ahead and hack the school, all of you, and start whenever you feel like it, for this reward'...
it was like announcing, say, plans for building a new gym. They wouldn't say go ahead and play some basketball before the construction is finished, and they wouldn't say not to go play basketball before it's done either. It's common sense that you would wait until it's done before using it, especially if there's red tape around it saying 'caution - under construction'.
The teacher talked about a dare in class for a sensitive system that was in use by the school. On his side, it was a joke, so he wouldn't say to ask him beforehand to take up the challenge. But from the student end, that wasn't an open invitation for any student in the class to go hack crazy on the school. He should have realized that he should have asked or notified the teacher, if anyone, that he was going to attempt the dare. The nature of the dare wasn't just a teacher giving out a homework assignment.
I still think both the teacher and the student should be punished accordingly. Don't give out dares that are unfounded (and untruthful), and don't accept a sensitive dare where those you affect aren't restricted to the giver of the dare, or you could be asking for trouble. It's common sense...
On a larger scale, it's like creditcards.com - they were essentially saying, even with just their name, we've got the best security and no one hack it! It's just inviting hacker's to break in... for bad intentions and good... if the good guy gets through, how would they know if their intentions were good or not? They didn't ok the guy to hack their system so they'd know about it, so they're gonna charge the hacker. It's common sense - he should have called the company to say - hey guys, I'm gonna try to hack your site, here's my info so you know I'm legit. Otherwise, you just know there's gonna be problems.
Agreed :) I actually was guiding my teacher through most of her comp-sci classes... we were both learning, but I had more of that natural programmer grasp and state of mind... she asked for suggestions on where to go and what to teach :) that's the fun of being a good student...
:)
computer skill and programming/hacking are mostly natural traits of a person... you can only learn so much, then it's up to you, your desire to keep going and improving.
But don't ignore, as you put it, your school and surroundings... be a part of it and help it, or it'll fear you
Teachers conspiring against displiked students? Come on... I was one of the best (if not the best) computer students in my year and a within a couple years in highschool... I never once got in trouble for anything computer / security related. Why? Because I didn't do anything with my skills that would be looked upon as a security risk or hazardous to a system by teachers or anyone else who may be in charge, whether they knew what they were talking about or not.
I think the teacher should own up to the challenge he posed, but get real, the student being innocent because he hacked a system on a dare that was given by someone who didn't have the right to issue the dare?
'This kid' should have gone to the system administrator or someone in charge - not going behind someone's back - even letting the teacher know he was going to take him up on the dare - and got permission before doing anything that could be seen as a threat.
If you want to be a 'good' hacker, or a praised and intelligent computer person, you have to do things in a way that people will see as friendly, not possibly threatening. Otherwise it's called Infamy... famous bad guys... or good guys with a bad rap, and no one (apart from other good bad guys) is sympathetic to his cause.
MHO, hopefully he's learned his lesson. BOTH of them. Teachers shouldn't give out uninformed challenges or dares that they aren't willing to account for, otherwise have some guts take responsibility for an unforseen success. Students, if your intentions are good, TELL someone before you carry out your intentions! It's common sense people, really...
So what's this little guy's pressure point?
Molten Lava? (I can just see the terminator's dying wish as he's melting away, holding his pet mouse in the air... now there's a tear jerker!)
Right now, I respect IP laws. I don't trade in warez, I ripped all my mp3's from my own CDs. But that's not because I think the reasoning behind IP is valid. It's because I've agreed to live in the United States, and part of that agreement is abiding by laws whether I agree with them or not.
Exactly... the law is there for good reason... people who abuse the law are to blame. IP copyright should be a choice by the creator, and respected by the consumer. Just because YOU don't think it's worth money to buy yourself doesn't mean you should uphold that person's belief that it is.
I mean hey, if you don't think it's worth it, and you want it free, make it yourself. You want free software or music cuz you don't want to pay for it, get the (C) holders to change their position on copyright. If they see that no one is buying it, they'll see what they can do to embrace the 'free' movement. Don't rip people off because you don't think they deserve what they're asking. If it's worth ripping off, it's worth paying for, somehow.
IP and copyright laws should be up to the true owner. If someone wants to release something free, all power to them. If someone doesn't, respect that. If no one buys their product, maybe they'll understand and give up or embrace the movement. Just don't start a rebellious movement against laws that are put in place to protect people's rights of freedom. Freedom includes the freedom of choice to sell wares and be compensated and backed by law, not that you should get all your wares for free if you simply don't want to pay for it.
Respect people's business decisions, it is after all, their life and their decisions. If business isn't working by their decisions, they'll change to reflect the market.
If the market is in freeware, they'll find some way to continue making money from another source. Just don't rip their hard work off if they want compensation. That's what the law is for.
For things like the RIAA, sure, there could be abuse in their decision... so find a way to change their decisions without breaking the law... embrace music that is free by the creator's choice, so those that aren't free will see they're not making money and change... be smart not rebellious.
the first time we have had direct evidence for the hypothesis that comets seed life on other planets
:) It's still a hypothesis, no? Perhaps they've found supporting data, but not evidence.
:)
Direct evidence for a hypothesis huh? What good is that?
Basically it's hypothetical evidence... an oxymoron if you will, they cannot exist in the same reference...
That's all for my annoying corrections
Actually, the video they have linked from the story above is the video of the P3 Honda robot... The story is about the Sony robot which is 19.7 inches tall. The P3 is 120cm, depicted in the video.
/.'s article talks about the Honda robot, but links to the Sony article... there's a link there to jump to the honda article - which should have been what /. linked too...
They could have done a better job organizing or explaining it. I was wondering too, since
<shrug> what kin ya do?
Thanks, no I realize that's not a fully scientific reasoning for the existence of dinosaurs during man's. It's a very minimal explanation. The Creation/Evolution debate is one of my favourite topics and I'm always open to new scientific evidence. I, for one, am very factual, and the way I can see anyone being convinced without a doubt is through true scientific method and evidence, otherwise it's a matter of faith either way <gasp> :)
Think, how can one pop one's ears by holding one's nose while attempting to exhale if the cavities aren't connected
You can look at that two ways - that pop is our body equalizing pressure. The connection may be there so that our inner pressure can be equalized based on the enrvironment we're present in. It doesn't prove that ears evolved from gills...
Sorry, here's another thing about dinosaurs & man...
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.
Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.
Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.
However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.
"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.
There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science
From 17 Evidences Against Evolution by Kevin Martin, #12
Article Again, research helps. I'm a middleman, I'm not saying either way, I'm just looking for complete arguments/theories from both sides. Personally I'm believing less and less on the large-scale universal history theories.
To answer your comment about the pineal gland, read this, or go to the website linked below.
:)
The pineal gland is most astonishing in its nature. As its name implies, it is a cone-shaped body (Conarium pinealis, pine cone). It is reddish in color, about a half inch in length, and not much larger than a grain of wheat. It is attached to the roof of the third ventricle of the brain. It weighs about two grains. It is hidden away at the base of the brain (to which it is attached by the hollow pineal stalk) in a tiny cave behind and above the pituitary body. it is composed, in part, of nerve cells containing a pigment similar to that present in the cells of the retina which is an expression of the optic nerve-- this strengthening the argument for its ancient function as an eye. The lower part of the gland points backward.
The secretion of the pineal gland, called pinealin, acts as a restrictor for all the glands of internal secretion. By its checking activity on the other endocrine glands, it gives the baby time to grow in bulk, which is its chief business during the first two years of its existence. during these two years the baby should quadruple its birth weight. The pineal acts as a sort of general supervisor over all of the other glands.
The accepted belief of the nineteenth century anatomists was that the pineal gland was a useless, wasteful, space-consuming vestige of a once important structure. For a long time, in fact, up to a few decades ago, the pineal was believed to have no present function at all, or at least no ascertainable one. That it might be a gland of internal secretion was a popularly despised theory. Late observations, however, have related the pineal to muscle function. There is a singular muscle shrinking and deforming disease, known as "progressive dystrophy," the cause of which has been an unsolved mystery to the medical profession. By means of the X-rays, late studies of the pineal in relation to this disease have shown it calcified, that is, buried in lime salts, which signifies that where it is weak, or no longer functioning, the muscles do not receive the proper amount of nourishment.
It has further been discovered that the pineal regulates the coloring of the skin by varying the degree of light ray reaction. That is, it controls the action of light on the pigment of the skin. It is the light within that reflects the light without.
The pineal also produces the normal physical and mental development of the brain cells and the normal development of the cells of the organs of reproduction. The rich blood supply of the pineal is suggestive of its active functioning rather than that it is only the persistence of a vestigial organ which during the course of evolution has outgrown its original use.
To summarize: The pineal gland secretion (1) prevents a too early sex development in the child, and thereby promotes normal puberty; (2) it favors activity of the creative force, which tends to develop both the brain and the organs of reproduction normally; (3) it gives the vigor which tones up the muscles; (4) it influences the body by varying the degree of light ray reaction; that is, it controls the susceptibility of the body to light; (5) it influences the skin pigment by causing a marked transparency of it due to a contraction of the pigment cells.
Taken from: The Mystery of the Ductless Glands by Max Heindel, Chapter 7
Essay Ch.'s 5-8 Helps when you do some research
Anyway, you fail to explain the age of mammals and why it lasted 65 mil. years.
Proof is the essence of truth, or it's only a theory based on faith.
Or a denser atmosphere... a denser atmosphere would have a higher cnocentration of required gasses, including oxygen, and would also supply more requirements for a smaller heart and organs...
not necessarily less gravity, just denser atmosphere, which would be easier on muscles, plus higher concentration of oxygen and longer life spans...
possibility?
..any FPS game out there right now? Why doesn't someone attempt at recreating one or more of the Myst maps in UT or Q3 format? They could make for some great deathmatch mods or teamplay maps... would be smoother and more people could enjoy a possibly higher framerate with all the movement functionality (for mr.'I need my strafe ability!')...
I'd love to see that!
ANyone happen to have a video version of the GTS2U tech demo? I would love to see that sharky swimming around in full glory!
Sorry, forgot all the BR tags :) argh!
HTML is not a programming language; it is a markup language. Huge difference. Yes, sorry, shouldn't have phrased it like that :) it is a markup language and not programming in it's strict sense. Generally, you are programming the browser to interpret the code and send results to the client, and should be treated as a programming language. Web browser implementors are free to choose which tags to support, and to degrade gracefully when unsupported tags are encountered. This is a too-often-forgotten but fundamental feature of HTML and the Web This too is true... however, a good browser is considered as one which complies with the standards and has option for it's own unique enhancements, without degrading standard content or making it difficult for the 'programmers' to make a standard page which should work on all browsers. With HTML, the content is supposed to be nominally readable even when all tags have been stripped. This is not analogous to C code, wherein if all of the "code" were stripped, we would be left with nothing but comments, in what would be a thoroughly useless -- and utterly uncompilable -- program This is true. But if you look at the underlying code of html, the browsers are what determine what happens when an unknown function is found. Because this is (and should be) standard to HTML, it can be considered part of the HTML language - just as you use include files in C which contain underlying code which tell what certain functions do, the 'include' files in HTML are what tell it what to do when it doesn't know what to do. The difference is that Netscape ignores unknown code and all associated with it in order to avoid bugs that may appears as a result, which follows standards, and in ways makes it much easier to code for a general audience on multiple platforms and OS's. IE on the other hand takes unknown code and interpolates what it may mean in order to display the most likely result if it understands, otherwise it returns the error. Both cases are good in certain cases. But for general public, if your target market contains all systems, Netscape is the better choice for development because it follows (more closely) to the standards and lets people know whether or not it is correct syntax. While if they chose to include code that continues to display the best result, it may increase popularity among the general non-developing public, it's far better for the coders so they don't get sloppy in coding and have to keep coming back to fix bugs that get reported by scattered individuals on systems (if they're using standard supported client software). That's the whole point behind standards - if the code is standard and the client is standard, and there's still a bug, you know it has to be a programming fault. It also means that you don't need to code duplicate functions that slightly differ for every instance of a 'version' of a standard client. Standards should be the same on all systems, and enhancements should be known and used at the developers discretion depending on their target audience.
The problem here isn't that MS introduces new innovations, the problem is that functionality that exists (or should exist) between all browser equally is slightly different, forcing developers to have to code applications twice or more.
... this is the way it should be. Even to the point of warning the person viewing the page that there is a bug in the code.
If MS decides to 'innovate', all power to them - we still have a choice to use it or not. But if they make their own version of a function with no support for the standard, that's what screws people up.
Take this - HTML is a Programming Language. How many C programmers do you see having to allow for slight differences in compilers? C is C, it IS the standard. That should be the same with HTML.
Plus, as Netscape does, a compiler will NOT compile a program if there is a slight flaw in the structure or syntax of a program. Netscape ignores anything that has any contact with a bug in the code - for example, tables without correct syntax
Ideally, each browser SHOULD be equipped with a standards compliance algorythm that checks all code, THEN debugs 'enhanced' features that are unique to browsers... and I mean each browser, to legally be released as a web browser, should implement this standard module, perhaps released by the W3C. How about that? Comments?
The one thing that keeps getting to me is why people worry about losing rights when you're being protected?
Why worry unless you're doing something wrong?
I could care less if the government monitors my every move, traces my steps or asks for information about me... I have nothing to worry about! What could they find? I have full freedom, all my rights to free speech, I don't do anything illegal... I would love to have someone watch over, with the same security, other people who I don't have time or knowledge to cover my rear.
I'm happy with security as long as the security they give is legitimate (ie in the ends does not end up in the wrong hands or harmful in any way). If I find the security is faulty, I'll speak up, find another source of safety or join the masses against bad leadership/government.
I won't go out demanding complete privacy and freedom to do what I want, because I know if everyone had that ability, this world would be one massive hell hole of crime, paranoia and chaos... think in bigger terms, not 'why should I be stopped doing this because -my- intentions at least are good'... if your intentions are good, then why worry about divulging necessary information for security reasons, if the enforcer is legitimate, and everyone must go through the same procedure to ensure safety?
sheesh people, security and privacy is good, but do not expect full coverage and to still remain in a sane, safe world!
JM2CW...
I think with those long drawn out attack runs Cruise made, from what I gathered he was around a corner and thought ahead that the guy was there... like with the pidgeons, he was around a corner and saw them take off, realizing it would cause a commotion, and the bad guy saw it, but (of course) didn't think much over suspicion about it, so Cruise took the long quick run and jumped around the corner, and smashed his face... the other ones I got the same impressions you did, but I was in the grey about whether it was a completely visible run or not...
According to sightcouns.com, all they offer are one time downloads. You download the file (EXE which becomes an ASF video), which takes the 15-20 mins broadband, and you have the file as long as you want it. Whenever you want to watch the movie or whatever it is you downloaded, it prompts you for payment information (credit card, o course) which is verified over SSL and the ASF becomes viewable for a set period of time until it becomes disabled.
This is currently how their system works... for big name movies like they were talking about, who knows if they'll think of something new.
I'm just waiting for someone to hack the encryption or expirey checks so you just need to download the video, run the crack, and you've got it.
Even then I can see people 'defending' the bootlegged ASFs they get off the net, saying they purchased the download. I dunno...
I agree that this is too early for the net though... not enough interest, and the quality of video still isn't good. Now that we have DVD, and NO PLACE will stream dvd quality video for years at least, it's not really worth the download of a large video file, especially when you have to pay for it.
Storage is the other big issue. So many people have movie collections over 100's... how many people have 30GB spare for video storage?
I can see however, from the legal lines, something like this taking off for a company like SightSound.com. If their service costs them nothing, and they sell their product, they're making money, and they won't care if they get pirated. And especially if it is made illegal for the files to be pirated, they'll have the law behind them. - They can make money with no worries whatsoever.
All in all, we'll just have to see where things go with it...
You don't like Slashdot.. Slashdot doesn't like you. No-body forces you to come here and pull your "sand in the vaseline". And yet still you are here. Why is this we ask? hmm look at that hotmal address.. who pays your bills??
/you/ consider worthwhile deserves flaming... Personally, I believed the /. story when it started. As soon as the update came out that it was a non-issue, I knew things like this would errupt.
/. a break for posting stories as they come... /., be more careful about the 'opinions' expressed in the articles, cuz of something changes, it can come back and slap you in the face...
If you hail Open Source so much because it gives everyone a say in the result, then how could you get defensive when someone criticizes something about Slashdot? Are you saying you feel like cutting off everyone who has something negative to say about it? Now that's open...
So anyone with a good/bad word for anything
1) Give
2)
This is yet another example of a piece of "amazing" new technology which net magazines like Wired love to write about. They are always promising something which is a "quantum leap" ahead of current technology, but it's always 5 years down the line. And then, 5 years later do we see this? No, it's just more of the same.
What is it about the net that encourages these places to publish this sort of rubbish?
So what about Popular Science? The point behind tech magazines and tech news, at least personally, I like to see new ideas and innovations, whether or not they will be successful in a few years.
One of the things I think contribute to the notion that this stuff isn't successful is simply because by the time is does come around, so much more has been improve that it doesn't seem like a big leap... -- ever wonder why someone who hasn't seen you for 10 years is struck by 'how much you've grown', and yet the person you've known since then notices nothing? It's perception...
Right now, anything 5 years down the road seems almost too good to be true. When we get there, it's either been done to death or we've slowly got to the point where it's no big deal, and we forget how good it was when we first heard about it.
I say good work Slashdot, I/we love to see new technologies posted as news, simply because it encourages inspiration, creativity, ideas and enlightenment.
>Really now, please name one software product EVER that has been bug-free.
:)
:)
Ever see hello.c?
It's interesting, none-the-less... you could technically consider a bug the inability to handle an event associated with the program, no? If someone opens the program and changes a byte which causes a malfunction in the program, that could be considered a bug...
Theoretically, the bottom line is you could never have a truly bug free program. A truly bug free program would be able to catch any change to itself and correct the problem before an error occurs. Beyond invalid variable values, what if someone changes the name of a function? What if a virus infects the application? Essentially, you could consider the program to have a bug if it couldn't handle and/or correct a predictable fault...
too deep for me right now... back to work
Wake the FUCK up!!!
Netscape was around and becoming the market leader before M$ even heard of the Internet. M$ made IE free (dumping is the term) to displace Netscape. Classically illegal behavior.
Umm... try reading is whole message. That's exactly what he was saying!