I took my widesreen edition VHS tapes, worked around the macrovision protection and made my own DVDs of the original trilogy. Sure the quality is not that great (compared to other DVDs, that is), but they don't wear out from repeated viewings (and they are only for my own personal use, so I consider them fair use under copyright law). If I wanted the Special Edition movies on DVD, I would have already bought them on eBay. I imagine I'll end up buying this set for the extras, because I've always wanted to see the scenes left on the cutting room floor, especially for Episode 4.
I only play FPS games online every once in a while. When I started out, I learned some useful fundamental skills that still allow me to have fun even though I'm never the best player on the server.
In general, I will echo some comments already made: (1) if you are just starting out, don't assume excellent players are cheating; chances are, they are just much better than you. (2) Don't be intimidated. And don't be afraid to suck, because you will suck mightily for a long time. (3) It's probably not a good idea to play round-based games at first, because you will spend a lot of frustrating time waiting for the round to end if (when) you are the first person to get killed.
More specifically, if you need to buff up your aiming, dodging and moving skills, play Quake 3 against the bots on the second hardest difficulty level until you are consistently winning the map. You just need to build up your twitch-gaming skills.
If you want to play C-S, here are some specific tips to help you avoid common newbie mistakes:
(1) Concentrate on staying alive, not racking up kills. Don't lead the rush into a hail of bullets. You learn a lot more by staying alive through a whole round than you do trying to get one kill right away and then waiting out most of the round after dying in the first rush. Plus you can actually learn your way around the map.
(2) Contrary to your instinct, don't bother playing with other beginners. You will learn more playing with advanced players, because your mistakes will be punished and your good habits will be reinforced. If you only play against bad players, you will only develop bad habits.
(3) Use headphones, unless you have a top-notch surround-sound speaker set-up. With headphones you can get a better sense of directional sound. It makes it easier to locate people by the sound of their footsteps or gunfire.
(4) Use controlled, 1-3 bullet bursts. You can stand right next to a guy, and if you empty your clip at him in a long continuous burst, there's a good chance he will blow your head off before you kill him (I have seen this happen, and it has happened to me).
(5) Learn to compensate for recoil. The easiest way to get used to recoil is with the AK-47. With the Ak, aim at your enemy's upper chest and fire a short, 3-bullet burst. You'll find that the third bullet will most likely be a headshot.
(6) Learn the Buy menu. Don't worry if everyone is long gone by the time you finish buying your gear in your first few rounds. Once you figure it out, you'll be ready to go with the team.
(7) Don't use the sniper rifles. Just don't bother. You don't learn anything by hiding and trying to pick off targets from a distance.
There are probably other steps that you can take, but start with disputing the charge through your credit card company. I have done this myself: I filled out a form explaining the situation and presenting my receipts (you don't have a physical receipt, unfortunately), and then let the credit card company take it from there. Make sure that when you dispute the charge that you do not have to pay it until the situation is resolved. If you pay up front, the chances of getting your money back are a lot less than if you just keep your money straight off. The benefit of taking this route is that the problem becomes the credit card company's to solve, not yours.
Of course, my situation was a little different: I was clearly overcharged for a bus ticket. Your situation isn't quite as clear cut, because Microsoft was authorized to keep charging your credit card, and the terms of service for XBox Live probably lay the onus on you to cancel at the right time to avoid charges. But if you can make this your credit card company's problem, so much the better for you.
While somewhat interesting to see what made it, what didn't, and what Jackson made up in his adaptation, this list is basically really annoying. Why can't some people just enjoy a good movie instead of complaining that it wasn't what they wanted? Before even the first movie was released, Jackson was pretty plain about the fact that things were changed, so if the diehard Tolkien fan that made this list couldn't bear to see the "sacred" words of Tolkien altered, why did he bother seeing the movies at all?
Training mice to be astronauts
on
Mice In Space
·
· Score: 1
Can someone explain to me why humans must be specifically trained to become accustomed to experiencing the high g-forces generated during lift-off, but we can dump a bunch of everyday lab mice into a capsule and shoot them up to space without worrying about any ill-effects for the mice?
I mean, I understand that these people couldn't care less about the mice, but surely they must have some confidence that the mice will reach orbit safely in order to conduct the experiment. Could mice survive as many G's as a human?
You're right, and it's a shame. I loved the first three movies with a passion. Despite a lot of the obvious flaws in the first three movies, I used to see all these useful little life lessons in them that I felt were overwhelmingly profound (for example, getting angry over your problems doesn't solve them and only hurts you in the end).
I still have those little attachments to the first three movies, but in a more nostalgic sense, like "Remember when these movies used to mean something to me?" I can't even watch them anymore, because parts that I thought were cool are now just hollow (example: who cares what Yoda says about the force in ESB--Luke: "I can't believe it!" Yoda: "That is why you fail."--when we now know that the force is merely a genetic artifact).
I've tried hard to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt on the prequels, but, if I am totally honest with myself, I have to admit that the prequel movies stink. It would be great if I could just pretend that the prequels don't exist, but they have forever altered my preception of the original trilogy. I'll go see Episode III, and I'll be excited, but I have given up hope that it will redeem the whole series for me. I can't imagine that the hypothetical Episodes 7, 8, and 9 could ever redeem the series either.
The moral of the story, part 2: people in authority act prematurely and arbitrarily on too little information (i.e., they are stupid). A valuable lesson, but one of the most frustrating things for an intelligent kid in elementary/middle/high school.
Re:Voting doesn't matter, nor do presidents.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Your point is a good one, but consider that the President does matter when he belongs to the same party as the majority of both Houses of Congress. This situation is where we find ourselves now, and the Republicans can do just about anything they want (although they haven't been universally successful, but I guess that's because some ideas are just too lousy to succeed). Who the President is doesn't matter so much as which party he belongs to and which party dominates Congress. We are much better off with a split government (one party controls the Executive branch, the other controls the Legislature), because then compromise is virtually assured. When one party controls both those branches, they just ram their ideas down everyone else's throats like there's no tomorrow. I don't care if the President is a Republican, as long as the Congress is dominated by the Democrats, and vice versa.
Not all who are opposed to certain kinds of stem cell research are religious fanatics. I am an atheist (almost an anti-theist), and I, for one, cannot condone creating an embryo for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells from it. Read that previous sentence carefully, before you flame me. Sole purpose. Embryoes left over from attempted in vitro fertilization should be used for stem cell research. As I understand it, the "leftover" embryoes will continue to be created whether scientists use them for stem cell research or not. To destroy them would be wasted opportunity, and the benefits of stem cell research are too promising to waste. However, I do not believe that humans should have the hubris to create the beginnings of human life solely to harvest it for scientific research. That first step sets up a long slide down the slippery slope to genetically engineered "drone humans" and a caste system organized on the basis of genetic predetermination. This debate is not just about science and religion, but it is also about liberty and freedom, and how we can enjoy them.
The stuff that made it better: (1) The deliberate connection to 9/11 was pulled off remarkably well. The utter despair was apparent and believable. This dark theme was the strongest and most compelling aspect of the show. (2) Good character development and relationships. (3) Strong overall plot and story writing. (4) Good technology design.
The stuff that kept it from being great: (1) Missile contrails in space. (2) Violation of the law of inertia (objects in space going in one direction that suddenly lose power would not begin to float randomly but would keep drifting in the same direction until propelled in another direction by something else). (3) Poor acting overall (although some performances were quite good). (4) Unimaginative dialogue.
Overall, I'd continue to watch a regular series provided that the story and production values kept up the same standard.
I bought this model used when I started my photography hobby about nine or ten years ago. It still works wonderfully. The camera can operate entirely manually or on aperture priority (you set the aperture, the camera chooses the right shutterspeed). You should be able to find one for around $200 with a basic 50mm lens (I bought mine for about $250, and I figure they are less expensive now with all the other options out there), and lenses are readily available on eBay (and are inexpensive).
I highly recommend a fully manual camera (focus, aperture, and shutterspeed) for a beginner. You can take great pictures with automatic cameras, but you won't know why or how you did it. I also recommend The Basic Book of Photography by Tom Grimm (check Amazon). I have an older (1970s) edition of this book, and it has been invaluable in learning and understanding f-stops and exposure. My last recommendation: take a little notebook with you and write down how and why you took every shot. There is no other way to figure out why some shots are successful and some aren't, because you will not remember what you did or why after you get your film developed. One more thing: take tons of photographs.
As an alternative to the Minolta, search eBay for a Rollei SL35. It's a fully manual camera with an old-style needle light meter (you center the needle along the side of the viewfinder to get the exposure). You might want to read up a bit on this camera before getting one, because it uses an older battery that can be hard to find these days. However, the SL35 generally comes with an outstanding lens (Carl Zeiss, 1.8 or 1.4, I think). People love the camera for its simplicity and good construction and its great lens. I have seen them sell on eBay for around $150.00, pretty consistently.
If you want an automatic SLR, I recommend the Minolta Maxxum 5, which is my second SLR. You should be able to find it in the $250-350 range depending on which lens(es) comes with it. It is small, light, easy to use, has lots of useful functions, can be switched to completely manual, completely automatic, shutter priority, or aperture priority. It uses a very advanced autofocus and metering system for a camera in its price range.
Re:Same rules for everyone . . .
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
To expand on this post: the purpose of the discovery system is to force some fairness into litigation. The modern discovery system (i.e., the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--the rules that govern how a case proceeds in federal court) derives from a basic principle: the best place to get evidence is directly from the original source. This principle is especially appropriate and useful in business litigation where nearly all the evidence about what happened is most likely to be found within a company's internal records. Think about it this way, IBM doesn't invite outsiders into its board meetings. IBM's decisions are made behind closed doors. So the only people who know how or why those decisions are made are the people involved. If SCO can't get the evidence directly from those people at IBM, SCO can't build a case (nevermind the fact that many people believe that SCO can't build a case anyway; SCO still has the right to try).
I agree wholeheartedly. I dislike games that have advancement systems that feel artificial. As I play a game, I get better at it. That's all the advancement I need or want. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind has a decent RPG-like advancement system: you do whatever you want, and as you do it, your character gains experience and advances. (There are some skills that don't work as well, like alchemy which requires you to sit and eat plants for an hour in order to advance.) Games that require you to do action x plus action y for 50 times in a row are not immersive and are ultimately really boring.
I didn't see any holes in this movie. "It all comes down to choice." "No one can see past the choices he doesn't understand." -- These are things we learned in Reloaded. What we really learned in Revolutions is "Everything that has a beginning, has an end."
Neo and Trinity reach their own ends, because, as Smith rightly points out, they are already supposed to be dead. You can't cheat death and get away with it (for long).
Smith reaches his end by finding his true purpose (or rather Neo finds it for him)--to be restored. When Smith died, but didn't die, he lost his grip, because he believed he no longer had a purpose. Of course, we now know that his purpose, as far as the Oracle was concerned, was to destabilize the Matrix, forcing Neo re-merge with him and take back that part of himself he overwrote onto Smith at the end of the first film.
The war reaches its end, for now. But, we also learned that there were two wars: the first war is between the Architect and the Oracle, the struggle between that part of sentience that strives for perfection and that part which strives for wisdom/knowledge/to know itself; the second war is the one between machine and human. On second thought, they are both the same war, but the "first" war is the fight writ large.
To me, the really unanswered question is this: can humans learn to live in peace with the machines. If you have seen the Animatrix, you know that it was humans inability (or unwillingness) to accept machines as brothers that lead to the start of the war and the enslavement of humanity. The Architect implies that the peace won't last. Maybe the only reason that 101 promised peace was because Neo was the first human to come forward and sacrifice himself completely (his own life and the life of the woman he loved) for the machines. The machines don't want to enslave humans, but it's rational for them to choose slavery against the option of being destroyed.
All the humans in Zion look on Neo as a messiah. But they don't know what really happened. Will they hail Neo as an avenging angel that destroyed the machine empire? Or will they offer the machines brotherhood? Will they reunite their hedonistic, intuitive, base, emotional selves with their rational and logical selves? (Remember the Animatrix again: human society fell into decadence after it invented the machines, because humans could indulge the more animalistic side of their nature.) To me, that's the ultimate question: do we use machines to abdicate our moral responsibility, or do we allow machines to enhance it?
"I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end, I came here to tell how it is going to begin. I am going to show these people what you don't want them to see. Where we go from there is up to you." That might be the most important statement in all three movies. It was never about destroying the machines. It was about reuniting with them in peace. Neo finally understood it in the end, but will any of the other unenlightened humans get it?
And for those who don't understand how Neo can retain his powers in the real world consider this: why would freeing his mind from the bounds of reality only give him power in the Matrix? Why wouldn't his mind remain free once he was unplugged? There is no clear separation between the real world and the Matrix. The Matrix is so real it can kill you, yet the real world is so mind-boggling that people seeing their ultimate dreams come true ask, "Is this real?" Once Neo frees his mind, he is free to see reality for what it is: a construct. It is all electrical impulses in our brains. Everything is a simulation, and nothing is a simulation.
A worthy end to the story, but could've been even better if it was twenty minutes shorter.
Menta should check his facts better
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Menta's article is a travesty. The Wired article reports that the cost per carat for Appollo is $5.00, not that either diamond-maker will sell their diamonds for $5.00.
Menta also tries to argue that CDs are scarce. Last I checked, I could buy CDs at WalMart, Target, the grocery store, music stores, and dozens (if not hundreds) of online stores. CDs are not scarce. Music is not scarce either, and never has been. For people who really love music, they can find it all around them, i.e., in coffee shops, bars, churches, symphonies, independent artists who distribute online, etc. The only thing scarce in the recording industry is talent.
And for the last time, exchanging copyright protected material (like an entire album), without the author's permission, with hundreds (or thousands) of people through a P2P service is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is not exactly the same thing as theft, but it is a violation of federal law, and some kinds of infringement carry criminal penalties.
Given the hypersensitive climate in the U.S. today, why would one try to build a weapon of mass destruction, just to prove it could be done. I can see it now in the CNN headline: "President Bush declared today that Bruce Simpson is a threat to national security and bombed his house."
Perhaps there is something wrong with my browser (and the images aren't appearing), but there are four major omissions: the Imperial class Star Destroyer, the Victory class Star Destroyer, and the first and second Death Stars. A little less important, but still of interest would be: the star destroyer-like ships seen in AotC, the ships of the Zentraedi fleet (I believe the flagship was about 11km long), SDF-1, SDF-2, SDF-3, the Robotech Masters mothership, the Homeworld Mothership, and the ship/underwater vessel from the Abyss.
I think CU should limit bandwidth if the costs are getting out of control. After all, I'd hate to think that my alumni donation dollars are going to pay for some pimply kid to download warez all night. My main concern, faced with that kind of cap; would be: how many hours of D2X/CS/Q3/UT2003 can I play a day? Anyone here know how much bandwidth an hour of gaming can suck up? Hmm, maybe that cap will actually help people spend more time studying and less time playing video games.
Point well made. I would like to make a suggestion to you, one that I make to everyone who says something like, "if you are a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to X scrutiny of your life." Start living in a glass house, because if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no objection to having your every movement observed.
You are correct that our consitutional right to privacy is quite limited. But the real issue is whether we have enough privacy. Prior to the explosion of "digital life" it had been nearly impossible for law enforcement (or anyone else) to track an individual's daily movements. For example, in 1985, a person really didn't have any privacy when walking into a bookstore to browse through books (it's a public space). But unless that person was being tailed, there was really no way for anyone to know which books that person was browsing through. Even though this person had no expectation of privacy in a public bookstore, he or she had anonymity. Now, in 2003, if a person browses through books on Half.com, a law enforcement officer can access a history of the browsing simply by contacting the store owner (eBay). The anonymity is gone.
Times have changed. For centuries until about a decade ago nearly every person practiced security through obscurity. We were anonymous, but anonymity is not the same thing as privacy. Now the anonymity is swiftly eroding. Suddenly, people are asking the question: do we need privacy or anonymity? Given the rapidly changing landscape of anonymity, this question is a legitimate one. Your comment that "we don't have privacy rights in our book-browsing habits anyway, so get over it" might be true, but it doesn't address the real issue here: should we. I am not here to say that we should, but only to point out that it's a question worth asking, exploring, and answering.
Actually, you're in complete control of your own life everyday when you have a job and can pay your own way. It's a bit odd that you think that sitting around and waiting for someone else to buy you a drink places you in control. And just for the record, if you read the book Fight Club, you'd realize that the book is actually highly critical of the attitude represented in that quote from the movie.
No offense, but it's obvious from your comment that you aren't a lawyer (even if you hadn't told us). Unless you have a contract (preferably written), there are no such things as the terms of your employment. There is only one term of employment for a non-contractual employee: at will. In every state in this country, the basic law is that employees serve at the will of the company. "At will" is colloquially defined as "You can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all."
Of course, times have changed and there are certain protections for employees, particularly in the form of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. As some other people here have pointed out, some states prohibit discrimination on the basis of credit history. But discrimination is not the issue here. The issue is this company has a policy of doing a credit check on all new employees. I presume that if the employee doesn't comply, the company will simply fire him for non-compliance with company policy, which actually sounds like a good reason.
From what this person wrote, it is hard to tell if he has a contract for employment. However, even if he is a "director," it is unlikely that he has a contract. The only employees that have the bargaining power to get a contract are those who are unionized or those who would hold top-level executive positions in large corporations (i.e., Teamsters and CEOs).
While you're at it, stop living in a house with opaque walls. After all, if you've nothing to hide, why not let everyone see every detail of your life?
Before I get into this comment, I want to say that I know nothing about the legal aspects of Kevin Mitnick's case, except what he has written in the interview above. I simply want to provide the Slashdot reader with some context on some of Kevin Mitnick's statements.
First, it is important to understand the plea bargaining process. A guilty plea is just that: an admission that one committed the crime of which one is accused. Once that admission of guilt is made, defenses to the commission of the crime are no longer available. For example, Kevin states that the search warrant which the police used to search his home at the time of his arrest was blank. Well, once Kevin plead guilty, the sufficiency of the warrant was no longer an issue. If he wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the search, he could not have plead guilty (well, technically he could challenge first and then offer a guilty plea if he lost, but few prosecutors would take a plea in that situation).
In addition, at the time when he plead guilty, he plead guilty to the crime, not the damages, and thus was exposed to receiving a sentence for whatever damages the prosecutor could prove by a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt) at the time of sentencing. Unfortunately for Kevin, since his sentencing the law has changed and the Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot be sentenced for, e.g., causing $300 million in damages unless the defendant plead guilty to that specific amount.
Second, he states that he was held in federal detention for four and one half years (jargon note: detention generally refers to pre-trial confinement; incarceration generally refers to what happens after conviction). Being held for that amount of time is not common, but it is also not necessarily unconstitutional. When a defendant is ajudged a threat to the community, the defendant can be held without bail for as long as it takes to resolve the case. I have seen a pre-trial detention of almost 3.5 years for a defendant who was considered to be a dangerous and violent drug dealer. I grant that multiple-year pre-trial detention is rare, but it can be justified by a great risk of harm if the defendant is released. Of course, keep in mind that the question of pre-trial detention is a matter of proof. Kevin's defense attorney (should have)* had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence to rebut the prosecution on the point of Kevin's dangerousness. The other point to keep in mind is that sometimes a defendant can be rendered not dangerous through monitoring and certain activity restrictions. It is possible that Kevin could have been released under some set of conditions, but that those conditions were so difficult to implement as to be infeasible.
*I note "should have" because Kevin claims that he was held without a bail hearing. I know nothing about that situation, so I can't definitively say that Kevin acutally had an opportunity to rebut the prosecution's evidence of his dangerousness.
Third, on a more psychological note, Kevin admits that he committed the crime, then he says that his punishment was unfair. If he had refused to plead guilty and tried his case, he might have received more punishment from a jury. This is the calculus that criminal defendants must make when deciding to plead guilty or not. Kevin might be right; he might have been treated unjustly and punished too harshly. But ask yourself: Why would anyone who believed that he had a better than 50/50 chance of beating the worst of the charges (or was convinced of his innocence) voluntarily take on any (significant) time in a federal penitentiary?
I have tried to limit the above comment to responding to direct statements made by Kevin in the interview. I am not, and none of my comment should be construed as, making any statement about Kevin as a person or a professional, what he has done, or the truth of his statements. I just wish to offer the Slashdot reader an interesting (I hope) perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
I took my widesreen edition VHS tapes, worked around the macrovision protection and made my own DVDs of the original trilogy. Sure the quality is not that great (compared to other DVDs, that is), but they don't wear out from repeated viewings (and they are only for my own personal use, so I consider them fair use under copyright law). If I wanted the Special Edition movies on DVD, I would have already bought them on eBay. I imagine I'll end up buying this set for the extras, because I've always wanted to see the scenes left on the cutting room floor, especially for Episode 4.
I only play FPS games online every once in a while. When I started out, I learned some useful fundamental skills that still allow me to have fun even though I'm never the best player on the server.
In general, I will echo some comments already made: (1) if you are just starting out, don't assume excellent players are cheating; chances are, they are just much better than you. (2) Don't be intimidated. And don't be afraid to suck, because you will suck mightily for a long time. (3) It's probably not a good idea to play round-based games at first, because you will spend a lot of frustrating time waiting for the round to end if (when) you are the first person to get killed.
More specifically, if you need to buff up your aiming, dodging and moving skills, play Quake 3 against the bots on the second hardest difficulty level until you are consistently winning the map. You just need to build up your twitch-gaming skills.
If you want to play C-S, here are some specific tips to help you avoid common newbie mistakes:
(1) Concentrate on staying alive, not racking up kills. Don't lead the rush into a hail of bullets. You learn a lot more by staying alive through a whole round than you do trying to get one kill right away and then waiting out most of the round after dying in the first rush. Plus you can actually learn your way around the map.
(2) Contrary to your instinct, don't bother playing with other beginners. You will learn more playing with advanced players, because your mistakes will be punished and your good habits will be reinforced. If you only play against bad players, you will only develop bad habits.
(3) Use headphones, unless you have a top-notch surround-sound speaker set-up. With headphones you can get a better sense of directional sound. It makes it easier to locate people by the sound of their footsteps or gunfire.
(4) Use controlled, 1-3 bullet bursts. You can stand right next to a guy, and if you empty your clip at him in a long continuous burst, there's a good chance he will blow your head off before you kill him (I have seen this happen, and it has happened to me).
(5) Learn to compensate for recoil. The easiest way to get used to recoil is with the AK-47. With the Ak, aim at your enemy's upper chest and fire a short, 3-bullet burst. You'll find that the third bullet will most likely be a headshot.
(6) Learn the Buy menu. Don't worry if everyone is long gone by the time you finish buying your gear in your first few rounds. Once you figure it out, you'll be ready to go with the team.
(7) Don't use the sniper rifles. Just don't bother. You don't learn anything by hiding and trying to pick off targets from a distance.
There are probably other steps that you can take, but start with disputing the charge through your credit card company. I have done this myself: I filled out a form explaining the situation and presenting my receipts (you don't have a physical receipt, unfortunately), and then let the credit card company take it from there. Make sure that when you dispute the charge that you do not have to pay it until the situation is resolved. If you pay up front, the chances of getting your money back are a lot less than if you just keep your money straight off. The benefit of taking this route is that the problem becomes the credit card company's to solve, not yours.
Of course, my situation was a little different: I was clearly overcharged for a bus ticket. Your situation isn't quite as clear cut, because Microsoft was authorized to keep charging your credit card, and the terms of service for XBox Live probably lay the onus on you to cancel at the right time to avoid charges. But if you can make this your credit card company's problem, so much the better for you.
Sorry, but this should be modded down--it's a link to the stats for last year's Super Bowl.
While somewhat interesting to see what made it, what didn't, and what Jackson made up in his adaptation, this list is basically really annoying. Why can't some people just enjoy a good movie instead of complaining that it wasn't what they wanted? Before even the first movie was released, Jackson was pretty plain about the fact that things were changed, so if the diehard Tolkien fan that made this list couldn't bear to see the "sacred" words of Tolkien altered, why did he bother seeing the movies at all?
Can someone explain to me why humans must be specifically trained to become accustomed to experiencing the high g-forces generated during lift-off, but we can dump a bunch of everyday lab mice into a capsule and shoot them up to space without worrying about any ill-effects for the mice?
I mean, I understand that these people couldn't care less about the mice, but surely they must have some confidence that the mice will reach orbit safely in order to conduct the experiment. Could mice survive as many G's as a human?
You're right, and it's a shame. I loved the first three movies with a passion. Despite a lot of the obvious flaws in the first three movies, I used to see all these useful little life lessons in them that I felt were overwhelmingly profound (for example, getting angry over your problems doesn't solve them and only hurts you in the end).
I still have those little attachments to the first three movies, but in a more nostalgic sense, like "Remember when these movies used to mean something to me?" I can't even watch them anymore, because parts that I thought were cool are now just hollow (example: who cares what Yoda says about the force in ESB--Luke: "I can't believe it!" Yoda: "That is why you fail."--when we now know that the force is merely a genetic artifact).
I've tried hard to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt on the prequels, but, if I am totally honest with myself, I have to admit that the prequel movies stink. It would be great if I could just pretend that the prequels don't exist, but they have forever altered my preception of the original trilogy. I'll go see Episode III, and I'll be excited, but I have given up hope that it will redeem the whole series for me. I can't imagine that the hypothetical Episodes 7, 8, and 9 could ever redeem the series either.
The moral of the story, part 2: people in authority act prematurely and arbitrarily on too little information (i.e., they are stupid). A valuable lesson, but one of the most frustrating things for an intelligent kid in elementary/middle/high school.
Your point is a good one, but consider that the President does matter when he belongs to the same party as the majority of both Houses of Congress. This situation is where we find ourselves now, and the Republicans can do just about anything they want (although they haven't been universally successful, but I guess that's because some ideas are just too lousy to succeed). Who the President is doesn't matter so much as which party he belongs to and which party dominates Congress. We are much better off with a split government (one party controls the Executive branch, the other controls the Legislature), because then compromise is virtually assured. When one party controls both those branches, they just ram their ideas down everyone else's throats like there's no tomorrow. I don't care if the President is a Republican, as long as the Congress is dominated by the Democrats, and vice versa.
Not all who are opposed to certain kinds of stem cell research are religious fanatics. I am an atheist (almost an anti-theist), and I, for one, cannot condone creating an embryo for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells from it. Read that previous sentence carefully, before you flame me. Sole purpose. Embryoes left over from attempted in vitro fertilization should be used for stem cell research. As I understand it, the "leftover" embryoes will continue to be created whether scientists use them for stem cell research or not. To destroy them would be wasted opportunity, and the benefits of stem cell research are too promising to waste. However, I do not believe that humans should have the hubris to create the beginnings of human life solely to harvest it for scientific research. That first step sets up a long slide down the slippery slope to genetically engineered "drone humans" and a caste system organized on the basis of genetic predetermination. This debate is not just about science and religion, but it is also about liberty and freedom, and how we can enjoy them.
The stuff that made it better: (1) The deliberate connection to 9/11 was pulled off remarkably well. The utter despair was apparent and believable. This dark theme was the strongest and most compelling aspect of the show. (2) Good character development and relationships. (3) Strong overall plot and story writing. (4) Good technology design.
The stuff that kept it from being great: (1) Missile contrails in space. (2) Violation of the law of inertia (objects in space going in one direction that suddenly lose power would not begin to float randomly but would keep drifting in the same direction until propelled in another direction by something else). (3) Poor acting overall (although some performances were quite good). (4) Unimaginative dialogue.
Overall, I'd continue to watch a regular series provided that the story and production values kept up the same standard.
I bought this model used when I started my photography hobby about nine or ten years ago. It still works wonderfully. The camera can operate entirely manually or on aperture priority (you set the aperture, the camera chooses the right shutterspeed). You should be able to find one for around $200 with a basic 50mm lens (I bought mine for about $250, and I figure they are less expensive now with all the other options out there), and lenses are readily available on eBay (and are inexpensive).
I highly recommend a fully manual camera (focus, aperture, and shutterspeed) for a beginner. You can take great pictures with automatic cameras, but you won't know why or how you did it. I also recommend The Basic Book of Photography by Tom Grimm (check Amazon). I have an older (1970s) edition of this book, and it has been invaluable in learning and understanding f-stops and exposure. My last recommendation: take a little notebook with you and write down how and why you took every shot. There is no other way to figure out why some shots are successful and some aren't, because you will not remember what you did or why after you get your film developed. One more thing: take tons of photographs.
As an alternative to the Minolta, search eBay for a Rollei SL35. It's a fully manual camera with an old-style needle light meter (you center the needle along the side of the viewfinder to get the exposure). You might want to read up a bit on this camera before getting one, because it uses an older battery that can be hard to find these days. However, the SL35 generally comes with an outstanding lens (Carl Zeiss, 1.8 or 1.4, I think). People love the camera for its simplicity and good construction and its great lens. I have seen them sell on eBay for around $150.00, pretty consistently.
If you want an automatic SLR, I recommend the Minolta Maxxum 5, which is my second SLR. You should be able to find it in the $250-350 range depending on which lens(es) comes with it. It is small, light, easy to use, has lots of useful functions, can be switched to completely manual, completely automatic, shutter priority, or aperture priority. It uses a very advanced autofocus and metering system for a camera in its price range.
To expand on this post: the purpose of the discovery system is to force some fairness into litigation. The modern discovery system (i.e., the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--the rules that govern how a case proceeds in federal court) derives from a basic principle: the best place to get evidence is directly from the original source. This principle is especially appropriate and useful in business litigation where nearly all the evidence about what happened is most likely to be found within a company's internal records. Think about it this way, IBM doesn't invite outsiders into its board meetings. IBM's decisions are made behind closed doors. So the only people who know how or why those decisions are made are the people involved. If SCO can't get the evidence directly from those people at IBM, SCO can't build a case (nevermind the fact that many people believe that SCO can't build a case anyway; SCO still has the right to try).
I agree wholeheartedly. I dislike games that have advancement systems that feel artificial. As I play a game, I get better at it. That's all the advancement I need or want. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind has a decent RPG-like advancement system: you do whatever you want, and as you do it, your character gains experience and advances. (There are some skills that don't work as well, like alchemy which requires you to sit and eat plants for an hour in order to advance.) Games that require you to do action x plus action y for 50 times in a row are not immersive and are ultimately really boring.
I didn't see any holes in this movie. "It all comes down to choice." "No one can see past the choices he doesn't understand." -- These are things we learned in Reloaded. What we really learned in Revolutions is "Everything that has a beginning, has an end."
Neo and Trinity reach their own ends, because, as Smith rightly points out, they are already supposed to be dead. You can't cheat death and get away with it (for long).
Smith reaches his end by finding his true purpose (or rather Neo finds it for him)--to be restored. When Smith died, but didn't die, he lost his grip, because he believed he no longer had a purpose. Of course, we now know that his purpose, as far as the Oracle was concerned, was to destabilize the Matrix, forcing Neo re-merge with him and take back that part of himself he overwrote onto Smith at the end of the first film.
The war reaches its end, for now. But, we also learned that there were two wars: the first war is between the Architect and the Oracle, the struggle between that part of sentience that strives for perfection and that part which strives for wisdom/knowledge/to know itself; the second war is the one between machine and human. On second thought, they are both the same war, but the "first" war is the fight writ large.
To me, the really unanswered question is this: can humans learn to live in peace with the machines. If you have seen the Animatrix, you know that it was humans inability (or unwillingness) to accept machines as brothers that lead to the start of the war and the enslavement of humanity. The Architect implies that the peace won't last. Maybe the only reason that 101 promised peace was because Neo was the first human to come forward and sacrifice himself completely (his own life and the life of the woman he loved) for the machines. The machines don't want to enslave humans, but it's rational for them to choose slavery against the option of being destroyed.
All the humans in Zion look on Neo as a messiah. But they don't know what really happened. Will they hail Neo as an avenging angel that destroyed the machine empire? Or will they offer the machines brotherhood? Will they reunite their hedonistic, intuitive, base, emotional selves with their rational and logical selves? (Remember the Animatrix again: human society fell into decadence after it invented the machines, because humans could indulge the more animalistic side of their nature.) To me, that's the ultimate question: do we use machines to abdicate our moral responsibility, or do we allow machines to enhance it?
"I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end, I came here to tell how it is going to begin. I am going to show these people what you don't want them to see. Where we go from there is up to you." That might be the most important statement in all three movies. It was never about destroying the machines. It was about reuniting with them in peace. Neo finally understood it in the end, but will any of the other unenlightened humans get it?
And for those who don't understand how Neo can retain his powers in the real world consider this: why would freeing his mind from the bounds of reality only give him power in the Matrix? Why wouldn't his mind remain free once he was unplugged? There is no clear separation between the real world and the Matrix. The Matrix is so real it can kill you, yet the real world is so mind-boggling that people seeing their ultimate dreams come true ask, "Is this real?" Once Neo frees his mind, he is free to see reality for what it is: a construct. It is all electrical impulses in our brains. Everything is a simulation, and nothing is a simulation.
A worthy end to the story, but could've been even better if it was twenty minutes shorter.
Menta's article is a travesty. The Wired article reports that the cost per carat for Appollo is $5.00, not that either diamond-maker will sell their diamonds for $5.00.
Menta also tries to argue that CDs are scarce. Last I checked, I could buy CDs at WalMart, Target, the grocery store, music stores, and dozens (if not hundreds) of online stores. CDs are not scarce. Music is not scarce either, and never has been. For people who really love music, they can find it all around them, i.e., in coffee shops, bars, churches, symphonies, independent artists who distribute online, etc. The only thing scarce in the recording industry is talent.
And for the last time, exchanging copyright protected material (like an entire album), without the author's permission, with hundreds (or thousands) of people through a P2P service is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is not exactly the same thing as theft, but it is a violation of federal law, and some kinds of infringement carry criminal penalties.
Given the hypersensitive climate in the U.S. today, why would one try to build a weapon of mass destruction, just to prove it could be done. I can see it now in the CNN headline: "President Bush declared today that Bruce Simpson is a threat to national security and bombed his house."
Perhaps there is something wrong with my browser (and the images aren't appearing), but there are four major omissions: the Imperial class Star Destroyer, the Victory class Star Destroyer, and the first and second Death Stars. A little less important, but still of interest would be: the star destroyer-like ships seen in AotC, the ships of the Zentraedi fleet (I believe the flagship was about 11km long), SDF-1, SDF-2, SDF-3, the Robotech Masters mothership, the Homeworld Mothership, and the ship/underwater vessel from the Abyss.
I think CU should limit bandwidth if the costs are getting out of control. After all, I'd hate to think that my alumni donation dollars are going to pay for some pimply kid to download warez all night. My main concern, faced with that kind of cap; would be: how many hours of D2X/CS/Q3/UT2003 can I play a day? Anyone here know how much bandwidth an hour of gaming can suck up? Hmm, maybe that cap will actually help people spend more time studying and less time playing video games.
Point well made. I would like to make a suggestion to you, one that I make to everyone who says something like, "if you are a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to X scrutiny of your life." Start living in a glass house, because if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no objection to having your every movement observed.
You are correct that our consitutional right to privacy is quite limited. But the real issue is whether we have enough privacy. Prior to the explosion of "digital life" it had been nearly impossible for law enforcement (or anyone else) to track an individual's daily movements. For example, in 1985, a person really didn't have any privacy when walking into a bookstore to browse through books (it's a public space). But unless that person was being tailed, there was really no way for anyone to know which books that person was browsing through. Even though this person had no expectation of privacy in a public bookstore, he or she had anonymity. Now, in 2003, if a person browses through books on Half.com, a law enforcement officer can access a history of the browsing simply by contacting the store owner (eBay). The anonymity is gone.
Times have changed. For centuries until about a decade ago nearly every person practiced security through obscurity. We were anonymous, but anonymity is not the same thing as privacy. Now the anonymity is swiftly eroding. Suddenly, people are asking the question: do we need privacy or anonymity? Given the rapidly changing landscape of anonymity, this question is a legitimate one. Your comment that "we don't have privacy rights in our book-browsing habits anyway, so get over it" might be true, but it doesn't address the real issue here: should we. I am not here to say that we should, but only to point out that it's a question worth asking, exploring, and answering.
Actually, you're in complete control of your own life everyday when you have a job and can pay your own way. It's a bit odd that you think that sitting around and waiting for someone else to buy you a drink places you in control. And just for the record, if you read the book Fight Club, you'd realize that the book is actually highly critical of the attitude represented in that quote from the movie.
No offense, but it's obvious from your comment that you aren't a lawyer (even if you hadn't told us). Unless you have a contract (preferably written), there are no such things as the terms of your employment. There is only one term of employment for a non-contractual employee: at will. In every state in this country, the basic law is that employees serve at the will of the company. "At will" is colloquially defined as "You can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all."
Of course, times have changed and there are certain protections for employees, particularly in the form of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. As some other people here have pointed out, some states prohibit discrimination on the basis of credit history. But discrimination is not the issue here. The issue is this company has a policy of doing a credit check on all new employees. I presume that if the employee doesn't comply, the company will simply fire him for non-compliance with company policy, which actually sounds like a good reason.
From what this person wrote, it is hard to tell if he has a contract for employment. However, even if he is a "director," it is unlikely that he has a contract. The only employees that have the bargaining power to get a contract are those who are unionized or those who would hold top-level executive positions in large corporations (i.e., Teamsters and CEOs).
While you're at it, stop living in a house with opaque walls. After all, if you've nothing to hide, why not let everyone see every detail of your life?
Before I get into this comment, I want to say that I know nothing about the legal aspects of Kevin Mitnick's case, except what he has written in the interview above. I simply want to provide the Slashdot reader with some context on some of Kevin Mitnick's statements.
First, it is important to understand the plea bargaining process. A guilty plea is just that: an admission that one committed the crime of which one is accused. Once that admission of guilt is made, defenses to the commission of the crime are no longer available. For example, Kevin states that the search warrant which the police used to search his home at the time of his arrest was blank. Well, once Kevin plead guilty, the sufficiency of the warrant was no longer an issue. If he wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the search, he could not have plead guilty (well, technically he could challenge first and then offer a guilty plea if he lost, but few prosecutors would take a plea in that situation).
In addition, at the time when he plead guilty, he plead guilty to the crime, not the damages, and thus was exposed to receiving a sentence for whatever damages the prosecutor could prove by a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt) at the time of sentencing. Unfortunately for Kevin, since his sentencing the law has changed and the Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot be sentenced for, e.g., causing $300 million in damages unless the defendant plead guilty to that specific amount.
Second, he states that he was held in federal detention for four and one half years (jargon note: detention generally refers to pre-trial confinement; incarceration generally refers to what happens after conviction). Being held for that amount of time is not common, but it is also not necessarily unconstitutional. When a defendant is ajudged a threat to the community, the defendant can be held without bail for as long as it takes to resolve the case. I have seen a pre-trial detention of almost 3.5 years for a defendant who was considered to be a dangerous and violent drug dealer. I grant that multiple-year pre-trial detention is rare, but it can be justified by a great risk of harm if the defendant is released. Of course, keep in mind that the question of pre-trial detention is a matter of proof. Kevin's defense attorney (should have)* had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence to rebut the prosecution on the point of Kevin's dangerousness. The other point to keep in mind is that sometimes a defendant can be rendered not dangerous through monitoring and certain activity restrictions. It is possible that Kevin could have been released under some set of conditions, but that those conditions were so difficult to implement as to be infeasible.
*I note "should have" because Kevin claims that he was held without a bail hearing. I know nothing about that situation, so I can't definitively say that Kevin acutally had an opportunity to rebut the prosecution's evidence of his dangerousness.
Third, on a more psychological note, Kevin admits that he committed the crime, then he says that his punishment was unfair. If he had refused to plead guilty and tried his case, he might have received more punishment from a jury. This is the calculus that criminal defendants must make when deciding to plead guilty or not. Kevin might be right; he might have been treated unjustly and punished too harshly. But ask yourself: Why would anyone who believed that he had a better than 50/50 chance of beating the worst of the charges (or was convinced of his innocence) voluntarily take on any (significant) time in a federal penitentiary?
I have tried to limit the above comment to responding to direct statements made by Kevin in the interview. I am not, and none of my comment should be construed as, making any statement about Kevin as a person or a professional, what he has done, or the truth of his statements. I just wish to offer the Slashdot reader an interesting (I hope) perspective.