Why wouldn't you judge your products based on what they can do, not based on something as stupid as this?
"It would be able to run many existing Linux apps, it would be very easy to develop new apps for, and it would be very easy to integrate into my existing networks as a client or an admin tool" sound like quite a lot of "what they can do" to me.
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
According to the article, the movie's got nothing to do with the setting or theme of the "diablo series" (side note - I found it kind of amusing that two games makes a "series"...). The movie apparently involves a drug lord nicknamed "diablo". Unless we're talking fantasy drug-lord selling DemonCrack to Elves or something, I think Blizzard's just desparate to not have to come up with a new name for their movie, and isn't any more reasonable than (for a hypothetical example) Ford suing AMD for making "Thunderbird" chips [whether Ford was planning to get into the chipmaking business for automobiles sometime in the future or not...]
Given that I don't think there can be any confusion regarding "Diablo, the drug lord" and "Diablo, the fantasy game", I don't see any sign of "trademark dilution" here at all, personally.
Mind you, I had a lot of fun playing Diablo, and will have a lot of fun playing Diable II [and/or III?] if Blizzard ever allows Linux clients for their games, but I still think Blizzard inc. is being unreasonable here...and wasting good money on lawyers that could have gone to hiring Linux coders for their next game! ARGH!:-)
(Potential side benefit of this - perhaps the sheer volume of email I suspect they're going to get from Slashdot readers (a noteworthy proportion of whom are Linux users) will give them a more tangible clue about the potential size of the market composed of Linux Using People Who Are Interested In What Blizzard Is Doing®...)
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Re:Another non cross platform API/GUI
on
KDE 2.1 Is Out
·
· Score: 3
KDE is not really cross platform
Sure it is! It runs on BOTH operating systems, Linux and BSD!:-)
(Sorry, "Blues Brothers" flashback. ["What kind of music to you get here?" "Oh, we got BOTH kinds, Country and Western..."])
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Re:I have had a fearful thought....
on
KDE 2.1 Is Out
·
· Score: 4
I am extremely worried about this. What is to be done for Gnome? Someone will have to bring it on quite a lot if it is to remain valid from a Prima Facie, shallow & unthinking users perspective.
"Worried"? I can't tell if this is a troll, satire, or what, but...I'll tell you what's to be done for Gnome.
A whole bunch of people will continue to add features, fix bugs, and optimize it, perhaps occasionally spotting something in KDE that they like which they may then, if they feel the urge, translate into something for Gnome. Meanwhile, the same thing will be going on in the KDE camp. The open competition between the two will result in two really serious, kick-butt "desktop environments" to choose from as both projects benefit.
The alleged "war" between the two projects seems to be mostly fictional to me. I don't forsee either project harming the other in any meaningful way, any time in the near future. But then, maybe I'm just feeling happily optimistic because I just finished downloading KDE 2.1....:-)
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
One of the big bonuses of The Internet® is supposed to be "interactivity". While I actively avoid banner ads, I'd actively seek out, say, cartoons, downloadable movie clips (I'm still stuck with modem only lines as my only internet option at home for the moment), and so on - in which advertisers could pay the cartoonist/'netmovie producer/whatever for "product placement".
People going to, say, Joe Cartoon might be incredibly annoyed to have, say, a Coca-Cola ad pop up in front of them, but a substantial proportion of them might be quite eager to watch a flash animation of Mean Things Being Done To Gerbils With A Coca Cola Can(tm).
In short - Hey Advertisers! Put some CONTENT in those ads that we actually want, and maybe we'll pay attention!
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Is ther a browser or 3rd party software which will block webpage requests to make a new window?
The newer Konqueror versions have a specific switch to "disable window.open()" (without completely disabling Javascript as a whole - which you can do instead if you want to). That should pretty much take care of it right there.
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Sounds like more Commodore 64-style copy protection.
[..]
remove the checking, and the problem is solved.
You know, I'm not big-time "hacker" (or "cracker", for that matter) or anything, but I can say that the very first thing I ever did with a computer that I could call a real "hack" involved exactly this issue.
For those who don't know, C-64 copy protection often seemed to involve intentionally messing up part of the disk in a particular way, so that when you tried to read from that part, you'd get an error code. Then, they'd just have their program try to read the disk in that spot - if there wasn't an error, or it wasn't the RIGHT error, it was obviously a copy ("Obviously", copy programs wouldn't copy errors, would they? [More advanced bit-for-bit 'nibbler' copiers popped up in short order that DID, so you could once again make functional backups of your software...but I digress.]) The problem is, every time the floppy drive hit an error, it would reset itself by "banging" the head repeatedly against the stop, eventually knocking it out of alignment.
Many years ago, I owned a copy of "Stellar 7" for the Commodore 64, and this one was particularly egregious about copy protection. As I recall, it read errors from the drive four times when you started loading, two or four times when you started a game, and two or four times every time you progressed from one level to another.
I got really tired of listening to my floppy drive knocking itself to pieces whenever I wanted to play a game, so I dug out a sector editor, found the bit of code that said (essentially) "if you don't get this error, stop" and tweaked it so that it would continue whether the error was there or not. Then I copied the disk sans errors, so I could play without ruining my floppy drive.
[sniffle]...ah, those were the days
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
How can choosing your player for a DVD be a free speech issue? Watching a DVD is consuming speech, not producing it.
The right to Free Speech is meaningless if I'm required to speak into a sound-damping device run by a corporation with a lot of money^H^H^H^H^Hpolitical influence so that others can't hear me, even if they want to. In short, the right to CONSUME (listen to/watch/read) speech freely is a fundamental aspect of "free speech" in general.
(At the same time, I need to have the right NOT to listen to/watch/read whatever I want, e.g. advertisements at the beginnings of videotapes and DVD's.) Freedom of speech "production" and freedom of speech "consumption" are both fundamentally necessary for "free speech".
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The problem is, it looks like all of the "nextdoom.com" links are to.asf files, which as far as I know I still can't play on Linux...I was hoping for a downloadable.rm (realvideo) file to work with. --- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Does anyone have an URL for a "download and THEN watch" version of the video, or an equivalent to "wget" for rtsp streams?
I'd really like to get the whole thing and then watch it full-size, rather than trying to cram it through my slow internet connection and losing most of the detail...
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Re:Isn't it illegal to deface US currency?
on
Making Small Change
·
· Score: 2
No, it is not.
You can mangle, modify, slice, grind, etc. coins any way you want.
It is illegal to try to use them as money after you do so, however...
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Does the recent trend in science of "playing God" frighten anyone else?
Humanity has been "Playing God®" since the day it decided to pick up some innocent, natural rocks and force them into unnatural shapes, and later into unnatural unions with sticks and vines.
There is no such thing as "playing god" (well, except maybe in this context). What you are really objecting to here is scientists "playing Human", because they have some extremely effective tools for doing so.
Certainly, any intentional, major environmental change needs to be very carefully considered. What I think is "kinda scary" is the way a chorus of panicked "AIIIEEE!!! Playing God®!" rises up in response to people merely thinking about things like this.
Thinking is always good, even if Doing may not be.
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
It seems pretty obvious, at least among people posting here, that "ssh" is thought of as the name of a protocol first, a command second, and MAYBE a "brand name" after that.
For marketing reasons, maybe SSH, Inc might be better off changing THEIR name to something less generic.
On the "OpenSSH" side, perhaps instead of removing/changing the "ssh" part of the name, they could change the name to something like "OtherSSH" or "DifferentSSH" or something equally obviously "not the SSH, inc product".
While I've got to give the guy credit for apparently writing his own cease-and-desist letters before shoveling money on lawyers, the wording of the letter posted to Bugtraq (as reported by this Newsforge article) didn't give me a good impression. In the last paragraph he writes:
"I now ask you to also change the name ScanSSH to something else. Since you have already been notified of the trademark and have been asked to cease the infringement of the SSH trademark, I can see no other possible reason for your choice of this name than to willfully damage our trademarks and brand name."[emphasis added]
Maybe this is just standard issue legal blather, but to a non-lawyerly person like me it sounds like he's completely refusing to acknowledge the established use of SSH as a "generic" description for things involving the SSH protocol, and instead claiming everyone using it is obviously just out to "get" him.
My take, anyway...
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
2. 'SSH'(*R), three capital versions of the ROMAN alphabet, copyright circa 400 BC
Fortunately, this one isn't much of an issue. Even under American copyright law, the copyright on the Roman alphabet should be expiring within a few more years (especially since the original Romans don't have any lobbyists)...:-)
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
I'd also like rulesets to control them (javascript always/never for this site etc).
The current version of Konqueror seems to have the beginnings of this. The Javascript configuration section has a place to set up domain-specific javascript control. The only problem is that it's limited to "on/Off".
On the other hand, it also has a toggle to disable window.open() if you're really sick of popups...
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
I'll admit up front that I haven't read the article - the comments already posted about it tell me that it's probably a waste of time. The theme, apparently, is that "geeks" are preventing the internet from being a spiffy, flashy experience. Obviously, that's ignorant foolishness. Not only would getting geeks out of the 'net not make it prettier, it would prevent the continued development of the "Rich Experience®" that the marketroids are pushing...:
(Sigh...more "Flamebait"-happy moderators...) how you can claim to be a Green and a Libertarian is beyond me!
Actually, I'm genuinely curious about this, since (to, admittedly, grossly oversimplify), the "Green" party line is roughly "Government should take control of everything to protect us" while the "Libertarian" party line is "Government should go stand in the corner and let us protect ourselves as best we can, which can't be any worse than Government is doing now." That being the case, how do you combine the two? Government mandated personal freedoms?
Perhaps the poster meant combining the "anti-corporate" theme of the Green party with the "personal [individual] freedoms" theme of the libertarians, which I can't argue too much with, personally. (Though I do, personally, subscribe to fairly strongly libertarian views, I do feel that treating a corporation as a "person" makes a mockery of the rights and priviledges of actual individuals...On the other hand...corporations are government-made entities, so I don't see anti-corporatism as being necessarily anti-libertarian, either.)
To the comment from the original poster that the problems here in California prove that "public utilities should be severely regulated!" - is "You can pay a pile of money for wholesale power, but you can only charge customers a fraction of that when you sell it" sound like severe enough regulation for you? While the above post's rebuttal was a bit blunt, I don't see that it was innaccurate - the power industry is, and has been, subject to a lot of regulation - where power providers are allowed to buy from, how much they're allowed to charge, whether or not they can own their own power plants, when and where they can build NEW power plants...This Was Not Deregulation, it was Reregulation!.
Mind you, the power companies are not totally blameless - they evidently signed on to the re-regulation plan quite willingly, thinking they were going to make a killing manipulating the new system.
Rumor has it that they have real deregulation of power in Pennsylvania, and that it's working quite well. Any Pennsylvanians out there want to confirm or deny this?
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Anybody know of any good Undergraduate programs that at least include actual bioinformatics in the curriculum?
I'm an interested, independent (read:I have to pay for everything myself) adult student, having recently returned to college. The community college I attend (American River College in the Sacramento, California area, if it matters) recently started up a biotech program, but they've yet to offer anything involving bioinformatics, and as my previous post mentioned, UC Davis only offers it as a graduate program...
(In a related but otherwise irrelevant note - it looks like the MPI port of fastDNAml is now available for download here. Time to play!)
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
I actually don't know much about their bioinformatics program (other than the fact that it's new, and only for Graduate students...but that's another rant), but UC Davis has one. I don't imagine it can be too bad, being at a school already reasonably well known for it's biotech and medical programs... --- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
They could incorporate the ads right into the game: billboards, placards, skywriting[...]
YES! Far less intrusive, in my opinion, than banner ads (heck, if it were done correctly, it'd probably add to the "flavor" of the setting). (Are you listening/reading, advertisers?)
They do this in movies all the time ("Product Placement"). Remember the infamous E.T. and Reese's Pieces?
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Actually verizonsucks.com was registered by verizon[...]
So...what you're saying is that Verizon is a cybersquatter (as they obviously have no intention of ridiculing themselves with a "...sucks" site, their purpose in registering it is obviously to prevent someone else from using it)?
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Slashdot Mirror
"It would be able to run many existing Linux apps, it would be very easy to develop new apps for, and it would be very easy to integrate into my existing networks as a client or an admin tool" sound like quite a lot of "what they can do" to me.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
According to the article, the movie's got nothing to do with the setting or theme of the "diablo series" (side note - I found it kind of amusing that two games makes a "series"...). The movie apparently involves a drug lord nicknamed "diablo". Unless we're talking fantasy drug-lord selling DemonCrack to Elves or something, I think Blizzard's just desparate to not have to come up with a new name for their movie, and isn't any more reasonable than (for a hypothetical example) Ford suing AMD for making "Thunderbird" chips [whether Ford was planning to get into the chipmaking business for automobiles sometime in the future or not...]
Given that I don't think there can be any confusion regarding "Diablo, the drug lord" and "Diablo, the fantasy game", I don't see any sign of "trademark dilution" here at all, personally.
Mind you, I had a lot of fun playing Diablo, and will have a lot of fun playing Diable II [and/or III?] if Blizzard ever allows Linux clients for their games, but I still think Blizzard inc. is being unreasonable here...and wasting good money on lawyers that could have gone to hiring Linux coders for their next game! ARGH! :-)
(Potential side benefit of this - perhaps the sheer volume of email I suspect they're going to get from Slashdot readers (a noteworthy proportion of whom are Linux users) will give them a more tangible clue about the potential size of the market composed of Linux Using People Who Are Interested In What Blizzard Is Doing® ...)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Sure it is! It runs on BOTH operating systems, Linux and BSD! :-)
(Sorry, "Blues Brothers" flashback. ["What kind of music to you get here?" "Oh, we got BOTH kinds, Country and Western..."])
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
"Worried"? I can't tell if this is a troll, satire, or what, but...I'll tell you what's to be done for Gnome.
A whole bunch of people will continue to add features, fix bugs, and optimize it, perhaps occasionally spotting something in KDE that they like which they may then, if they feel the urge, translate into something for Gnome. Meanwhile, the same thing will be going on in the KDE camp. The open competition between the two will result in two really serious, kick-butt "desktop environments" to choose from as both projects benefit.
The alleged "war" between the two projects seems to be mostly fictional to me. I don't forsee either project harming the other in any meaningful way, any time in the near future. But then, maybe I'm just feeling happily optimistic because I just finished downloading KDE 2.1.... :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
One of the big bonuses of The Internet® is supposed to be "interactivity". While I actively avoid banner ads, I'd actively seek out, say, cartoons, downloadable movie clips (I'm still stuck with modem only lines as my only internet option at home for the moment), and so on - in which advertisers could pay the cartoonist/'netmovie producer/whatever for "product placement".
People going to, say, Joe Cartoon might be incredibly annoyed to have, say, a Coca-Cola ad pop up in front of them, but a substantial proportion of them might be quite eager to watch a flash animation of Mean Things Being Done To Gerbils With A Coca Cola Can(tm).
In short - Hey Advertisers! Put some CONTENT in those ads that we actually want, and maybe we'll pay attention!
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The newer Konqueror versions have a specific switch to "disable window.open()" (without completely disabling Javascript as a whole - which you can do instead if you want to). That should pretty much take care of it right there.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
[..]
remove the checking, and the problem is solved.
You know, I'm not big-time "hacker" (or "cracker", for that matter) or anything, but I can say that the very first thing I ever did with a computer that I could call a real "hack" involved exactly this issue.
For those who don't know, C-64 copy protection often seemed to involve intentionally messing up part of the disk in a particular way, so that when you tried to read from that part, you'd get an error code. Then, they'd just have their program try to read the disk in that spot - if there wasn't an error, or it wasn't the RIGHT error, it was obviously a copy ("Obviously", copy programs wouldn't copy errors, would they? [More advanced bit-for-bit 'nibbler' copiers popped up in short order that DID, so you could once again make functional backups of your software...but I digress.]) The problem is, every time the floppy drive hit an error, it would reset itself by "banging" the head repeatedly against the stop, eventually knocking it out of alignment.
Many years ago, I owned a copy of "Stellar 7" for the Commodore 64, and this one was particularly egregious about copy protection. As I recall, it read errors from the drive four times when you started loading, two or four times when you started a game, and two or four times every time you progressed from one level to another.
I got really tired of listening to my floppy drive knocking itself to pieces whenever I wanted to play a game, so I dug out a sector editor, found the bit of code that said (essentially) "if you don't get this error, stop" and tweaked it so that it would continue whether the error was there or not. Then I copied the disk sans errors, so I could play without ruining my floppy drive.
[sniffle]...ah, those were the days
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The right to Free Speech is meaningless if I'm required to speak into a sound-damping device run by a corporation with a lot of money^H^H^H^H^Hpolitical influence so that others can't hear me, even if they want to. In short, the right to CONSUME (listen to/watch/read) speech freely is a fundamental aspect of "free speech" in general.
(At the same time, I need to have the right NOT to listen to/watch/read whatever I want, e.g. advertisements at the beginnings of videotapes and DVD's.) Freedom of speech "production" and freedom of speech "consumption" are both fundamentally necessary for "free speech".
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The problem is, it looks like all of the "nextdoom.com" links are to .asf files, which as far as I know I still can't play on Linux...I was hoping for a downloadable .rm (realvideo) file to work with.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Does anyone have an URL for a "download and THEN watch" version of the video, or an equivalent to "wget" for rtsp streams?
I'd really like to get the whole thing and then watch it full-size, rather than trying to cram it through my slow internet connection and losing most of the detail...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
No, it is not.
You can mangle, modify, slice, grind, etc. coins any way you want.
It is illegal to try to use them as money after you do so, however...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Humanity has been "Playing God®" since the day it decided to pick up some innocent, natural rocks and force them into unnatural shapes, and later into unnatural unions with sticks and vines.
There is no such thing as "playing god" (well, except maybe in this context). What you are really objecting to here is scientists "playing Human", because they have some extremely effective tools for doing so.
Certainly, any intentional, major environmental change needs to be very carefully considered. What I think is "kinda scary" is the way a chorus of panicked "AIIIEEE!!! Playing God®!" rises up in response to people merely thinking about things like this.
Thinking is always good, even if Doing may not be.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
It seems pretty obvious, at least among people posting here, that "ssh" is thought of as the name of a protocol first, a command second, and MAYBE a "brand name" after that.
For marketing reasons, maybe SSH, Inc might be better off changing THEIR name to something less generic.
On the "OpenSSH" side, perhaps instead of removing/changing the "ssh" part of the name, they could change the name to something like "OtherSSH" or "DifferentSSH" or something equally obviously "not the SSH, inc product".
While I've got to give the guy credit for apparently writing his own cease-and-desist letters before shoveling money on lawyers, the wording of the letter posted to Bugtraq (as reported by this Newsforge article) didn't give me a good impression. In the last paragraph he writes:
"I now ask you to also change the name ScanSSH to something else. Since you have already been notified of the trademark and have been asked to cease the infringement of the SSH trademark, I can see no other possible reason for your choice of this name than to willfully damage our trademarks and brand name."[emphasis added]
Maybe this is just standard issue legal blather, but to a non-lawyerly person like me it sounds like he's completely refusing to acknowledge the established use of SSH as a "generic" description for things involving the SSH protocol, and instead claiming everyone using it is obviously just out to "get" him.
My take, anyway...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Fortunately, this one isn't much of an issue. Even under American copyright law, the copyright on the Roman alphabet should be expiring within a few more years (especially since the original Romans don't have any lobbyists)... :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
What's wrong with this? After all, what is a circle but a polygon with an infinite number of sides? :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The current version of Konqueror seems to have the beginnings of this. The Javascript configuration section has a place to set up domain-specific javascript control. The only problem is that it's limited to "on/Off".
On the other hand, it also has a toggle to disable window.open() if you're really sick of popups...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The description of the patent in the previous post sounds an awful lot like "Windows Update"...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
I'll admit up front that I haven't read the article - the comments already posted about it tell me that it's probably a waste of time. The theme, apparently, is that "geeks" are preventing the internet from being a spiffy, flashy experience. Obviously, that's ignorant foolishness. Not only would getting geeks out of the 'net not make it prettier, it would prevent the continued development of the "Rich Experience®" that the marketroids are pushing...:
And I'm certain there are plenty more examples people could add to this list...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
The government has required these to be registered for as long as I can remember...If you don't believe me, check your Birth Certificate... :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
how you can claim to be a Green and a Libertarian is beyond me!
Actually, I'm genuinely curious about this, since (to, admittedly, grossly oversimplify), the "Green" party line is roughly "Government should take control of everything to protect us" while the "Libertarian" party line is "Government should go stand in the corner and let us protect ourselves as best we can, which can't be any worse than Government is doing now." That being the case, how do you combine the two? Government mandated personal freedoms?
Perhaps the poster meant combining the "anti-corporate" theme of the Green party with the "personal [individual] freedoms" theme of the libertarians, which I can't argue too much with, personally. (Though I do, personally, subscribe to fairly strongly libertarian views, I do feel that treating a corporation as a "person" makes a mockery of the rights and priviledges of actual individuals...On the other hand...corporations are government-made entities, so I don't see anti-corporatism as being necessarily anti-libertarian, either.)
To the comment from the original poster that the problems here in California prove that "public utilities should be severely regulated!" - is "You can pay a pile of money for wholesale power, but you can only charge customers a fraction of that when you sell it" sound like severe enough regulation for you? While the above post's rebuttal was a bit blunt, I don't see that it was innaccurate - the power industry is, and has been, subject to a lot of regulation - where power providers are allowed to buy from, how much they're allowed to charge, whether or not they can own their own power plants, when and where they can build NEW power plants...This Was Not Deregulation, it was Reregulation!.
Mind you, the power companies are not totally blameless - they evidently signed on to the re-regulation plan quite willingly, thinking they were going to make a killing manipulating the new system.
Rumor has it that they have real deregulation of power in Pennsylvania, and that it's working quite well. Any Pennsylvanians out there want to confirm or deny this?
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Anybody know of any good Undergraduate programs that at least include actual bioinformatics in the curriculum?
I'm an interested, independent (read:I have to pay for everything myself) adult student, having recently returned to college. The community college I attend (American River College in the Sacramento, California area, if it matters) recently started up a biotech program, but they've yet to offer anything involving bioinformatics, and as my previous post mentioned, UC Davis only offers it as a graduate program...
(In a related but otherwise irrelevant note - it looks like the MPI port of fastDNAml is now available for download here. Time to play!)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
I actually don't know much about their bioinformatics program (other than the fact that it's new, and only for Graduate students...but that's another rant), but UC Davis has one. I don't imagine it can be too bad, being at a school already reasonably well known for it's biotech and medical programs...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
YES! Far less intrusive, in my opinion, than banner ads (heck, if it were done correctly, it'd probably add to the "flavor" of the setting). (Are you listening/reading, advertisers?)
They do this in movies all the time ("Product Placement"). Remember the infamous E.T. and Reese's Pieces?
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
So...what you're saying is that Verizon is a cybersquatter (as they obviously have no intention of ridiculing themselves with a "...sucks" site, their purpose in registering it is obviously to prevent someone else from using it)?
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
It's good that they're helping educate people about technology...
Just don't try to register the $5000 server as "lockheedmartindoesntsuck.net", or you may find yourself in trouble....
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"