I find it humorous that ID has gotten so much attention lately. I imagine its advocates appreciate the publicity. However, I think it's a fairly small part of any problems the US is having staying at the forefront of scientific study. Even as a biologist, believing strict evolution or ID isn't going to greatly affect your current research, and in any other field, the impact will be nil.
A greater problem is the shortsighted policies toward research in the US. In the past, the National Science Foundation has focused on foundational research while DARPA, NASA, and various other agencies have funded practical, shorter term applications. For some reason after 9/11, it was decided that NSF grants should only go to projects that had a short timeframe for "useful" results. Suddenly, the engine that drives all the discoveries that aren't just applications of previous work has dried up.
Another huge problem started 25 years ago. Since the early 80s when educational institutions were given full rights to market their discoveries, we've seen huge profits to Universities, and an equally perverse incentive to keep research secret. It also gave a big incentive for researchers to study quick, economically valuable problems, regardless of long-term benefits. Who cares if you could find a cure for malaria? Only the third world countries would need it, and they don't have enough money to make the researcher and her university rich.
It's easy to scapegoat religious fundamentalists for the problem, but it goes far deeper. The problem of a lack of foundational research will affect the US for a generation, if not corrected.
The electoral system was not chosen because it ensured a balance between the populous states and the rural states. It was in fact originally created to benefit slaveowners.
Wrong. Back in the day, a person counted for the population of a state, regardless of whether that person could vote. So women, children, and slaves all inflated the power of the few voting white males. The Northern states needed some way to lessen the advantage that the slaves provided, so the 3/5ths clause was negotiated. Anything less, and the Southern states wouln't have joined the union. Sure, that would've saved us from the Civil war, but I doubt if things would've worked out so well in the end.
It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority.
A simple majority, or a plurality? If we really need a majority, we're stuck doing runoff elections nearly every time. Maybe that's not so bad, but it also means that the only people who can run effectively are the ones who have enough money to run a national campaign, which means TV ads. The cost of campaiging would increase dramatically, because right now it's kept in check by candidates ignoring the safe states.
Regardless, it's a moot point. The electoral college increases the influence of the smaller states. Those states would have to ratify a constitutional amendment to change the system. Why would they do that? Do you really think that just because the states are small, the people are idiots?
As nice as a DNC list might be, it _does_ create two classes of speech, something the government cannot regulate.
However, the government has already divided speech into classes, several times. Aside from the obvious "yelling fire in a theater" case, take a look at campaign finance legislation. You can run a car commercial a month before an election, but you can't run an independant political ad. The supreme court is deliberating on that issue right now, so I imagine that will have some bearing on this case eventually.
Unfortunately for those who favor the DNC list, the newest ruling implies that neither the FTC or Congress can make a DNC list, so October 1 looks like it's not even a possibility.
On an incidental sidenote, what happens to the numbers on the DNC between now and whenever it goes into effect? I assume since the telemarketers said they needed until October 1 to prepare for this thing that they've got the list in order to put together a system to make sure the numbers don't get called. Does that now become a 50,000,000 number list for them to use?
You own the printer, you own (a copy of) the software that authenticates cartridges, so you can make that copy of the software do anything you want it to, so long as you aren't violating copyright by distributing or copying the software.
Let me see. Yes, you own the printer, but you also own the DirecTV box.
You own a copy of the software that authenticates cartridges, just like you own a copy of the software on your box that authenticates the programs you can watch.
So, I guess you can make that copy of the software do anything you want it to, so long as you're not violating copyright by distributing or copying the software.
No offense, but you're an idiot. Aside from the fact that I know of several public officials with DUI's in their backgrounds that get security clearance just fine, you then go on to call cocain use/sale a midemeanor. (Really? I bet there are a slew of people in jail that would love to know that.) To top it all off you accuse Bush of selling and using cocaine on the basis of what? Your personal dislike? Your political views? Silly me, I thought there had to be evidence of a crime before you could reasonably be accused of commiting it. Oh, wait. He didn't answer the question when it was asked! He MUST be guilty! What a shame that those stupid framers of the constitution had to go and add that bill of rights so we can't throw him in jail right now. Ever heard of the fifth amendment?
Aside from all that, though, every politician knows that if you go down the road of answering every charge against you, you never get to tell people what your campaign is about. This way, reporters quit trying to catch him in an "I didn't inhale" moment and had to go do their own digging. I find it rather humorous that it took a tip off from a Democratic convention delegate and candidate for the Governorship of Maine to leak this, but so it goes.
If you're going to try to scare me out of voting for Bush about something that happened 24 years ago, at least try to make your arguments somewhat sensible.
Regardless, this doesn't affect my view of him for two reasons. First, because it isn't a pattern of behavior, as has been seen in certain public officials. And second, even if it was something he had done multiple times, he gave up drinking 14 years ago. It's a non-issue.
At least he hasn't tried to claim that the officer who stopped him that night didn't have "controlling legal authority", as Gore seems prone to do. And he hasn't asked the officer to apologize for arresting him, as Clinton just did to Congress for impeaching him.
He brought out one great example: Carnegie. As he said:
(Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
But wait! He didn't say, "I don't want the money to go to the government!" He was one of the great philanthropists, but with the estate tax he would have been a tax dodger. What's so terrible about letting someone choose how to spend their money and assets? Where does the mentality come from that says it's wrong to pass wealth along to your children?
I'm not rich, and I doubt I ever will be. But that still doesn't mean I would advocate this kind of socialist redistribution of wealth. I agree that we need to do something about the shrinking middle class problem, but it has to do with a lot more than robbing from the rich to feed the poor.
Actually, it has quite a lot to do with education. Oh wait, that's Bush's first priority. Go figure.
>"Users love low flat rates". Gee, what a shock. People like free almost anything but herpes. Of >course they want it for free. I'd like my car to cost $50, too. So what?
Remember, that's _low_ flat rates. Nobody said anything about free. As he pointed out, the companies like this plan because it can net them more money from typical users, and consumers prefer it because it eliminates hassles.
>"...one can add extra fiber capacity without limit..." conveniently ignoring the cost of the >fiber, installation, repeaters, etc. That money has to come fromsomewhere.
>Until Slashdot posts a nice biotech story on trees engineered to grow fiberop, I won't be >holding my breath on adding fiber for free.
Who ever said it would be free? He was just saying there is no _physical_ limit on adding new fiber. This in contrast to the physical limit of the limited Electromagnetic spectrum.
>like metered mail (or stamps), pay by minute for long-distance telephone calls, and that is in the >communications arena alone.
How much do you pay to send mail (in the US)? I pay 33 cents no matter how far I send things. Sounds like a flat rate to me. If you send something big they meter it, but priority mail seems to be a trend of using flat rate for bigger items. Long distance rates are tending toward flat rate, in that you can now get rates that don't change based on the time of day. As mobile phone plans that give many of the advantages of flat rates proliferate, it's been predicted that long distance as we know it will fade away.
You seem to be suffering the misconception that he's advocating giving away internet service for free. He's not. He's saying that flat rates benefit both consumers and providers, and that the fee for service model doesn't apply well to the internet.
This is great. They sell it to you the first year for $600, which saves you a chunk of money over the normal $1500 they say books cost the first year. Great. But then they charge you $1200 for each additional year, for a total of $4,200 over four years. But in their faq they say that on average a student only pays $3000 for books over the 4 years of attendance. And this makes sense how?
That's not even counting the fact that you have to buy an Apple computer to view the thing, which they're happy to sell you, of course. Go figure.
I guess they think that being able to search easier is going to be worth the $1200 extra you pay for the books alone, but last I checked, textbooks tend to have a pretty good index in the back for that.
I would assume (hope, anyway) that they give you some way to highlight and make notes while you're reading, and if they had any foresight they'd search that when you do searches later, which might be nice. I'd still go with a good old book I can keep on my shelf and won't have to worry about them deciding to deactivate someday.
According to the faq, if you finish the program and pay all the way through the 4 years, you'll have the books and they'll work forever. If you give them back before the 90 day period, you get your money back and don't keep the books. So what happens if you quit in between?
OK, I have no credentials on this other than reading Blind Man's Bluff, and when I read the book I noticed that the author relied fairly heavily on one man's (Sorry, forgot his name) opinion and research.
However, I seem to remember that one of the more convincing bits of evidence for the overheated torpedo theory was the fact that the sub had turned around. I realize that in the process of dropping to the bottom of the ocean things can get turned around, but there seemed to be fairly strong evidence that the sub had, indeed, turned around. Turning around was, of course, standard procedure to get a torpedo to disarm itself. The theory was, the torpedo crew informed the captain that they had a "hot torpedo". That's an accurate description of a torpedo with an overheating battery, but they also called torpedos that armed themselves "hot running", if I recall correctly. So the guess is that the captain thought he had an armed torpedo, so he turned around, but he actually had a battery overheating, which could cause an explosion and wouldn't be helped by turning the sub.
So my question is, if it was the TDU, why was the sub turned around? Is it even relevant that the sub was turned?
From what I read of the news blurb, it basically sounds like mp3board is just hoping to make AOL help pay it's legal bills/fines based on the logic that, yes, we did it, but they did it, too. I doubt it'll fly, phrased like that, but at the same time, I'd be very surprised if AOL hadn't made the gnutella guys sign a NDA that made anything they did the property (and by extension the responsibility) of AOL.
I'm sure AOL has enough money to get themselves out of any liability in this, but it hardly seems fair that a company can make you sign away all your work and ideas yet not be responsible if that work is deemed illegal. Then again, who ever said anything about the system being fair?
I also have to note, though, that if this does go through, and AOL gets successfully sued, it bodes very badly for the rest of us. Jsut imagine the atmosphere if the management has to keep track of everything you do, since they're liable if they don't stop you from developing illegal software.
Can you tell I'm bitter about Non-Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements in general?
I've found it humorous that the republicans have gotten a lot of flak over the treatment of demonstrators at the convention. I've also read numerous complaints about the hassles the convention caused.
It's interesting to note, though, that Philadelphia is, overall, a largely democrat run city. The police take their orders from the mayor, a Democrat, and it wasn't as if the convention wasn't invited. Cities fight for the economic boost from conventions as much as they do for any other huge gathering of wealthy, influential people. More, I'd say, since it's tough to beat either convention for influence.
Ah, well. At least we won't see any problems in LA with the democrats. After all, Al Gore has said that while they had protesters in Philly, they'll have demonstrators in LA. Hmmm....Like in 1968, I suppose?
OK, I see the point in saying that what I post to Usenet is mine, and anybody who changes it is violating my copyright. However, what does that do to quoting? How many times have you seen a Usenet message that quotes a previous post, breaks it up into paragraphs, and rips it to shreds?
Even if they just reply to it nicely in this manner, they're being far more intrusive than Deja is. Just because it's done automagically instead of by a person doesn't make a difference as far as the law is concerned. If they stop Deja on copyright enfringement charges, everybody who uses Usenet will be stuck trying to figure out how much they can quote with fair use or else risk getting sued for their reply. Given the nature of some of the flames I've seen, that's a fairly sure bet before too long.
Regardless, as one poster noted, the links are marked with an orange triangle to distinguish them from real links. What's the problem here?
Just curiuos, but have you checked out www.failure.com lately? It looks like a fairly interesting site, but it has nothing to do with the magazine. www.failuremag.com, however, seems to be unable to tell Netcraft what it's running, so we'll have to wait a while to know.
Just curious, but has the site been down for a while, or is this just the/. effect?
Or how microsoft gets another leg up on us wanting open APIs - you think this thing is going to run OpenGL? Well, yes, actually.
For those who prefer OpenGL, NVIDIA will provide a fully Xbox-enhanced version.
Admittedly, the article credits the support to NVIDIA, but the support will be there. I'm very much doubting they'll make a linux port any easier than they can help it, but that's hardly a surprise. I haven't heard of any moves by Sony, Nintendo or Sega towards a Linux port, either. It is, after all, just a game console.
A lot of people have been suggesting that even if we throw out a few more TLDs, they'll just be grabbed up by the squatters and we'll have the same problem in six months. But the whole problem is the scarcity. If there are 100 TLDs, then at $35 a pop per you're looking at $3500 just to get one name locked up. Any company that wants something similar to what you've got can just change it a bit and there's no way a squatter's going to be able to cover all the permutations like he can now. My brother recently had an offer for a domain he's had for six years. They offered $50,000. Admittedly, it's not anything like business.com that's in high demand, but still, if he had been a squatter, he would have had to pay half of that amount just to keep the domains locked up for the 6 years. Plus there might be less of an increased demand for the Holy.com domain.
Reduce the artificial scarcities, and it won't be profitable to snatch up domains anymore, solving the problem quite nicely. Of course, the business of selling them would be hurt, which means I doubt if we'll see it happen anytime soon. Why make it so they only have to buy one domain instead of the three or more they have to get now?
The bit about him only making minimum wage wasn't a direct quote, IIRC, so it may just be a paraphrase that doesn't quite fit the truth. However, what are they expecting? Whatever else he is, he's obviously fairly bright. In this job market did they really think he couldn't do better than minimum wage? Using a computer isn't quite that ubiquitous yet. Though it does beg the question: Even if he did work fast food, could he use the computer cash registers to take your order? Or was it only if they can access the internet...
Regardless, the whole minimum wage comment makes me think there are only two possibilities. (1) The article is fairly well biased towared Mitnick, or (2) The justice department's not too bright.
Borogrove
Your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. -- Shakespeare
Good point. I didn't take into account the demographics of Holland. And I couldn't find any Holland specific information on voter turnout. However, I did find some information on the voting in Ottowa county, home of Holland. I don't want to beat the subject into the ground, but I think it's informative.
Ottowa County: Bush: 55% McCain: 36% Keyes: 9%
Overall, 68% of Republicans voted for Bush, and about the same percentage of Independents and Dems voted for McCain. There's no telling if those numbers were similar in Ottowa county, but they probably weren't too far off. It's a pretty safe bet that Keyes was getting very little non-republican support.
As for what it means, I'd say it points out that the Religious Right has been counting on republicans falling into line a bit too much. Obviously even a wave of propoganda couldn't win this fight in a district had (very approximately) 60% republican voters. (OK, I realize there's a wide margin of error in that guess, but It's pretty safe to say republicans were in the majority.)
And they figured Holland would be a slam-dunk. It's one of the most conservative communities in American. And the measure was well-timed: the ballot was on the same night as the Republican primary. (Michigan is not a closed primary, though, and many Democrats did vote.)
I'm sure that was their theory, but take a look at the demographics of yesterday's vote: 49% Republicans, 51% Democrats/Independants. While they came primarily to vote for McCain, I have no doubts that it helped defeat the censorship proposal.
A big question, though, is what happens next time, if they try for another Republican dominated election and there isn't a McCain to throw their expectations out the window. It's also a pretty safe bet they'll try to avoid the geek compound's backyard next time.
Borogrove
"All mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe." -- Lewis Caroll
Anybody I've ever heard has said that an IPO has to be carfully orchestrated and publicized in order to succeed. From the looks of this the only publicity is bad and nobody at the company is willing to promote it. The only way I could see it making money is if the day traders jump on it and attract the ignorant. Otherwise, the poeople who would be stupid enough to buy in won't be smart enough to know it's there.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it humorous that ID has gotten so much attention lately. I imagine its advocates appreciate the publicity. However, I think it's a fairly small part of any problems the US is having staying at the forefront of scientific study. Even as a biologist, believing strict evolution or ID isn't going to greatly affect your current research, and in any other field, the impact will be nil.
A greater problem is the shortsighted policies toward research in the US. In the past, the National Science Foundation has focused on foundational research while DARPA, NASA, and various other agencies have funded practical, shorter term applications. For some reason after 9/11, it was decided that NSF grants should only go to projects that had a short timeframe for "useful" results. Suddenly, the engine that drives all the discoveries that aren't just applications of previous work has dried up.
Another huge problem started 25 years ago. Since the early 80s when educational institutions were given full rights to market their discoveries, we've seen huge profits to Universities, and an equally perverse incentive to keep research secret. It also gave a big incentive for researchers to study quick, economically valuable problems, regardless of long-term benefits. Who cares if you could find a cure for malaria? Only the third world countries would need it, and they don't have enough money to make the researcher and her university rich.
It's easy to scapegoat religious fundamentalists for the problem, but it goes far deeper. The problem of a lack of foundational research will affect the US for a generation, if not corrected.
Wrong. Back in the day, a person counted for the population of a state, regardless of whether that person could vote. So women, children, and slaves all inflated the power of the few voting white males. The Northern states needed some way to lessen the advantage that the slaves provided, so the 3/5ths clause was negotiated. Anything less, and the Southern states wouln't have joined the union. Sure, that would've saved us from the Civil war, but I doubt if things would've worked out so well in the end.
It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority.
A simple majority, or a plurality? If we really need a majority, we're stuck doing runoff elections nearly every time. Maybe that's not so bad, but it also means that the only people who can run effectively are the ones who have enough money to run a national campaign, which means TV ads. The cost of campaiging would increase dramatically, because right now it's kept in check by candidates ignoring the safe states.
Regardless, it's a moot point. The electoral college increases the influence of the smaller states. Those states would have to ratify a constitutional amendment to change the system. Why would they do that? Do you really think that just because the states are small, the people are idiots?
However, the government has already divided speech into classes, several times. Aside from the obvious "yelling fire in a theater" case, take a look at campaign finance legislation. You can run a car commercial a month before an election, but you can't run an independant political ad. The supreme court is deliberating on that issue right now, so I imagine that will have some bearing on this case eventually.
Unfortunately for those who favor the DNC list, the newest ruling implies that neither the FTC or Congress can make a DNC list, so October 1 looks like it's not even a possibility.
On an incidental sidenote, what happens to the numbers on the DNC between now and whenever it goes into effect? I assume since the telemarketers said they needed until October 1 to prepare for this thing that they've got the list in order to put together a system to make sure the numbers don't get called. Does that now become a 50,000,000 number list for them to use?
Let me see. Yes, you own the printer, but you also own the DirecTV box.
You own a copy of the software that authenticates cartridges, just like you own a copy of the software on your box that authenticates the programs you can watch.
So, I guess you can make that copy of the software do anything you want it to, so long as you're not violating copyright by distributing or copying the software.
Aside from all that, though, every politician knows that if you go down the road of answering every charge against you, you never get to tell people what your campaign is about. This way, reporters quit trying to catch him in an "I didn't inhale" moment and had to go do their own digging. I find it rather humorous that it took a tip off from a Democratic convention delegate and candidate for the Governorship of Maine to leak this, but so it goes.
If you're going to try to scare me out of voting for Bush about something that happened 24 years ago, at least try to make your arguments somewhat sensible.
Regardless, this doesn't affect my view of him for two reasons. First, because it isn't a pattern of behavior, as has been seen in certain public officials. And second, even if it was something he had done multiple times, he gave up drinking 14 years ago. It's a non-issue.
At least he hasn't tried to claim that the officer who stopped him that night didn't have "controlling legal authority", as Gore seems prone to do. And he hasn't asked the officer to apologize for arresting him, as Clinton just did to Congress for impeaching him.
Borogrove
(Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
But wait! He didn't say, "I don't want the money to go to the government!" He was one of the great philanthropists, but with the estate tax he would have been a tax dodger. What's so terrible about letting someone choose how to spend their money and assets? Where does the mentality come from that says it's wrong to pass wealth along to your children?
I'm not rich, and I doubt I ever will be. But that still doesn't mean I would advocate this kind of socialist redistribution of wealth. I agree that we need to do something about the shrinking middle class problem, but it has to do with a lot more than robbing from the rich to feed the poor.
Actually, it has quite a lot to do with education. Oh wait, that's Bush's first priority. Go figure.
Borogrove
>course they want it for free. I'd like my car to cost $50, too. So what?
Remember, that's _low_ flat rates. Nobody said anything about free. As he pointed out, the companies like this plan because it can net them more money from typical users, and consumers prefer it because it eliminates hassles.
>"...one can add extra fiber capacity without limit..." conveniently ignoring the cost of the
>fiber, installation, repeaters, etc. That money has to come fromsomewhere.
>Until Slashdot posts a nice biotech story on trees engineered to grow fiberop, I won't be
>holding my breath on adding fiber for free.
Who ever said it would be free? He was just saying there is no _physical_ limit on adding new fiber. This in contrast to the physical limit of the limited Electromagnetic spectrum.
>like metered mail (or stamps), pay by minute for long-distance telephone calls, and that is in the
>communications arena alone.
How much do you pay to send mail (in the US)? I pay 33 cents no matter how far I send things. Sounds like a flat rate to me. If you send something big they meter it, but priority mail seems to be a trend of using flat rate for bigger items. Long distance rates are tending toward flat rate, in that you can now get rates that don't change based on the time of day. As mobile phone plans that give many of the advantages of flat rates proliferate, it's been predicted that long distance as we know it will fade away.
You seem to be suffering the misconception that he's advocating giving away internet service for free. He's not. He's saying that flat rates benefit both consumers and providers, and that the fee for service model doesn't apply well to the internet.
Borogrove
That's not even counting the fact that you have to buy an Apple computer to view the thing, which they're happy to sell you, of course. Go figure.
I guess they think that being able to search easier is going to be worth the $1200 extra you pay for the books alone, but last I checked, textbooks tend to have a pretty good index in the back for that.
I would assume (hope, anyway) that they give you some way to highlight and make notes while you're reading, and if they had any foresight they'd search that when you do searches later, which might be nice. I'd still go with a good old book I can keep on my shelf and won't have to worry about them deciding to deactivate someday.
According to the faq, if you finish the program and pay all the way through the 4 years, you'll have the books and they'll work forever. If you give them back before the 90 day period, you get your money back and don't keep the books. So what happens if you quit in between?
I'll stick to real books, thanks.
Borogrove
However, I seem to remember that one of the more convincing bits of evidence for the overheated torpedo theory was the fact that the sub had turned around. I realize that in the process of dropping to the bottom of the ocean things can get turned around, but there seemed to be fairly strong evidence that the sub had, indeed, turned around. Turning around was, of course, standard procedure to get a torpedo to disarm itself. The theory was, the torpedo crew informed the captain that they had a "hot torpedo". That's an accurate description of a torpedo with an overheating battery, but they also called torpedos that armed themselves "hot running", if I recall correctly. So the guess is that the captain thought he had an armed torpedo, so he turned around, but he actually had a battery overheating, which could cause an explosion and wouldn't be helped by turning the sub.
So my question is, if it was the TDU, why was the sub turned around? Is it even relevant that the sub was turned?
Thanks,
Borogrove
I'm sure AOL has enough money to get themselves out of any liability in this, but it hardly seems fair that a company can make you sign away all your work and ideas yet not be responsible if that work is deemed illegal. Then again, who ever said anything about the system being fair?
I also have to note, though, that if this does go through, and AOL gets successfully sued, it bodes very badly for the rest of us. Jsut imagine the atmosphere if the management has to keep track of everything you do, since they're liable if they don't stop you from developing illegal software.
Can you tell I'm bitter about Non-Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements in general?
Borogrove
It's interesting to note, though, that Philadelphia is, overall, a largely democrat run city. The police take their orders from the mayor, a Democrat, and it wasn't as if the convention wasn't invited. Cities fight for the economic boost from conventions as much as they do for any other huge gathering of wealthy, influential people. More, I'd say, since it's tough to beat either convention for influence.
Ah, well. At least we won't see any problems in LA with the democrats. After all, Al Gore has said that while they had protesters in Philly, they'll have demonstrators in LA. Hmmm....Like in 1968, I suppose?
Ah, Politics.
Borogrove
Even if they just reply to it nicely in this manner, they're being far more intrusive than Deja is. Just because it's done automagically instead of by a person doesn't make a difference as far as the law is concerned. If they stop Deja on copyright enfringement charges, everybody who uses Usenet will be stuck trying to figure out how much they can quote with fair use or else risk getting sued for their reply. Given the nature of some of the flames I've seen, that's a fairly sure bet before too long.
Regardless, as one poster noted, the links are marked with an orange triangle to distinguish them from real links. What's the problem here?
Borogrove
Just curious, but has the site been down for a while, or is this just the /. effect?
Well, yes, actually.
For those who prefer OpenGL, NVIDIA will provide a fully Xbox-enhanced version.
Admittedly, the article credits the support to NVIDIA, but the support will be there. I'm very much doubting they'll make a linux port any easier than they can help it, but that's hardly a surprise. I haven't heard of any moves by Sony, Nintendo or Sega towards a Linux port, either. It is, after all, just a game console.
Reduce the artificial scarcities, and it won't be profitable to snatch up domains anymore, solving the problem quite nicely. Of course, the business of selling them would be hurt, which means I doubt if we'll see it happen anytime soon. Why make it so they only have to buy one domain instead of the three or more they have to get now?
Regardless, the whole minimum wage comment makes me think there are only two possibilities. (1) The article is fairly well biased towared Mitnick, or (2) The justice department's not too bright.
Borogrove
Your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. -- Shakespeare
Ottowa County: Bush: 55% McCain: 36% Keyes: 9%
Overall, 68% of Republicans voted for Bush, and about the same percentage of Independents and Dems voted for McCain. There's no telling if those numbers were similar in Ottowa county, but they probably weren't too far off. It's a pretty safe bet that Keyes was getting very little non-republican support.
As for what it means, I'd say it points out that the Religious Right has been counting on republicans falling into line a bit too much. Obviously even a wave of propoganda couldn't win this fight in a district had (very approximately) 60% republican voters. (OK, I realize there's a wide margin of error in that guess, but It's pretty safe to say republicans were in the majority.)
Borogrove
I'm sure that was their theory, but take a look at the demographics of yesterday's vote: 49% Republicans, 51% Democrats/Independants. While they came primarily to vote for McCain, I have no doubts that it helped defeat the censorship proposal.
A big question, though, is what happens next time, if they try for another Republican dominated election and there isn't a McCain to throw their expectations out the window. It's also a pretty safe bet they'll try to avoid the geek compound's backyard next time.
Borogrove
"All mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe." -- Lewis Caroll
Anybody I've ever heard has said that an IPO has to be carfully orchestrated and publicized in order to succeed. From the looks of this the only publicity is bad and nobody at the company is willing to promote it. The only way I could see it making money is if the day traders jump on it and attract the ignorant. Otherwise, the poeople who would be stupid enough to buy in won't be smart enough to know it's there.