Unlike personal video recorders such as Sky Plus, viewers will not have to signal their chosen programmes in advance, allowing critically acclaimed shows to benefit retrospectively from a favourable review or word of mouth.
Given the BBC's previous experiments with transmissions in OGG format, and their continued development of a video codec free of patent encumberances, I'd be very surprised if it was Windows only.
you're not going to kill random strangers every time you get juiced on PCP, but you're statistically an unacceptable liability.
What you say applies to drink without the driving. Drunk people are much more likely to engage in violent, anti-social behaviour than sober people. But that's a piss-poor reason for prohibiting booze (or PCP), because it indiscriminately punishes the well behaved and the ill-behaved user equally.
I bet you $100 that more people are killed by drunks than PCP users, even after you excludie drink-related traffic accidents.
Well nope. You can insert newly compiled modules into a previously compiled kernel to get new features (that's how the many proprietory video drivers work, for example.) But those are a) running in kernel space, not user space b) communicated with by predefined hooks, rather than a generic message passing interfacing.
That's why linux modules, which are superficially like elements of a microkernel, are not really like them at all.
Why would this be "ironic" if the LDS church itself couldn't be considered "wacko?"
It's ironic because the LDS church is the subject of similar slurs against its character and belief. It's ironic that members of a fringe religion (and Darl McBride is an LDS member) would try and demean someone else's character by insinuating that membership of a fringe religion mad you untrustworthy. It's ironic because the "logic" they applied to make that inference would apply equally well to themselves.
You clearly meant to disparage O'Gara as a hypocrite by way of disparaging the dominant religion of Utah where SCO is located
No, I didn't. I didn't disparage the LDS church of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Quote me a single disparaging thing I have ever said about either. If you genuinely believe that I did disparage them, you have extremely poor comprehension with skills.
The LDS church may have different beliefs that mainstream Protestant and Evangelical Christianity, but none of them are extreme or offensive
I never said they were. I just said that they weren't part of Christian orthodoxy. And, even if you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and the Book Of Mormon is divinely inspired, that belief is unique to the LDS church and is not part of orthodox Christianity.
Except the parent was bringing religion into it when there was no need to.
Actually, Maureen O'Gara brought religion into it when there was no need to. And regardless of my opinions of the LDS Church, I you believe their faith is based on Orthodox Christian teachings, as opposed to the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the revelations within the Book of Mormon, you're an idiot.
in the UK you have a 'Right to Reply' about an article published about yourself
Equally minor nitpick -- no you don't:)
However the NUJ Code Of Conduct (which has absolutely no legal force) mandates that journalistic Good Practice includes allowing a Right To Reply. There was some recent legislation tables that legally mandating it, but I think it died when the election was called.
Well, if you want to conflate a "Bush" gag with a systematic invasion of privacy and character assassination, sure. Yes, they're exactly the same.
The problem I had with SlimFast's response was it was vastly disproportionate to the whatever offence Goldberg may have caused (which was clearly not that much, because Laura Bush was doing much more risque material at the Press Lunch last month).
It's not censorship, you moron. No magazine or website is morally, legally or ethically obliged to publish anything, by anybody. Especially considering O'Gara will expect them to pay her.
If O'Gara wishes to continue to spout her drivel, there are roughly 27 trillion channels remaining open to her.
It's not surprising, really, since MO'G's last article on Pamela Jones so clearly overstepped the bounds of decent, public interest journalist.
Incidentally, was I the only person who felt that insinuating that PJ's religion was wacko was particularly ironic, given that Maureen's paymasters at SCO were based in Utah, home of the not-exactly-christian-orthodox Church of the Latter Day Saints.
I'm trying to get broadband to my house, which is in a pleasant little Staffordshire village, but can't because BT can't be bothered to upgrade the exchange to have sufficient capacity. So my friend down the road has broadband (albeit only 512k) and all I've got is a BT dialup li@$@%"£"%((%NO CARRIER
I know, but I get a sneaking suspicion that Labour's reduced majority and the fact the backbenchers hate it, mean that the ID Card Bill will never get through the commons, if it even gets tabled again.
This will swing the deal, because nothing -- and I mean nothing -- persuades Senators faster than a room full of bulk faxes, all sent from the same website and all basically the same!
Sheesshh.
How can so mainly nominally smart people be so dumb about how best to influence the democratic process.
Well, yeah. But ID followers will tell you that that's not their domain. They'll tell you that the theory doesn't mind if the creator is God, Jehov*h, Allah, Vishnu or Jupiter.
Of course, they're lying, but that's what they'll tell you.
the removal of the requirement that a hypothesis be testable
Eh? The new definition clearly includes hypothesis testing as a key element of science. It's explicitly enumerated, which it never was in the old definition.
I think you've hit the crux here. I'd suggest that any explanation that requires modification if a new piece of data arrives, or does not make predictions that we can verify, is insufficiently adequate. Experimental science is not concerned with explaining the results of the previous experiment, but predicting the results of the next one.
If a supernatural explanation meets that criterion, then it deserves to be heard. As it happens, "Creation Science" cannot come close to clearing that hurdle.
But, as you suggest, that could be the bias of my scientific background.
As a scientist, I'd like to think that if a supernatural explanation fits the evidence better than the alternatives, and enables us to make accurate predictions about future events (and is thus able to be invalidated by those predictions being incorrect), then it would eventually pass into the scientific mainstream.
The Peace of God passeth all understanding, but then again, so does Quantum Field Theory.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet you $100 that more people are killed by drunks than PCP users, even after you excludie drink-related traffic accidents.
Well nope. You can insert newly compiled modules into a previously compiled kernel to get new features (that's how the many proprietory video drivers work, for example.) But those are
a) running in kernel space, not user space
b) communicated with by predefined hooks, rather than a generic message passing interfacing.
That's why linux modules, which are superficially like elements of a microkernel, are not really like them at all.
Thank you Xtifr, for understanding precisely the point I was making.
However the NUJ Code Of Conduct (which has absolutely no legal force) mandates that journalistic Good Practice includes allowing a Right To Reply. There was some recent legislation tables that legally mandating it, but I think it died when the election was called.
Well, if you want to conflate a "Bush" gag with a systematic invasion of privacy and character assassination, sure. Yes, they're exactly the same.
The problem I had with SlimFast's response was it was vastly disproportionate to the whatever offence Goldberg may have caused (which was clearly not that much, because Laura Bush was doing much more risque material at the Press Lunch last month).
It's not censorship, you moron. No magazine or website is morally, legally or ethically obliged to publish anything, by anybody. Especially considering O'Gara will expect them to pay her.
If O'Gara wishes to continue to spout her drivel, there are roughly 27 trillion channels remaining open to her.
It's not surprising, really, since MO'G's last article on Pamela Jones so clearly overstepped the bounds of decent, public interest journalist.
Incidentally, was I the only person who felt that insinuating that PJ's religion was wacko was particularly ironic, given that Maureen's paymasters at SCO were based in Utah, home of the not-exactly-christian-orthodox Church of the Latter Day Saints.
The all-new-look slashdot, covering Broadway, off Broadway, off-off-Broadway and particularly intensely acted games of Dungeons and Dragons.
News for Nureyev.
Stuff that matters.
I'm trying to get broadband to my house, which is in a pleasant little Staffordshire village, but can't because BT can't be bothered to upgrade the exchange to have sufficient capacity. So my friend down the road has broadband (albeit only 512k) and all I've got is a BT dialup li@$@%"£"%((%NO CARRIER
I know, but I get a sneaking suspicion that Labour's reduced majority and the fact the backbenchers hate it, mean that the ID Card Bill will never get through the commons, if it even gets tabled again.
This will swing the deal, because nothing -- and I mean nothing -- persuades Senators faster than a room full of bulk faxes, all sent from the same website and all basically the same!
Sheesshh.
How can so mainly nominally smart people be so dumb about how best to influence the democratic process.
Well, yeah. But ID followers will tell you that that's not their domain. They'll tell you that the theory doesn't mind if the creator is God, Jehov*h, Allah, Vishnu or Jupiter.
Of course, they're lying, but that's what they'll tell you.
If a supernatural explanation meets that criterion, then it deserves to be heard. As it happens, "Creation Science" cannot come close to clearing that hurdle.
But, as you suggest, that could be the bias of my scientific background.
As a scientist, I'd like to think that if a supernatural explanation fits the evidence better than the alternatives, and enables us to make accurate predictions about future events (and is thus able to be invalidated by those predictions being incorrect), then it would eventually pass into the scientific mainstream.
The Peace of God passeth all understanding, but then again, so does Quantum Field Theory.