I wish I had mod points right now... nice one davevr
Most of these posts seem to make the following two assumptions:
1. Everything in the US media is true
2. Everything in the Chinese media is false
Folks, this is politics. The only thing you can be sure of is that *everyone* is lying to some extent.
As for this being an issue of "right" or "wrong"... it has nothing to do with what's going on at the political level. The governments are playing realpolitik - any moral statements are just to motivate people in one direction or other. This whole incident is just another tool, the plane is a tool, the crew are pawns, nothing more. No-one is going to start a war, no-one is going to get blown up.
Although the licensing agreement does not bind them to "play nice," anyone who signs up after reading the statement by nugget could shout "false advertising" very loudly and justifiably. I get and accept your point about verification of identity - always difficult online, though I expect/. has server logs a-plenty.
Even if not useful in a legal sense, the damage to both the company's and individual's reputation if UD go against what has been stated above would be immense. It would be more NYT material than/. - and what would that do to the share price ?
You should be concerned with adults who have cancer; they're far more valuable than the children.
1. If you bothered to read a little more before posting, you would have seen that the initial research is into leukemia, the #1 killer disease of children.
2. Valuable according to what criteria ?
3. I am concerned with adults who have cancer - again, if you had bothered to read instead of skim, I had already stated that two of my adult relatives and two other relatives (age unspecified, but actually adults as well) had been hit by cancer.
Hmmm... you've just given me a.sig idea... thanks.
----
This is/. not Quake... use your brain not your spinal cord
OK, let's go through this line by line, nice and slowly...
Warning... long comment ahead...
The world is abuzz - thanks to a huge spew of press releases - about a "philanthropic" effort to "cure cancer". Just download the screen saver, which will cheerfully suck up your spare cycles and get to work eliminating the evil scourge - actually, doing a brute-force chemical interaction model which is one teeny-tiny part of the overall effort to fight cancer.
"Depending on the results of this program, the time required to develop a new treatment and drugs could be cut from twelve years to as little as five years."
In other words, that's up to seven years worth of children who could have died but didn't. Even if running this app only saves one life, it's only "teeny-tiny" in comparison to the vast number of people who die of cancer every year - not to the people who may be saved because of it.
What they forgot to mention was that running the client primarily benefits a for-profit company in Austin, TX
"Members are rewarded for computer time that normally would go to waste, our customers and project partners can access more computing power to advance their projects, United Devices picks up a fee for building and administering the software that does it all"
Yes, they do get some benefit (and are upfront about it), but "primarily" is a very harsh assessment based on the information available.
which wants to sell your CPU cycles to the highest bidder in exchange for some nice beads.
United Devices is running the effort. All you have to do is download their closed-source, restrictive-licensed client program and install it on your PC
Given that it currently only runs on Windows, it's targeted at people who are happy running closed-source restrictive-licensed software. Besides, the millions of current Setiathome users don't seem to have a problem with closed-source restrictive-licensed software, and Setiathome never got this kind of treatment from/.
(you also have to agree to their website license to even download the program, of course). You take all risks of installing the program
Show me one piece of software - free or otherwise - today that doesn't require the installer to take responsibility for all risks.
- if the program deletes every file on your computer, too bad. If it downloads some kiddie porn and emails fbi@fbi.gov confessing to the crime, too bad.
Exactly the same applies to every piece of software distributed in binary form. Why highlight it in this manner for this particular case ?
And I hope you don't pay for bandwidth by the byte, because their main commercial effort seems to be stress-testing websites for Exodus. You do read those license agreements, don't you?
"Members will always be told which applications (including commercial ones) are running on their computers. They also will have access to Web pages outlining which organizations are providing the applications and explaining projects that Member computers are working on."
"Members will be able to control how much of their system resources are used by United Devices. "
"Members will be given user preference options on a wide range of factors, including:
whether the program runs as a screensaver or an application
when computation and communication can be done
whether connections should be made automatically
which proxies and firewall settings to use"
Although the license agreement is pretty general, the above statements are very specific, and if they did not comply with them, then (IANAL but I have some in the family) it would look very much like false advertising.
Here's UD's business model in a nutshell: "Get people to give us computing power and bandwidth for free and sell it to other people."
My reading of the above would be "Get people to give us computing power and bandwidth for prizes and the chance to help people, then sell it or give it away (depending on user preferences) to other people."
A nice gig, if you can get it. UD's primary business is selling computing cycles to corporations. As it turns out, they were having a hard time with the first part of the business model, so they came up with a scheme to get people to install their client: we'll do philanthropic work! And what could be more philanthropic than curing cancer?
Yup, they're getting a lot of publicity from this. Big deal. As long as the client tells people what's going on (which it does, see above), what is the problem ?
Who else can we get on board? How about Intel? They're always willing to sponsor anything that promises to burn a lot of CPU cycles. In fact, they're willing to put up a disgusting website that totally misuses the term "peer-to-peer" to achieve an alliterative buzzphrase.
Dunno why Michael calls the Intel site "disgusting" maybe it's the colour scheme or something... but, yes, I'd agree that they are abusing the term "peer-to-peer" to mean its complete opposite. Mind you, you see idiocies like that daily on/. by both posters and editorial staff. I expect marketers to be idiots and not understand basic English. Journalists are generally expected to be at least reasonably literate.
So, the stage is set. Now, read through the site that UD set up for this effort. Try to find in it any mention of anything other than philanthropy and cancer curing. You won't be able to. Why, you might even start to believe all this client does is work on curing cancer. Now go back to UD's main web site and read through it, noting how your computer will be sold to any corporation willing to pay for it. The task your computer runs is determined by UD, not by you.
To repeat a quote given above:
"Members will always be told which applications (including commercial ones) are running on their computers. They also will have access to Web pages outlining which organizations are providing the applications and explaining projects that Member computers are working on."
Even the cancer research isn't philanthropic in the usual sense. Say that your machine discovers the drug that cures cancer. Who benefits? Well, Oxford University will patent it and sell the rights to produce it at some extortionate price the name-brand drug will be hideously expensive, and 20 years later when the patent expires, the world will be able to afford cancer cures - shame about all those people that died in the meantime.
"That is, the rights to the research results remain with non-profit organizations that are dedicated to cancer research."
So, if they do sell the rights (as Michael claims they intend to do, without any evidence) rather than give them away, the proceeds from these sales gets reinvested in more cancer research. And the problem with this is... ?
That's "philanthropy" in the digital age - agreeing to a restrictive license and running a program which can do anything it wants with your computer system or network including destroying it or committing crimes with it or running up your phone bill, all the while doing free work for a for-profit corporation so that a drug company can get a patent on a life-saving drug and charge outrageous prices to pay back the "research costs".
A nice summary of Michael's accusations (or misinterpretations... I believe firmly in the principle of "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence." It's just a pity that I've had to waste an hour of my time doing his research for him so that this worthwhile project doesn't lose out on potential helpers.
I think I'll stick with xscreensaver.
Feel free. (There's no X client right now, anyway... hurry up UD, I've got another 6 CPUs ready for you when you get it done...)
As stated in a previous post, my younger brother died of cancer when he was 28. My girlfriend is at the hospital right now, as I'm typing this, with her father where he is having a biopsy to tell if he has prostate cancer or not. Two other members of my family have cancer. I know what it does to both the victims and their families.
If a couple of mouse-clicks can help take that pain away from just one family, it's worthwhile. Surely.
And if lazy journalism means that the cure arrives one day later than it could have, what is that worth ?
Poster: UD claims to be doing philanthropic work, but actually, their licensing and legalese appears to give them many options to distort or abrogate the implied responsibilities.
UD employee: No, no, UD can certainly be trusted. After all, we say we can be trusted.
Poster: Oh, then everything's hunk-dory then
Well, personally I interpreted this as:
Poster: UD claims to be doing philanthropic work, but actually, their licensing and legalese appears to give them many options to distort or abrogate the implied responsibilities.
UD employee: No, no, UD can certainly be trusted. After all, we say we can be trusted.
Poster: Ok, so you've told me that the allegations are unfounded, you've done so in writing (well, almost), this statement will be permanently archived, and you've done so in front of a whole Slashdot-full of witnesses, so I
will trust you, but will hold you to your word. If you break your word, your statement will be used to rip you a new asshole.
I'm not talking eugenics here. I'm not talking about the retarded or the mentally ill. When I allude that cancer is a wolf, I do so because technology cannot save your booty once it has a-hold of you.
Period.
Now you're making me angry.
This is bullshit. Over half of childhood cancers are curable today. We (the part of the human race that gives a toss, unlike your good self) are working on the rest now, whilst all you can do is try and induce despair in anyone reading this who may have cancer.
(BTW, after reading an encyclopedia to reduce your ignorance, go get a dictionary before using words like "allude" incorrectly - and who exactly do you mean by "the goddists" ? That word isn't in any dictionary I own - if you want to create a new word, feel free, but you could at least explain to people what you mean by it.)
Almost like trying to crowbar sense into tiny minds.
Yup, I'm finding it really frustrating right now. Time to remember the old advice about "never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig." methinks...
Humanity has so much more potential, but we'll happily squander it to see our sitcoms, eat our plastic food, drink our caffiene and play our video games...and consume the pablum-sacrament of corporatized news.
Agreed - but that's not the whole story.
I can't be the only bastard who sees cancer for what it is...it's a wolf, it kills the weak. If I get it, I'm not flawed, it's just time to make room for the next mewling consumer. It serves a purpose, and if you think you're supposed to live forever, wake the fu*k up while you still have time and get a clue.
We don't need a risk-free world. We are the monsters, we are the artists and lovers. We need pain and suffering as much as we need air, as much as we need each other. Without life, we're just cattle, slaughtered by the mintue for our eyeballs, spammed into oblivion by fools, and placated and kicked in the head by a system which happily creates a utopia for itself.
Oh, so noble.
I guess either no-one you love has died of cancer, or you're in the middle of the bereavement process right now. If the latter, my heart goes out to you, but your view of reality will probably change over the next twelve months - I certainly hope it does. If the former, well, I hope you never have to experience it.
Yes there is pain and suffering in the world, but to say "we need it" in order to disparage attempts to reduce it appears to me to be the words of someone who is trying to deal with extreme pain or extreme ignorance.
My brother died of a brain tumour at the age of 28. Do you want to stand in front of his wife and repeat your words above to her face ?
Three other members of my extended family have (or are suspected of having) cancer right now - 1 x breast cancer, 2 x prostate cancer. None of them are people I would term "weak" - by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as the for-profit aspect of this goes... I'm not going to get into a big moral argument about it... but will make a simple economic point: any money that goes to someone's profits doesn't go to cancer patients. The profit motive exists (however unfortunate that may be for the current quality of software), and is a necessary part of the world we live in.
However, just because a profit can be made, doesn't mean that one has to be made. If anyone reading this is involved in the bio side of sort of project, and wants to talk to me about the software side of a non-profit distributed client, please drop me a mail at: fluffys_slashdot_mail@altavista.com
There's also The Computer Museum History Center, though I'd be careful. I spotted 3 major omissions/mistakes in the first ten minutes of reading the site.
Alan Turing used to drink at the Salisbury Arms, on Oxford Road in Manchester, which although serving a decent pint, is now way too packed in the evenings to be able to think in base 32 anymore.
As the old saying goes: "You need a license for a dog, but anyone can raise a child"
More seriously, most if not all of the mental health professionals I've spoken to about this have said something to the effect of "for a normal person, violent games provide an outlet - it's only the people who are *already* damaged that you have to worry about."
So, the question I would put out there is: "what has the greater effect on a child's psyche: 4 hours a week of Quake, or 20 hours a week of parents and 30 hours a week of school - and what should be done about it ?"
As someone who's lived and worked in both countries...
Funnily enough, I pay about the same percentage in taxes here in the US as I did in the UK (40% or thereabouts), but receive far less in return. I'm still wondering where it all goes...
As far as the cuisine comment goes, could you please define US-ian "native" cuisine so that we can open up the debate a little more ?
Mr Slippery: You can find up-to-date stats in the August 1999 Scientific American, which also points out that crime rates (other than homicide) are approximately the same in the US and Europe. Prison population per 100,000 (1995): Iceland: 40 Germany: 85 France: 95 Britain: 100 Canada: 115 USA: 668 Russia: 690 Russia was about 268/100,000 in 1991 (pre-collapse), ranking 3rd after S.Africa (333) and the US (426). Yeah... I know it's off-topic, but people are talking about it without hard facts to deal with...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for all the people shouting for a Linux MMORPG, you can always go visit the nice people over at Worldforge.
They've made a lot of progress recently, and there's an updated status report and some screenshots for those of you who like eye candy.
Take the pager, open it up, trace the leads from the battery connector to the PCB and solder a 4 watt 2.2 ohm resistor between them.
No problem.
I find it best to be explicit. Asking for "black on the outside, still bleeding in the middle" usually gets me a steak just how I like it.
I wish I had mod points right now... nice one davevr
... it has nothing to do with what's going on at the political level. The governments are playing realpolitik - any moral statements are just to motivate people in one direction or other. This whole incident is just another tool, the plane is a tool, the crew are pawns, nothing more. No-one is going to start a war, no-one is going to get blown up.
Most of these posts seem to make the following two assumptions:
1. Everything in the US media is true
2. Everything in the Chinese media is false
Folks, this is politics. The only thing you can be sure of is that *everyone* is lying to some extent.
As for this being an issue of "right" or "wrong"
Let's just all relax and go back to bashing M$.
Much neater and cleaner:
We apologise for all or any US actions that lead to the collision.
(comment about s/Uncle Fluffy/nugget/ noted)
/. has server logs a-plenty.
/. - and what would that do to the share price ?
Although the licensing agreement does not bind them to "play nice," anyone who signs up after reading the statement by nugget could shout "false advertising" very loudly and justifiably. I get and accept your point about verification of identity - always difficult online, though I expect
Even if not useful in a legal sense, the damage to both the company's and individual's reputation if UD go against what has been stated above would be immense. It would be more NYT material than
You should be concerned with adults who have cancer; they're far more valuable than the children.
1. If you bothered to read a little more before posting, you would have seen that the initial research is into leukemia, the #1 killer disease of children.
2. Valuable according to what criteria ?
3. I am concerned with adults who have cancer - again, if you had bothered to read instead of skim, I had already stated that two of my adult relatives and two other relatives (age unspecified, but actually adults as well) had been hit by cancer.
Hmmm... you've just given me a .sig idea... thanks.
----This is /. not Quake ... use your brain not your spinal cord
OK, let's go through this line by line, nice and slowly...
Warning... long comment ahead...
The world is abuzz - thanks to a huge spew of press releases - about a "philanthropic" effort to "cure cancer". Just download the screen saver, which will cheerfully suck up your spare cycles and get to work eliminating the evil scourge - actually, doing a brute-force chemical interaction model which is one teeny-tiny part of the overall effort to fight cancer.
www.intel.com/cure/research.htm"Depending on the results of this program, the time required to develop a new treatment and drugs could be cut from twelve years to as little as five years."
In other words, that's up to seven years worth of children who could have died but didn't. Even if running this app only saves one life, it's only "teeny-tiny" in comparison to the vast number of people who die of cancer every year - not to the people who may be saved because of it.What they forgot to mention was that running the client primarily benefits a for-profit company in Austin, TX
(my emphasis)
http://members.ud.com/membership/howitworks/faq.ht m
"Members are rewarded for computer time that normally would go to waste, our customers and project partners can access more computing power to advance their projects, United Devices picks up a fee for building and administering the software that does it all"Yes, they do get some benefit (and are upfront about it), but "primarily" is a very harsh assessment based on the information available.
which wants to sell your CPU cycles to the highest bidder in exchange for some nice beads.
http://members.ud.com/prizes/and more importantly:
http://members.ud.com/vypc/wish/United Devices is running the effort. All you have to do is download their closed-source, restrictive-licensed client program and install it on your PC
Given that it currently only runs on Windows, it's targeted at people who are happy running closed-source restrictive-licensed software. Besides, the millions of current Setiathome users don't seem to have a problem with closed-source restrictive-licensed software, and Setiathome never got this kind of treatment from /.
(you also have to agree to their website license to even download the program, of course). You take all risks of installing the program
Show me one piece of software - free or otherwise - today that doesn't require the installer to take responsibility for all risks.
- if the program deletes every file on your computer, too bad. If it downloads some kiddie porn and emails fbi@fbi.gov confessing to the crime, too bad.
Exactly the same applies to every piece of software distributed in binary form. Why highlight it in this manner for this particular case ?
And I hope you don't pay for bandwidth by the byte, because their main commercial effort seems to be stress-testing websites for Exodus. You do read those license agreements, don't you?
http://members.ud.com/membership/howitworks/priva"Members will always be told which applications (including commercial ones) are running on their computers. They also will have access to Web pages outlining which organizations are providing the applications and explaining projects that Member computers are working on."
"Members will be able to control how much of their system resources are used by United Devices. "
"Members will be given user preference options on a wide range of factors, including: whether the program runs as a screensaver or an application when computation and communication can be done whether connections should be made automatically which proxies and firewall settings to use"
Although the license agreement is pretty general, the above statements are very specific, and if they did not comply with them, then (IANAL but I have some in the family) it would look very much like false advertising.
Here's UD's business model in a nutshell: "Get people to give us computing power and bandwidth for free and sell it to other people."
My reading of the above would be "Get people to give us computing power and bandwidth for prizes and the chance to help people, then sell it or give it away (depending on user preferences) to other people."
A nice gig, if you can get it. UD's primary business is selling computing cycles to corporations. As it turns out, they were having a hard time with the first part of the business model, so they came up with a scheme to get people to install their client: we'll do philanthropic work! And what could be more philanthropic than curing cancer?
Yup, they're getting a lot of publicity from this. Big deal. As long as the client tells people what's going on (which it does, see above), what is the problem ?
Who else can we get on board? How about Intel? They're always willing to sponsor anything that promises to burn a lot of CPU cycles. In fact, they're willing to put up a disgusting website that totally misuses the term "peer-to-peer" to achieve an alliterative buzzphrase.
Dunno why Michael calls the Intel site "disgusting" maybe it's the colour scheme or something... but, yes, I'd agree that they are abusing the term "peer-to-peer" to mean its complete opposite. Mind you, you see idiocies like that daily on /. by both posters and editorial staff. I expect marketers to be idiots and not understand basic English. Journalists are generally expected to be at least reasonably literate.
So, the stage is set. Now, read through the site that UD set up for this effort. Try to find in it any mention of anything other than philanthropy and cancer curing. You won't be able to. Why, you might even start to believe all this client does is work on curing cancer. Now go back to UD's main web site and read through it, noting how your computer will be sold to any corporation willing to pay for it. The task your computer runs is determined by UD, not by you.
To repeat a quote given above:
"Members will always be told which applications (including commercial ones) are running on their computers. They also will have access to Web pages outlining which organizations are providing the applications and explaining projects that Member computers are working on."
Even the cancer research isn't philanthropic in the usual sense. Say that your machine discovers the drug that cures cancer. Who benefits? Well, Oxford University will patent it and sell the rights to produce it at some extortionate price the name-brand drug will be hideously expensive, and 20 years later when the patent expires, the world will be able to afford cancer cures - shame about all those people that died in the meantime.
http://members.ud.com/vypc/cancer/about_picture.h"That is, the rights to the research results remain with non-profit organizations that are dedicated to cancer research."
So, if they do sell the rights (as Michael claims they intend to do, without any evidence) rather than give them away, the proceeds from these sales gets reinvested in more cancer research. And the problem with this is ... ?
That's "philanthropy" in the digital age - agreeing to a restrictive license and running a program which can do anything it wants with your computer system or network including destroying it or committing crimes with it or running up your phone bill, all the while doing free work for a for-profit corporation so that a drug company can get a patent on a life-saving drug and charge outrageous prices to pay back the "research costs".
A nice summary of Michael's accusations (or misinterpretations ... I believe firmly in the principle of "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence." It's just a pity that I've had to waste an hour of my time doing his research for him so that this worthwhile project doesn't lose out on potential helpers.
I think I'll stick with xscreensaver.
Feel free. (There's no X client right now, anyway... hurry up UD, I've got another 6 CPUs ready for you when you get it done...)
As stated in a previous post, my younger brother died of cancer when he was 28. My girlfriend is at the hospital right now, as I'm typing this, with her father where he is having a biopsy to tell if he has prostate cancer or not. Two other members of my family have cancer. I know what it does to both the victims and their families.
If a couple of mouse-clicks can help take that pain away from just one family, it's worthwhile. Surely.
And if lazy journalism means that the cure arrives one day later than it could have, what is that worth ?
Poster: UD claims to be doing philanthropic work, but actually, their licensing and legalese appears to give them many options to distort or abrogate the implied responsibilities.
UD employee: No, no, UD can certainly be trusted. After all, we say we can be trusted.
Poster: Oh, then everything's hunk-dory then
Well, personally I interpreted this as:
Poster: UD claims to be doing philanthropic work, but actually, their licensing and legalese appears to give them many options to distort or abrogate the implied responsibilities.
UD employee: No, no, UD can certainly be trusted. After all, we say we can be trusted.
Poster: Ok, so you've told me that the allegations are unfounded, you've done so in writing (well, almost), this statement will be permanently archived, and you've done so in front of a whole Slashdot-full of witnesses, so I will trust you, but will hold you to your word. If you break your word, your statement will be used to rip you a new asshole.
I'm not talking eugenics here. I'm not talking about the retarded or the mentally ill. When I allude that cancer is a wolf, I do so because technology cannot save your booty once it has a-hold of you. Period.
Now you're making me angry.
This is bullshit. Over half of childhood cancers are curable today. We (the part of the human race that gives a toss, unlike your good self) are working on the rest now, whilst all you can do is try and induce despair in anyone reading this who may have cancer.
(BTW, after reading an encyclopedia to reduce your ignorance, go get a dictionary before using words like "allude" incorrectly - and who exactly do you mean by "the goddists" ? That word isn't in any dictionary I own - if you want to create a new word, feel free, but you could at least explain to people what you mean by it.)
Almost like trying to crowbar sense into tiny minds.
Yup, I'm finding it really frustrating right now. Time to remember the old advice about "never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig." methinks...
Well, I'm persuaded, at least. If it's non-profit, then I'll run it (no need for the offer in my post earlier).
/. owes you guys - and its readers - an apology.
I think
Humanity has so much more potential, but we'll happily squander it to see our sitcoms, eat our plastic food, drink our caffiene and play our video games...and consume the pablum-sacrament of corporatized news.
Agreed - but that's not the whole story.
I can't be the only bastard who sees cancer for what it is...it's a wolf, it kills the weak. If I get it, I'm not flawed, it's just time to make room for the next mewling consumer. It serves a purpose, and if you think you're supposed to live forever, wake the fu*k up while you still have time and get a clue. We don't need a risk-free world. We are the monsters, we are the artists and lovers. We need pain and suffering as much as we need air, as much as we need each other. Without life, we're just cattle, slaughtered by the mintue for our eyeballs, spammed into oblivion by fools, and placated and kicked in the head by a system which happily creates a utopia for itself.
Oh, so noble.
I guess either no-one you love has died of cancer, or you're in the middle of the bereavement process right now. If the latter, my heart goes out to you, but your view of reality will probably change over the next twelve months - I certainly hope it does. If the former, well, I hope you never have to experience it.
Yes there is pain and suffering in the world, but to say "we need it" in order to disparage attempts to reduce it appears to me to be the words of someone who is trying to deal with extreme pain or extreme ignorance.
My brother died of a brain tumour at the age of 28. Do you want to stand in front of his wife and repeat your words above to her face ?
Three other members of my extended family have (or are suspected of having) cancer right now - 1 x breast cancer, 2 x prostate cancer. None of them are people I would term "weak" - by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as the for-profit aspect of this goes ... I'm not going to get into a big moral argument about it ... but will make a simple economic point: any money that goes to someone's profits doesn't go to cancer patients. The profit motive exists (however unfortunate that may be for the current quality of software), and is a necessary part of the world we live in.
However, just because a profit can be made, doesn't mean that one has to be made. If anyone reading this is involved in the bio side of sort of project, and wants to talk to me about the software side of a non-profit distributed client, please drop me a mail at: fluffys_slashdot_mail@altavista.com
Where the money went
Here's the lecture notes for HS228/428: computing: history and culture.
There's also The Computer Museum History Center, though I'd be careful. I spotted 3 major omissions/mistakes in the first ten minutes of reading the site.
There's also the University of Manchester Department of Computer Science history and "50 years of computing at Manchester."
Or the Alan Turing Home Page.
Alan Turing used to drink at the Salisbury Arms, on Oxford Road in Manchester, which although serving a decent pint, is now way too packed in the evenings to be able to think in base 32 anymore.
"Maths" is, as people have pointed out, a colloquial abbreviation in the-language-of-the-English for "mathematics."
"Math" actually means "a Hindu convent of celibate mendicants."
Based on this, I'd take "Maths" lessons rather than "Math" lessons any day.
At least 40% of people I've interviewed over the last five years can't spot the obvious mistake in my first programming test, which is:
void echo(void)
{
char *s;
gets(s);
puts(s);
}
Worrying, isn't it ?
AFIAK, there is about a two-orders-of-magnitude difference in the Nobel-prizes-per-capita scores.
Can dig out references if needed or flamed.
As the old saying goes: "You need a license for a dog, but anyone can raise a child"
More seriously, most if not all of the mental health professionals I've spoken to about this have said something to the effect of "for a normal person, violent games provide an outlet - it's only the people who are *already* damaged that you have to worry about."
So, the question I would put out there is: "what has the greater effect on a child's psyche: 4 hours a week of Quake, or 20 hours a week of parents and 30 hours a week of school - and what should be done about it ?"
> Click here and make a spammer spend some money
... they'll all be bankrupt in a week...
Good idea...
Time to set up a wget script to keep hammering this page, methinks
As someone who's lived and worked in both countries...
Funnily enough, I pay about the same percentage in taxes here in the US as I did in the UK (40% or thereabouts), but receive far less in return. I'm still wondering where it all goes...
As far as the cuisine comment goes, could you please define US-ian "native" cuisine so that we can open up the debate a little more ?
You could always:
connect to cddb server as fake client
pick random 32 bit integer
does it match ? yes: copy to local db
no: pick random existing entry from local db, write as new entry
Mr Slippery: You can find up-to-date stats in the August 1999 Scientific American, which also points out that crime rates (other than homicide) are approximately the same in the US and Europe. Prison population per 100,000 (1995): Iceland: 40 Germany: 85 France: 95 Britain: 100 Canada: 115 USA: 668 Russia: 690 Russia was about 268/100,000 in 1991 (pre-collapse), ranking 3rd after S.Africa (333) and the US (426). Yeah... I know it's off-topic, but people are talking about it without hard facts to deal with...