Interestingly enough, while using iCab on the Mac (with "referring page" checked *off*), since:
a) iCab did not identify itself as a Netscape product and
b) iCab sent no referring page
I actually got to see the page. I did not realize anyone had problem until I read about it here.
For a better discussion of problems with web servers filtering based on the browser's identifications, see a Usenet discussion we have been having in one of the *.mac newsgroups: http://www.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/threadmsg_ct.xp ?AN=716163755&fmt=text
Sorry, Deja only seems to allow links to individual messages and not to threads.
You say that HTML-snabled mail clients automatically download the web bug in question.
Eudora for the Mac (but not for PC) has an option to not download remote HTML graphics. All HTML will be displayed, and all images sent with the message are displayed, but no remote server is accessed.
OK, so the link is massively bad (a search of the site shows they do not have a single article concerning Apple and FreeType).
The only thing I could find was http://www.microsoft.com/typography/links/News.asp ?NID=1134, but that was almost a year ago.
FreeType's Page does not list anything current, either.
I think that Hollywood's big objection is to digital recordings of the digital signal (not through an D/A converter).
Since the technology is in place, though, for a "copy once" bit, I would think that a "no copy" bit would be found illegal, since it would limit free use.
"Copy once" on the other hand, would not really stifle free use, but would still give viewers the chance to record and later watch a digital show.
However, I think that you will always be able to record using a VCR (since it has already passed through a D/A converter).
My opinion: I am more than willing to put up with a "copy once" bit. But give me that one digital copy.
Agreed. If anyone wants to see a browser with great built-in ad filtering, check out iCab http://www.icab.de/
Filtering images based on size, directory or server (doubleclick anyone?)
Great cookie management.
JavaScript filtering based on domain and path.
I very rarely see banner ads anymore (and if I do, it is a simple contextual menu that will filter it out the next time). Pop-ups are a thing of the past for most domains (I am sure there are some out there that I have not hit yet, but it is simple to filter them out once I go to the site once)
As someone who works with gifted children on a regular basis (tutor, and residential counselor during the summer) and as someone who has studied gifted/talented education, I want to give some reccomendations:
1) Remember that while the child might be intelligent in some areas, this does not always mean that he is gifted in all areas. He might be capable of understanding quantum mechanics, but his understanding of biology might stop at "We are all made of cells." Literature and the arts are often left out of a true prodigy's education.
2) School is not so much to teach you *things*, but rather to teach you how to *learn*. As others have said, teach him how to research, and how to answer problems and questions on his own. Assign projects on things he knows nothing about that will be difficult to find (some obscure historical event, for example).
3) Social skills are important. Teach him how to be "friends" with somebody. Teach him how to have fun, and how to joke around. Make sure that he sees education as something fun (more difficult than it sounds)
4) Teach him how to relax. From the sounds of it, this kid is under quite a bit of pressure from somewhere (possibly from himself, but I would guess itis external). Teach him how to take a break from that, even if it is just for an hour.
5) Teach him how to motivate himself. One day that pressure is not going ot be there and he is going to have to know what to do without it.
6) Teach him why he should be learning these things. Show the results of string theory, of relativity, of in everyday life.
7) Teach him that he has limitations. Everyone does, his are just higher than others.
The last thing I can say is to be there for him. I have helped more gifted/talented children by doing that than anything else. I have received phone calls at 3 in the morning from children I have known that just need reassurance that what they are going through is normal, that someone else has gone through the same thing.
Note: I used the male gender in my examples, but know of more than enough gifted/talented females.
The other thing I would say is to do some research yourself. Do not push him into a field, let him decide for himself. And remember that the child will soon pass your own abilities in the field. Check out some books on gifted/talented methods and psychology. There are many out there.
If this sort of stuff interests you, you might have a look at a copy of "Audio Video Interiors", which profiles big-buck custom audio/visual installs. It does not cover a lot of the other tech stuff, but is an interesting read.
They were considering going to a area-code+phone number deal here in Kentucky before the decided to just add another area code.
What got me was the 1+ dialing. Surely the phone company could make it so that you could always dial the 1 first, and then they would filter out local calls (not to be charged for) from long distance (to be charged for). Either way your call would go through.
Or they could drop the 1+ entirely. 10 digits would get you any private phone in the country (local or long distance). The one does not add on any more capacity.
I would be willing to do it if either way worked (always dialing 1 first worked or never dialing 1 first). Surely that is not *that* hard for the phone company to do...
Recently at school I have been trying to out-do a mysterious "ALI" on the school's Galaga machine. Everytime I would get the high score, Mr. ALI (a guy because I think I saw him one time) would come along and score higher. We started at about 200,000. I thought I finally ended it at 476,000, but ALI came back. The next jump I made was to 796,000, which stood for a long time.
Today I came in to school to see that ALI set it at 993,000!
I was only able to break 700,000 today, but I think that one million is possible before Christmas break. Nothing worse than being 40 minutes into a game and realizing you need to leave for class...
Now I only need two things:
1) For the janitor staff to quit unplugging the machine once every couple of months
2) A stand-up version of Galaga for my house...
A well timed article concerning the Centipede high score. I had not seen TwinGalaxies before...
The answer to your question is inthe second paragraph of the original message - only the owner can create and distribute new copies. By downloading an MP3, you are creating a new copy illegally.
However, you can make copies if you own the original for personal use/back-up.
Visiting a friend of mine in England (having already casted my absentee ballot), I got to watch CBS/BBC coverage of the elections last night. I am wholly impressed with the BBC coverage (other than following CBS's lead in calling FLorida too early).
I did have to go to bed at 4am GMT, and get up at 8:30am GMT only to find there was no change.
You say this despite the fact that Nader is at the complete opposite end of the political specrum than are Libertarians?
Nader is very close to a socialist. There is nothing *wrong* with this, but socialism is the ooposite of a completely Libertarian non-government intervention sort of government.
Libertarians could do a lot of harm by voting for Nader. At most, there is possibly room for one powerful third party. The last thing most Libertarians want to see is for that party to be the Green Party.
I am trying to figure out what happened between the time you learned that three systems were down and the time you were served with the warrant.
Did you try to get in touch with the ISP? You said you were on good terms with them. Did you call them up and offer help or did you just figure they would come to arrest you?
I can hear the difference between different encoders and different decoders. I consider myself a moderate audiophile.
As a test, try encoding the same song using two different encoders (making sure to use the same bitrate). Using the same decoder, see if you can tell the difference. You can also try downloading the MP3s from the site referenced. A quick listen to them (at the same bit rate) should show an audible difference.
The only other differencemight be in speaker set-up. A crappy computer speaker might not be able to really show the difference between two MP3's.
I use a Blade-based encoder on my Mac with Cambridge Soundworks Digitals.
Why is Nader trying to get 5% of the vote? To get federal matching funds.
Interestingly enough, the Libertarians REFUSE matching funds. http://www.lp.org/lpn/9601-Browne-matching-qual.ht ml for one instance.
While your arguments makes LOGICAL sense, it would leave me voting for Nader, who goes completely against my Libertarian beliefs. It would advance the cause of a political party that I nearly completely disagree with. Given the choice of (Gore or Bush) and (Nader), Gore/Bush wins every time.
Maybe I live in an overly idealistic world (where Americans should vote for who they actually think is best), but "neither is voting your conscience" is simply unacceptable to me.
Voting Nader might, as you say, help the Green Party "become a major party." As a serious Libertarian, this is a scary thought indeed. I do not believe that this would be good for the American people. I am afriad that too many people are simply voting for the Green Party as a "None of the above" without reading their platform. This might lead to strong dominate third-party that has popularity not because people agree with it (indeed, they do not even know what they are agreeing with a lot of times - I have asked many Pro-Nader people what the Green Party Platform is and several have not known), but because it was not one of the major two.
Do you honestly believe what you typed? The only reason to vote for a third-party is to grow their party or there is no difference between the main two?
What about the fact that you agree with their ideology? Should that get thrown out the window in modern American politics?
I might be "wasting my vote" on a third-party candidate, but at least I can say that a) I have strong convictions and b) I stick to them. What can you say about your vote?
Maybe if everyone who is planning on voting third-party voted their mind instead of "Nader because he has the best chance of getting 5%", the *Libertarians* (or the Natural Law, or someone else) would be getting that 5%.
But, no, we would rather pick a random third-party and get behind him instead of doing our patriotic duty.
As far as camapaign finance, your complaint/explanation does not answer my example.
This seems rather counter-intuitive to me. Vote your mind by voting third party, but vote for the third party candidate that will get the most attention?
That is complete crap. As I said in my original message, you should vote for a third party cadidate because you agree with their platform, not as a simple "None of the Above" vote.
If you think that, you might as well vote for the "Lesser of two evils" that are Bush and Gore and go along with the entire "don't waste your vote" argument.
I do not want the Green party to be serious contenders (and no real Libertarian would) because their platform is so opposite from a true Libertarian view. As far as free speech goes, anybody so in favor of complete campaign reform cannot be truly a believer in free speech.
Suppose your nextdoor neighbor was running for mayor. Suppose you knew that he was very poor for the job. You decide to spend *your* money to tell *your* opinion (by taking out an ad on TV, for example).
Buet they tell you that you cannot since that would go against the Green Party campagn finance rules. *You* cannot tell your opinion. Sounds like it would go against free speech to me.
Please note that while both Nader and Browne are "interesting", they have two very opposing platforms.
I have been a Libertarian for many years (Browne got my votes in the past two elections) and I dread Nader, mainly because I disagree with almost everything he is for, as would most Libertarians, Browne included.
In the VoteMatch thing, I was identified as matching with Browne the most and Nader the least. That tells you something, I think.
In the end, though, I would almost rather see Nader elected than the Bush/Gore coin-toss, just to have a third-party in there.
My advice: Research third-party candidates well before jumping on the "None of the above" bandwagon. They are very unique candidates and your vote is a very precious thing.
A close race is the exact place to vote your mind on a third party candidate!
Imagine this: The race is won 46% to 45%, with 8% going to one third party cadidate, and 1% going to someone else.
You had better believe the 45% loser is looking hard and long at that 8%. Maybe if they had taken a platform that attract that 8% as well, they could have won.
In a state where the election is split 65/30/5%, no one is going to worry about that 5%. It would not have mattered.
Yes, voting for a third party candidate might swing the election one way or the other, but in four years, your vote is going to pay off when the two parties go after your "wasted" or "lost" vote, because they know that the candidate who gets those votes can swing the election.
In addition, the two cadidates are so similar when compared to a third party cadidate that either one can win and not make too big of a difference.
Things aren't going to change because a third-party candidate gets a lot of votes for president. Ross Perot got a lot of votes and things haven't gotten any better for the third-party candidates.
You are kidding, right? You might want to let Jesse Ventura onto that. Seems that Ross Perot running for President did a lot for him getting a) into a debate and then b) elected.
Seeing the results of voting for a third party candidate takes patience. Someone gets a lot of votes for president and that allows someone to get elected governor years later... That governor getting elected allows a Senator to get elected years later... That senator getting elected allows a presidential nominee to...
Well, you get the picture.
Like I said before, voting for a third-party candidate is a win-win situation.
The election this year between Gore and Bush is going to be really close. The 5% that Nader might get, or the 5% that Brown might get, would radically change the election if those people wer instead to vote for one of the "Dumb and Dumbers."
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
The result? Things that I agree with might get into a main party platform. That or a third party gets enough votes that they start becoming more popular (you might actually see another third-party in one of the debates!).
Either way, it is a win-win situation for people that vote their mind and vote third-party.
Did you read the comments posted to this story? Reading at +1, the only comments I have seen that mention any sexism are pro-women. They all mention the sexist slant of the article and how that is not cool.
Comments and moderators are backing you up - females can be geeeks and like RobotWars and the article was wrong.
ObRobotWars: I will agree with the comments asking for more action, less talk. Is it just me or does that one announcer sound like Dennis Miller? That and axe the house robots. I want to see two robots fighting each other, not against some house robots.
The government cannot "crack down on theaters" since there are no laws requiring theaters to abide by ratings. The ratings system is a completely voluntary thing (hence movies/rated/ "Unrated").
In general, however, the movie industry does a good job of making sure little kids without parents with them stay out of things such as Pulp Fiction. They actually probably do better than stores that sell cigarettes to minors (something that *is* against the law and actively enforced).
I am all in favor of places like Wal-Mart and K-Mart starting to enforce video game ratings. It makes it more likely that we will follow the movie model rather than the cigarette model (the farther the government stays out of ratings system the better - too close to censorship for me).
So now it has gotten to the point where it is alright to ignore laws if you do not agree with them?
I think most people have it right - it was easier/cheaper to licience it than to fight it (or even use it and then get caught).
In the mean time, however, a law is a law even if you do not agree with it. If Apple decides not to be the crusader against Amazon's sill patent, that is their right. They have a right to follow the law.
Do you realize how silly that last line would sound in a normal conversation? Yet a lot of people here think nothing of it because "information wants to be free."
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, while using iCab on the Mac (with "referring page" checked *off*), since:
p ?AN=716163755&fmt=text
a) iCab did not identify itself as a Netscape product and
b) iCab sent no referring page
I actually got to see the page. I did not realize anyone had problem until I read about it here.
For a better discussion of problems with web servers filtering based on the browser's identifications, see a Usenet discussion we have been having in one of the *.mac newsgroups: http://www.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/threadmsg_ct.x
Sorry, Deja only seems to allow links to individual messages and not to threads.
You say that HTML-snabled mail clients automatically download the web bug in question.
Eudora for the Mac (but not for PC) has an option to not download remote HTML graphics. All HTML will be displayed, and all images sent with the message are displayed, but no remote server is accessed.
This is A Very Good Thing. (tm)
There are other possibilities out there.
OK, so the link is massively bad (a search of the site shows they do not have a single article concerning Apple and FreeType).p ?NID=1134, but that was almost a year ago.
The only thing I could find was http://www.microsoft.com/typography/links/News.as
FreeType's Page does not list anything current, either.
I think that Hollywood's big objection is to digital recordings of the digital signal (not through an D/A converter).
Since the technology is in place, though, for a "copy once" bit, I would think that a "no copy" bit would be found illegal, since it would limit free use.
"Copy once" on the other hand, would not really stifle free use, but would still give viewers the chance to record and later watch a digital show.
However, I think that you will always be able to record using a VCR (since it has already passed through a D/A converter).
My opinion: I am more than willing to put up with a "copy once" bit. But give me that one digital copy.
Agreed. If anyone wants to see a browser with great built-in ad filtering, check out iCab http://www.icab.de/
Filtering images based on size, directory or server (doubleclick anyone?)
Great cookie management.
JavaScript filtering based on domain and path.
I very rarely see banner ads anymore (and if I do, it is a simple contextual menu that will filter it out the next time). Pop-ups are a thing of the past for most domains (I am sure there are some out there that I have not hit yet, but it is simple to filter them out once I go to the site once)
As someone who works with gifted children on a regular basis (tutor, and residential counselor during the summer) and as someone who has studied gifted/talented education, I want to give some reccomendations:
1) Remember that while the child might be intelligent in some areas, this does not always mean that he is gifted in all areas. He might be capable of understanding quantum mechanics, but his understanding of biology might stop at "We are all made of cells." Literature and the arts are often left out of a true prodigy's education.
2) School is not so much to teach you *things*, but rather to teach you how to *learn*. As others have said, teach him how to research, and how to answer problems and questions on his own. Assign projects on things he knows nothing about that will be difficult to find (some obscure historical event, for example).
3) Social skills are important. Teach him how to be "friends" with somebody. Teach him how to have fun, and how to joke around. Make sure that he sees education as something fun (more difficult than it sounds)
4) Teach him how to relax. From the sounds of it, this kid is under quite a bit of pressure from somewhere (possibly from himself, but I would guess itis external). Teach him how to take a break from that, even if it is just for an hour.
5) Teach him how to motivate himself. One day that pressure is not going ot be there and he is going to have to know what to do without it.
6) Teach him why he should be learning these things. Show the results of string theory, of relativity, of in everyday life.
7) Teach him that he has limitations. Everyone does, his are just higher than others.
The last thing I can say is to be there for him. I have helped more gifted/talented children by doing that than anything else. I have received phone calls at 3 in the morning from children I have known that just need reassurance that what they are going through is normal, that someone else has gone through the same thing.
Note: I used the male gender in my examples, but know of more than enough gifted/talented females.
The other thing I would say is to do some research yourself. Do not push him into a field, let him decide for himself. And remember that the child will soon pass your own abilities in the field. Check out some books on gifted/talented methods and psychology. There are many out there.
Good luck!
If this sort of stuff interests you, you might have a look at a copy of "Audio Video Interiors", which profiles big-buck custom audio/visual installs. It does not cover a lot of the other tech stuff, but is an interesting read.
Link at http://www.audiovideointeriors.com/
They were considering going to a area-code+phone number deal here in Kentucky before the decided to just add another area code.
What got me was the 1+ dialing. Surely the phone company could make it so that you could always dial the 1 first, and then they would filter out local calls (not to be charged for) from long distance (to be charged for). Either way your call would go through.
Or they could drop the 1+ entirely. 10 digits would get you any private phone in the country (local or long distance). The one does not add on any more capacity.
I would be willing to do it if either way worked (always dialing 1 first worked or never dialing 1 first). Surely that is not *that* hard for the phone company to do...
Recently at school I have been trying to out-do a mysterious "ALI" on the school's Galaga machine. Everytime I would get the high score, Mr. ALI (a guy because I think I saw him one time) would come along and score higher. We started at about 200,000. I thought I finally ended it at 476,000, but ALI came back. The next jump I made was to 796,000, which stood for a long time.
Today I came in to school to see that ALI set it at 993,000!
I was only able to break 700,000 today, but I think that one million is possible before Christmas break. Nothing worse than being 40 minutes into a game and realizing you need to leave for class...
Now I only need two things:
1) For the janitor staff to quit unplugging the machine once every couple of months
2) A stand-up version of Galaga for my house...
A well timed article concerning the Centipede high score. I had not seen TwinGalaxies before...
The answer to your question is inthe second paragraph of the original message - only the owner can create and distribute new copies. By downloading an MP3, you are creating a new copy illegally.
However, you can make copies if you own the original for personal use/back-up.
Visiting a friend of mine in England (having already casted my absentee ballot), I got to watch CBS/BBC coverage of the elections last night. I am wholly impressed with the BBC coverage (other than following CBS's lead in calling FLorida too early).
I did have to go to bed at 4am GMT, and get up at 8:30am GMT only to find there was no change.
You say this despite the fact that Nader is at the complete opposite end of the political specrum than are Libertarians?
Nader is very close to a socialist. There is nothing *wrong* with this, but socialism is the ooposite of a completely Libertarian non-government intervention sort of government.
Libertarians could do a lot of harm by voting for Nader. At most, there is possibly room for one powerful third party. The last thing most Libertarians want to see is for that party to be the Green Party.
I am trying to figure out what happened between the time you learned that three systems were down and the time you were served with the warrant.
Did you try to get in touch with the ISP? You said you were on good terms with them. Did you call them up and offer help or did you just figure they would come to arrest you?
I can hear the difference between different encoders and different decoders. I consider myself a moderate audiophile.
As a test, try encoding the same song using two different encoders (making sure to use the same bitrate). Using the same decoder, see if you can tell the difference. You can also try downloading the MP3s from the site referenced. A quick listen to them (at the same bit rate) should show an audible difference.
The only other differencemight be in speaker set-up. A crappy computer speaker might not be able to really show the difference between two MP3's.
I use a Blade-based encoder on my Mac with Cambridge Soundworks Digitals.
Why is Nader trying to get 5% of the vote? To get federal matching funds.
t ml for one instance.
Interestingly enough, the Libertarians REFUSE matching funds. http://www.lp.org/lpn/9601-Browne-matching-qual.h
While your arguments makes LOGICAL sense, it would leave me voting for Nader, who goes completely against my Libertarian beliefs. It would advance the cause of a political party that I nearly completely disagree with. Given the choice of (Gore or Bush) and (Nader), Gore/Bush wins every time.
Maybe I live in an overly idealistic world (where Americans should vote for who they actually think is best), but "neither is voting your conscience" is simply unacceptable to me.
Voting Nader might, as you say, help the Green Party "become a major party." As a serious Libertarian, this is a scary thought indeed. I do not believe that this would be good for the American people. I am afriad that too many people are simply voting for the Green Party as a "None of the above" without reading their platform. This might lead to strong dominate third-party that has popularity not because people agree with it (indeed, they do not even know what they are agreeing with a lot of times - I have asked many Pro-Nader people what the Green Party Platform is and several have not known), but because it was not one of the major two.
*That* is a scary America.
Do you honestly believe what you typed? The only reason to vote for a third-party is to grow their party or there is no difference between the main two?
What about the fact that you agree with their ideology? Should that get thrown out the window in modern American politics?
I might be "wasting my vote" on a third-party candidate, but at least I can say that a) I have strong convictions and b) I stick to them. What can you say about your vote?
Maybe if everyone who is planning on voting third-party voted their mind instead of "Nader because he has the best chance of getting 5%", the *Libertarians* (or the Natural Law, or someone else) would be getting that 5%.
But, no, we would rather pick a random third-party and get behind him instead of doing our patriotic duty.
As far as camapaign finance, your complaint/explanation does not answer my example.
This seems rather counter-intuitive to me. Vote your mind by voting third party, but vote for the third party candidate that will get the most attention?
That is complete crap. As I said in my original message, you should vote for a third party cadidate because you agree with their platform, not as a simple "None of the Above" vote.
If you think that, you might as well vote for the "Lesser of two evils" that are Bush and Gore and go along with the entire "don't waste your vote" argument.
I do not want the Green party to be serious contenders (and no real Libertarian would) because their platform is so opposite from a true Libertarian view. As far as free speech goes, anybody so in favor of complete campaign reform cannot be truly a believer in free speech.
Suppose your nextdoor neighbor was running for mayor. Suppose you knew that he was very poor for the job. You decide to spend *your* money to tell *your* opinion (by taking out an ad on TV, for example).
Buet they tell you that you cannot since that would go against the Green Party campagn finance rules. *You* cannot tell your opinion. Sounds like it would go against free speech to me.
Please note that while both Nader and Browne are "interesting", they have two very opposing platforms.
I have been a Libertarian for many years (Browne got my votes in the past two elections) and I dread Nader, mainly because I disagree with almost everything he is for, as would most Libertarians, Browne included.
In the VoteMatch thing, I was identified as matching with Browne the most and Nader the least. That tells you something, I think.
In the end, though, I would almost rather see Nader elected than the Bush/Gore coin-toss, just to have a third-party in there.
My advice: Research third-party candidates well before jumping on the "None of the above" bandwagon. They are very unique candidates and your vote is a very precious thing.
A close race is the exact place to vote your mind on a third party candidate!
Imagine this: The race is won 46% to 45%, with 8% going to one third party cadidate, and 1% going to someone else.
You had better believe the 45% loser is looking hard and long at that 8%. Maybe if they had taken a platform that attract that 8% as well, they could have won.
In a state where the election is split 65/30/5%, no one is going to worry about that 5%. It would not have mattered.
Yes, voting for a third party candidate might swing the election one way or the other, but in four years, your vote is going to pay off when the two parties go after your "wasted" or "lost" vote, because they know that the candidate who gets those votes can swing the election.
In addition, the two cadidates are so similar when compared to a third party cadidate that either one can win and not make too big of a difference.
You are kidding, right? You might want to let Jesse Ventura onto that. Seems that Ross Perot running for President did a lot for him getting a) into a debate and then b) elected.
Seeing the results of voting for a third party candidate takes patience. Someone gets a lot of votes for president and that allows someone to get elected governor years later... That governor getting elected allows a Senator to get elected years later... That senator getting elected allows a presidential nominee to...
Well, you get the picture.
Like I said before, voting for a third-party candidate is a win-win situation.
The election this year between Gore and Bush is going to be really close. The 5% that Nader might get, or the 5% that Brown might get, would radically change the election if those people wer instead to vote for one of the "Dumb and Dumbers."
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
The result? Things that I agree with might get into a main party platform. That or a third party gets enough votes that they start becoming more popular (you might actually see another third-party in one of the debates!).
Either way, it is a win-win situation for people that vote their mind and vote third-party.
Did you read the comments posted to this story? Reading at +1, the only comments I have seen that mention any sexism are pro-women. They all mention the sexist slant of the article and how that is not cool.
Comments and moderators are backing you up - females can be geeeks and like RobotWars and the article was wrong.
ObRobotWars: I will agree with the comments asking for more action, less talk. Is it just me or does that one announcer sound like Dennis Miller? That and axe the house robots. I want to see two robots fighting each other, not against some house robots.
The government cannot "crack down on theaters" since there are no laws requiring theaters to abide by ratings. The ratings system is a completely voluntary thing (hence movies /rated/ "Unrated").
In general, however, the movie industry does a good job of making sure little kids without parents with them stay out of things such as Pulp Fiction. They actually probably do better than stores that sell cigarettes to minors (something that *is* against the law and actively enforced).
I am all in favor of places like Wal-Mart and K-Mart starting to enforce video game ratings. It makes it more likely that we will follow the movie model rather than the cigarette model (the farther the government stays out of ratings system the better - too close to censorship for me).
The idea, I think, is that eventually new machining techniques will also come along as well that will make working with Ti a lot easier.
In the mean time, though, it is a pain to work with.
It may never be as cheap as aluminum to extract and work with, but it will be a lot cheaper than it is now.
So now it has gotten to the point where it is alright to ignore laws if you do not agree with them?
I think most people have it right - it was easier/cheaper to licience it than to fight it (or even use it and then get caught).
In the mean time, however, a law is a law even if you do not agree with it. If Apple decides not to be the crusader against Amazon's sill patent, that is their right. They have a right to follow the law.
Do you realize how silly that last line would sound in a normal conversation? Yet a lot of people here think nothing of it because "information wants to be free."