You're assuming that I'm taking their side, which is untrue.
I tend to go with common sense, which tells me that the vast majority of the American public seems to be either not educated enough or too lazy to understand how their opinions are being molded and swayed by a well-placed news item or report by media organizations that are sympathetic to either party.
Of course, when you can't engage in a reasonable debate, resorting to calling someone a 'goat fucker' is without a doubt one of the most effective ways to get your point across.
That last sentence was an example of sarcasm. Let's see if you understand what I just wrote.
While this will be slightly off-topic, I'll attempt to reply to this post.
Haliburton has been receiving no-bid contracts for some time now, even during the Clinton administration. The reason for these was fairly simple: they had the most amount of resources available to get on the job quickly, and they were (arguably) among the most experienced in the field. This has been mentioned a number of times, but you can read more details about it here (yes, it's the National Review, but this is just one of the places where you will find this information).
However, you will notice that back during the Clinton administration, there was (relatively) less scrutiny of the administration, specifically because of the (apparent) media bias. You cannot deny that with the exception of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was (and to some extent, still is) the media's darling. Very rarely you would hear a report that was very critical of the Clinton administration, and even today, I don't recall anything nearly as bad as what some of the things that have been on CNN/NBC/CBS/etc about Bush.
Nowadays, everyone in the mainstream media venues seems to have an ax to grind with the administration (except for Fox News, which is as right-wing as they probably come), so you will see a lot more reports sensationalizing things which have literally been taking place for well over a decade.
Using that line of reasoning, one could then say the same about Cheney and Haliburton's past relationship when he became a part of the administration:
"He's not a Haliburton guy. He just used to work for them. Big Deal."
Your comment is actually not that uncommon. You will see similar comments whenever there's any hint that a person affiliated with a political organization has a less-than-acceptable prior 'relationship record'. However, you'll see a lot more leniency when the comments are being made about someone in the democrat/leftist/liberal camp.
Now you understand the double standard that exists in general when reporting political relationships depending on which political party you're referring to at the time.
The researchers surveyed 1,057 members of the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth - a body whose 120,000 student members are within the top five per cent academically in the 11-19 age range.
Asked for their favourite type of music, 39 per cent said rock, 18 per cent R&B and 14 per cent pop. Six per cent said heavy metal and a third rated it in their top five genres. So no, not 'many adolescent metalheads', but a few happen to be gifted, compared to the rest who listen to other types of music.
Also from the article:
The heavy metal fans in the study had lower self-esteem and more difficulties in family relationships and friendships.
So, if anything, one could hypothesize that gifted teenages that listen to heavy metal are more likely to have shitty self-esteem and quite possibly being perceived as asshats by family and friends, and listened to heavy metal as a way to 'cope' with the anger.
Just you wait until they start playing those tracks backwards....
I'd say that a Malediction BPO and a Sabre BPO (in addition to several T2 Ammo BPOs) are anything but mediocre. Also, he had (according to the information obtained by Kugutsumen) at least 8 Tech2 BPOS. You and I both know that the chances of getting 1 BPO are very slim, but one single character presumably played by a dev having 8 of them is a little ridiculous. See it for yourself here:
It's nice to see you try to downplay it, though. Old habits die hard, uh?
You also forget the other allegations of improper behavior by BoB members with some or full knowledge by CCP staff brought up by Kugutsumen, such as:
a) the sharing of player accounts capable of deploying cyno fields to allow 23/7 movement of BoB's capital fleet at a moment's notice;
b) 'renting out' one or more complexes in BoB's space to a known Ebay currency seller and his crew;
c) the purchase of character accounts from other players (namely DB Preacher).
This is all in Kugutsumen's posts in the forum linked above, with forum posts and PM logs (which in all honesty can be faked, but it'd require quite a bit of work).
Note that I never said that CCP employees should not play like anyone else; quite the contrary, I think that we absolutely need devs to be as active as possible to enable CCP to fix all the existing problems with EvE. However, this particular situation (if ultimately proven truthful) illustrates an apparent lack of ethics by some of CCP's staff, and CCP's inability to control its own employees.
This is a very poor example for the regular EvE player, that spends his time grinding away missions or doing any number of tasks to try to achieve something, when ultimately he has no chance of accomplishing his goal because a character played by a CCP employee wanted to 'get in with the cool kids'. What's the point of playing if you're gimped from the start?
Do you understand why so many are upset at these developments and how the possibility of this being true can be a major blow to CCP's credibility?
I've been a regular EvE player for over a year now, and I've been following these discussions in the EvE-Online forums with some interest. The character Kugutsumen is the head of an in-game intelligence-gathering organization that has been doing these types of things for some time now, involving multiple corporations and alliances, usually under contract from their enemies, other times for his own personal gain. His methods (which include bribing, forum infiltration, TS/Vent spying, etc) have been used in the past by some of the largest alliances, specifically the (arguably) most powerful one in game, named Band of Brothers (BoB), yet no one has made as big a deal out of these events in the past as now, because of one major issue: developer involvement to tip the scales in the favor of specific in-game alliances. To sum it up, Kugutsumen has posted a number of logs obtained from 'private' BoB forums which point to one or more developers being members of BoB, and providing intel regarding future game event locations, war target information, and most of all, giving Tech2 blueprints to corporations in BoB.
This is a big problem, because normally Tech2 blueprints are used to build 'rare/epic'-type weapons/ships/equipment, and can be highly profitable and provide a distinct advantage not only to those that possess them, but also to those who use said items.
These blueprints are handed out in a lottery fashion, where everyone can have a chance at owning one, but in this case, someone from CCP (the company that created EvE), possibly a developer or GM, has apparently given multiple blueprints to BoB, which is a enourmous slap in the face to the rest of the community which is constantly asking for the Tech2 blueprint distribution system to be balanced.
Some of the other logs also seem to point to high-ranking members of BoB giving access to special areas of their space to Ebay currency sellers in exchange for a cut of the profits, character accounts being traded or sold between members, and other things which are strictly forbidden by EvE's EULA.
This is why there is such a large reaction on the forums. BoB is trying very hard to throw off the focus of the discussion to the methods in which this information was obtained, because their very existence as an alliance is being put in jeopardy by the allegations that CCP's development or GM team members have engaged in actions that benefited them. This is not the first time that CCP staff have abused their status; last summer, a 'rookie' GM spawned a rare ship completely fitted with high-end rare items, which was blown up by 'accident' by a BoB-allied corporation member and some of its items looted. The GM was fired for this, but the story was never completely explained to the general community (CCP reserves the right to control how much information is disclosed about investigations such as these).
So there you have it. The most powerful alliance in EvE is accused of cheating with the help of CCP employees, and now the rest of the player-base wants to know what is going on. Only because Kugutsumen and a number of the SomethingAwful Goons made a number of posts in the EvE-Online forums did this become such a huge issue, forcing CCP to address it publicly (http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=top ic&threadID=468189) and now we're hoping that something will be done.
If your financial institution falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission), you will be subjected to a background check (often including a full fingerprinting session to be checked against the FBI database) as well as the usual drug-screening tests.
This was the case for me when I worked for a big investment bank (which shall remain nameless) in New York.
You get paid quite a bit more, the bonuses are great, and the vacation time is awesome, but you're subject to a lot more scrutiny than some folks are willing to deal with.
You know, I was almost inclined to agree with you, until I read this:
"For people convicted of kidnapping children and coercing them into child porn, this might very well be reasonable. But for the 25 yr old convicted of statutory rape of the 17yr old, this is quite questionable. Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder."
I fail to understand why you consider child porn to be more important than molestation/incest or statutory rape. I'm also inclined to believe that your statement that "Most people who have to register do not deserve to be treated the same as the worst of the class" is not accurate, simply because one look at the Sex Offender Database here in California tells me that a large number of individuals were convicted of serious crimes, i.e. not just a simple molestation incident, but things like sexual battery, attempted rape by force, lewd or lascivious act with a minor, etc. If you think I'm making it up, just go look it up yourself: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
The bottom line is that the second they committed the crime they were convicted for, they made the conscious decision to become second-class citizens themselves. This was not forced upon them, but it was their own choice, for which they have to, and should be made to pay forever if need be. While their so-called 'debt to society' might have been paid, the emotional scars of their victims will probably never heal.
No sir, you're "incredibly stupid" by not reading the full article.
Had you bothered to read it instead of simply going by the short quote, you'd understand that the article has nothing to do with 'cryogenics'. The quote is from a larger statement where they're referring to inducing hypothermia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery or with severe trauma, where it helped stabilize the metabolism of the victims, which resulted in better outcome on the treatment. The article itself is aimed at medical uses such as the ones described above. This research has *nothing* to do with space travel, but is geared at preserving organ function in critically ill patients, where hypothermia is regularly induced to slow down organ deterioration.
"...You don't think it's possible that a computer geek from a rich family might have at some point in her life used IRIX, or at least used it enough to recognize a very distinctive tech demo that came with IRIX at the time and could be used as a file manager? Is it really that improbable that a ten year old might know at least enough about UNIX to know what/usr is?..."
No.
Could you explain why the article sounds more like a promotional marketing piece and less of a review?
How does it merit 9/10 stars when it has so many drawbacks (which you listed on the last page) that could be considered pretty serious?
Let's see, poor battery life on a device that's supposed to be portable. Check. Touchscreen that is one of the strong selling points sometimes doesn't work. Check. No sync cable included in a $850 device. Check. A Linux-powered pad that can't sync to a Linux desktop. Check.
I'd say that right there, those would chop off at least 4 of the stars in your rating. Lots of small devices out there can browse the web admirably, have great screens, multiple connectivity, etc.
Gives us an objective review, not a fluff-filled article.
This is not a new device, and has never really caught on, regardless of how many times you might scream it has Linux inside. It might be neat for those that just have the burning desire of throwing money away, and that's about it.
See for yourself...
- It was announced back in 2004, and Engadget mentioned it:
12.1" x 6.6" x 0.8" (309 x 175 x 20mm) 2.3 lbs (1043 grams)
Now, for something this big, why not get something that's cheaper and just better like say, the Dell Inspiron B120 for $499, with free memory and wifi upgrades? See for yourself:
Like you, I have a large assortment of items I need to carry with me on a daily basis for work and the occasional play. After several years of trial and error and looking at bags, I found these:
I have the Python XM System with the 17" Powerbook sleeve. Everything fits perfectly in the bag, including laptop, AC adapter, assorted console cables to connect to my servers, file folders, webcam, you name it. The laptop sits a padded compartment separate from all the other items in the bag, and you can easily fit laptops up to the 17" widescreen ones (not using the powerbook sleeve, of course) in that compartment. You can fit a PSP in the Logitech case in one of the side pockets. The zippers have a special 'flap' over them that make them nearly waterproof, so you don't have to worry about water seeping into the bag thru the zippers. It's very nearly the perfect bag, IMHO.
This makes me wonder if anyone even looks into the source of these reports.
Here we have an organization publishing a paper that is encouraging the use of Open Source in the government, yet these are the same people that are for globalization and outsourcing, which time and time again have been denigrated and crucified here on Slashdot and other sites of a similar nation.
GLOBALIZATION & TRADE CED's international program remains strong and saw the completion of a second project chaired by James D. Robinson III, General Partner and Co-Founder, RRE Ventures, on trade and outsourcing entitled, "Making Trade Work: Straight Talk on Jobs, Trade, and Adjustment." At CED's annual dinner on May 19, 2004, General Motors received our Excellence in Public Policy Award, and GM's former chairman and chief executive officer from 1992 to 2000, Jack Smith, spoke about GM's commitment to global corporate citizenship and also presented an overview of his company's activities in the Peoples Republic of China. GM's current chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner, presented the CED award to Mr. Smith.
Just have a look at their projects page, and after reading the transcripts of some of their meetings, you might start wondering what's behind this interest in Open Source (http://www.ced.org/projects.shtml).
So, I guess they're OK when they're 'pursuing the Open Source agenda', but when they release a report tomorrow on how free global trade and outsourcing is the next best thing to sliced bread, we can call them devils?
Well, the problem is that he did say it should be done if the right oportunity came along, but it would be a hard thing to do because the big corporation (he used Oracle in his example) would catch on and stomp it with its big stick.
The problem I had with his statement is that he's effectively saying you're entirely justified in 'freeing the code', regardless of who it belongs to. If it's 'closed source', it needs to be free, plain and simply. That is the kind of position that would make companies think twice about moving to Open Source.... I mean, an employee with a more radical set of beliefs that mirror those of RMS could feel 'justified' to make public some modifications or in-house forks of Open Source projects, because after all, 'code should be free'.
Also, there is such a thing as 'IP theft'. Intelectual property can be defined as follows:
"Intellectual Property: A creation of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes."
While copyright infringement is part of IP theft, it spans a few more things, including 'business methods' and 'industrial processes' which I believe software development could fall under.
So, in essence, my point is that RMS is condoning source-code theft if you are doing it for the 'right reasons' (his reasons, that is), and you can get away with it. This to me is a very dangerous thing to say, which will end up alienating those who might be more moderate.
After reading the RMS interview with Forbes, what really stuck out was the following question and his reply:
Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?
It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it).
Am I the only one that sees this statement as a dangerous precedent? I mean, for all intents and purposes, RMS feels that 'stealing' copyrighted code is justifiable, if it's done with the intent to "liberate it".
Maybe you might consider this a trolling or a flame, but I think that it is quotes such as these that may end up bringing the most amount of trouble for the RMS crowd... I think the man is losing touch with reality, and approaching a point where zealotry is clowding his judgment to a dangerous level. How can we convince businesses that using the GPL and open source is a GOOOD THING if one of the main characters is in effect condoning IP theft if done for the 'right reasons'?
While it is being funded by the taxpayers, it is not available for public scrutiny. The public has no say in what grants' proposals are to be considered, or given priority to. The public has no say in who should get funding or not. The public cannot even be present or represented in the Institute meetings, because well, they can't. The people that are running the funding are the ones that stand to benefit the most from a financial perspective if research pays off, with virtually no returns to the tax-payer. What, you think they'll 'open-source' their findings?
The Institute that's running the show is not subject to close inspection and monitoring like regular state agencies; for all intents and purposes, it's best to think of it as a taxpayer-funded venture capital group that reports to no one.
Please don't tell me you're so naive as to not recognize the validity of their lawsuits.
Or you prefer that they spend tax dollars with no oversight or disclosure to anyone? Let me use this example, maybe it'll make things clearer.
Replace the following terms in the article as needed:
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine - change to Giant Oil Corporation Consortium stem cel - change to oil University of California - change to Exxon/BP/Texaco, whoever biotechnology - oil drilling research
Lemme guess, now you're all outraged at house something like this be allowed.
The problem with your example is that, unlike the board members, we have access to all of Cheney's financial history. He is required, by law, to disclose any and all possible dealings and conflicts of interest that may arise out of his actions or decisions. Heck, here, have a look: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515 ,00.html
That is not the case in this matter. None of them are forced to disclose anything, because the bill itself stated that the Institute was pretty much a independent entity, so the state can't regulate it.
Now, stick to the subject at hand. I know that the Administration is fair game here on/., but it has nothing to do with this case.
I'm not spinning. I'm a California resident, and while their end goal might be to repeal the proposition, they do bring up some valid points. Just because they're 'disgruntled voters' or 'kooks' like an Anonymous Coward mentioned below, they can't bring up valid points?
There is no close scrutiny at a state level on how the grants are going to be dolled out. The grant discussions are going to be done behind closed doors with no public opinion hearings on whether or not certain grants should be blocked.
The board members of the Institute that will be doing the funding have a number of conflicts of interest. No one can do or say anything about it though, because well, the Institute is not subject to state monitoring.
So, while I'm all for stem-cell research, I believe that this is not the way to do it. Some of that money will be my tax dollars (you know, the bonds that will be issued to fun all this will have to be paid up at some time), and I'd like to be able to see what it's being used for, and have some say in the matter.
Now, kindly explain in your opinion, which is the best outcome from this lawsuit:
1) The 'kooks' get shot down, and the Institute moves on with a number of possible conflicts of interest in their board, at which sometime down the road, someone will complain about only certain companies and schools are getting funding, so another lawsuit comes along;
2) The 'kooks' win the case, and the institute is folded. A new proposition is submitted where there will be a new agency closely-monitored by the state, where all discussions and grant proposals are to be discussed in a public forum, and the board members are elected from a pool of people that have no vested financial interest in the proposals' outcomes.
While they may be 'kooks' according to you, their arguments are valid. If the suits were brought on by say, an organization like the League of Women Voters, would it make any different in your opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that I'm taking their side, which is untrue.
I tend to go with common sense, which tells me that the vast majority of the American public seems to be either not educated enough or too lazy to understand how their opinions are being molded and swayed by a well-placed news item or report by media organizations that are sympathetic to either party.
Of course, when you can't engage in a reasonable debate, resorting to calling someone a 'goat fucker' is without a doubt one of the most effective ways to get your point across.
That last sentence was an example of sarcasm. Let's see if you understand what I just wrote.
I almost laughed, then I realized you actually believe in that myth.
So that means he's getting paid by George Soros?
While this will be slightly off-topic, I'll attempt to reply to this post.
Haliburton has been receiving no-bid contracts for some time now, even during the Clinton administration.
The reason for these was fairly simple: they had the most amount of resources available to get on the job quickly, and they were (arguably) among the most experienced in the field.
This has been mentioned a number of times, but you can read more details about it here (yes, it's the National Review, but this is just one of the places where you will find this information).
However, you will notice that back during the Clinton administration, there was (relatively) less scrutiny of the administration, specifically because of the (apparent) media bias.
You cannot deny that with the exception of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was (and to some extent, still is) the media's darling. Very rarely you would hear a report that was very critical of the Clinton administration, and even today, I don't recall anything nearly as bad as what some of the things that have been on CNN/NBC/CBS/etc about Bush.
Nowadays, everyone in the mainstream media venues seems to have an ax to grind with the administration (except for Fox News, which is as right-wing as they probably come), so you will see a lot more reports sensationalizing things which have literally been taking place for well over a decade.
What a delightfully interesting comment.
Using that line of reasoning, one could then say the same about Cheney and Haliburton's past relationship when he became a part of the administration:
"He's not a Haliburton guy. He just used to work for them. Big Deal."
Your comment is actually not that uncommon. You will see similar comments whenever there's any hint that a person affiliated with a political organization has a less-than-acceptable prior 'relationship record'.
However, you'll see a lot more leniency when the comments are being made about someone in the democrat/leftist/liberal camp.
Now you understand the double standard that exists in general when reporting political relationships depending on which political party you're referring to at the time.
From the article:
The researchers surveyed 1,057 members of the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth - a body whose 120,000 student members are within the top five per cent academically in the 11-19 age range.
Asked for their favourite type of music, 39 per cent said rock, 18 per cent R&B and 14 per cent pop. Six per cent said heavy metal and a third rated it in their top five genres.
So no, not 'many adolescent metalheads', but a few happen to be gifted, compared to the rest who listen to other types of music.
Also from the article:
The heavy metal fans in the study had lower self-esteem and more difficulties in family relationships and friendships.
So, if anything, one could hypothesize that gifted teenages that listen to heavy metal are more likely to have shitty self-esteem and quite possibly being perceived as asshats by family and friends, and listened to heavy metal as a way to 'cope' with the anger.
Just you wait until they start playing those tracks backwards....
... is the opiate of the masses. ;)
Hippo, glad to see you post here.
I'd say that a Malediction BPO and a Sabre BPO (in addition to several T2 Ammo BPOs) are anything but mediocre. Also, he had (according to the information obtained by Kugutsumen) at least 8 Tech2 BPOS. You and I both know that the chances of getting 1 BPO are very slim, but one single character presumably played by a dev having 8 of them is a little ridiculous. See it for yourself here:
http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?t=68
It's nice to see you try to downplay it, though. Old habits die hard, uh?
You also forget the other allegations of improper behavior by BoB members with some or full knowledge by CCP staff brought up by Kugutsumen, such as:
a) the sharing of player accounts capable of deploying cyno fields to allow 23/7 movement of BoB's capital fleet at a moment's notice;
b) 'renting out' one or more complexes in BoB's space to a known Ebay currency seller and his crew;
c) the purchase of character accounts from other players (namely DB Preacher).
This is all in Kugutsumen's posts in the forum linked above, with forum posts and PM logs (which in all honesty can be faked, but it'd require quite a bit of work).
Note that I never said that CCP employees should not play like anyone else; quite the contrary, I think that we absolutely need devs to be as active as possible to enable CCP to fix all the existing problems with EvE.
However, this particular situation (if ultimately proven truthful) illustrates an apparent lack of ethics by some of CCP's staff, and CCP's inability to control its own employees.
This is a very poor example for the regular EvE player, that spends his time grinding away missions or doing any number of tasks to try to achieve something, when ultimately he has no chance of accomplishing his goal because a character played by a CCP employee wanted to 'get in with the cool kids'.
What's the point of playing if you're gimped from the start?
Do you understand why so many are upset at these developments and how the possibility of this being true can be a major blow to CCP's credibility?
I've been a regular EvE player for over a year now, and I've been following these discussions in the EvE-Online forums with some interest.
p ic&threadID=468189) and now we're hoping that something will be done.
The character Kugutsumen is the head of an in-game intelligence-gathering organization that has been doing these types of things for some time now, involving multiple corporations and alliances, usually under contract from their enemies, other times for his own personal gain.
His methods (which include bribing, forum infiltration, TS/Vent spying, etc) have been used in the past by some of the largest alliances, specifically the (arguably) most powerful one in game, named Band of Brothers (BoB), yet no one has made as big a deal out of these events in the past as now, because of one major issue: developer involvement to tip the scales in the favor of specific in-game alliances.
To sum it up, Kugutsumen has posted a number of logs obtained from 'private' BoB forums which point to one or more developers being members of BoB, and providing intel regarding future game event locations, war target information, and most of all, giving Tech2 blueprints to corporations in BoB.
This is a big problem, because normally Tech2 blueprints are used to build 'rare/epic'-type weapons/ships/equipment, and can be highly profitable and provide a distinct advantage not only to those that possess them, but also to those who use said items.
These blueprints are handed out in a lottery fashion, where everyone can have a chance at owning one, but in this case, someone from CCP (the company that created EvE), possibly a developer or GM, has apparently given multiple blueprints to BoB, which is a enourmous slap in the face to the rest of the community which is constantly asking for the Tech2 blueprint distribution system to be balanced.
Some of the other logs also seem to point to high-ranking members of BoB giving access to special areas of their space to Ebay currency sellers in exchange for a cut of the profits, character accounts being traded or sold between members, and other things which are strictly forbidden by EvE's EULA.
This is why there is such a large reaction on the forums. BoB is trying very hard to throw off the focus of the discussion to the methods in which this information was obtained, because their very existence as an alliance is being put in jeopardy by the allegations that CCP's development or GM team members have engaged in actions that benefited them. This is not the first time that CCP staff have abused their status; last summer, a 'rookie' GM spawned a rare ship completely fitted with high-end rare items, which was blown up by 'accident' by a BoB-allied corporation member and some of its items looted. The GM was fired for this, but the story was never completely explained to the general community (CCP reserves the right to control how much information is disclosed about investigations such as these).
So there you have it. The most powerful alliance in EvE is accused of cheating with the help of CCP employees, and now the rest of the player-base wants to know what is going on. Only because Kugutsumen and a number of the SomethingAwful Goons made a number of posts in the EvE-Online forums did this become such a huge issue, forcing CCP to address it publicly (http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=to
If your financial institution falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission), you will be subjected to a background check (often including a full fingerprinting session to be checked against the FBI database) as well as the usual drug-screening tests.
This was the case for me when I worked for a big investment bank (which shall remain nameless) in New York.
You get paid quite a bit more, the bonuses are great, and the vacation time is awesome, but you're subject to a lot more scrutiny than some folks are willing to deal with.
"For people convicted of kidnapping children and coercing them into child porn, this might very well be reasonable. But for the 25 yr old convicted of statutory rape of the 17yr old, this is quite questionable. Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder."
I fail to understand why you consider child porn to be more important than molestation/incest or statutory rape. I'm also inclined to believe that your statement that "Most people who have to register do not deserve to be treated the same as the worst of the class" is not accurate, simply because one look at the Sex Offender Database here in California tells me that a large number of individuals were convicted of serious crimes, i.e. not just a simple molestation incident, but things like sexual battery, attempted rape by force, lewd or lascivious act with a minor, etc. If you think I'm making it up, just go look it up yourself: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
The bottom line is that the second they committed the crime they were convicted for, they made the conscious decision to become second-class citizens themselves. This was not forced upon them, but it was their own choice, for which they have to, and should be made to pay forever if need be.
While their so-called 'debt to society' might have been paid, the emotional scars of their victims will probably never heal.
Think about that for a while.
No sir, you're "incredibly stupid" by not reading the full article.
Had you bothered to read it instead of simply going by the short quote, you'd understand that the article has nothing to do with 'cryogenics'.
The quote is from a larger statement where they're referring to inducing hypothermia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery or with severe trauma, where it helped stabilize the metabolism of the victims, which resulted in better outcome on the treatment.
The article itself is aimed at medical uses such as the ones described above. This research has *nothing* to do with space travel, but is geared at preserving organ function in critically ill patients, where hypothermia is regularly induced to slow down organ deterioration.
Now go back to your cave.
"...You don't think it's possible that a computer geek from a rich family might have at some point in her life used IRIX, or at least used it enough to recognize a very distinctive tech demo that came with IRIX at the time and could be used as a file manager? Is it really that improbable that a ten year old might know at least enough about UNIX to know what /usr is?..."
No.
Should we petition HotHardware to change their name to Not-So-HotHardware or maybe Lukewarm Hardware at best?
Looks like their servers exploded from the slashdoting.....
Thanks for your reply.
Could you explain why the article sounds more like a promotional marketing piece and less of a review?
How does it merit 9/10 stars when it has so many drawbacks (which you listed on the last page) that could be considered pretty serious?
Let's see, poor battery life on a device that's supposed to be portable. Check.
Touchscreen that is one of the strong selling points sometimes doesn't work. Check.
No sync cable included in a $850 device. Check.
A Linux-powered pad that can't sync to a Linux desktop. Check.
I'd say that right there, those would chop off at least 4 of the stars in your rating. Lots of small devices out there can browse the web admirably, have great screens, multiple connectivity, etc.
Gives us an objective review, not a fluff-filled article.
This is not a new device, and has never really caught on, regardless of how many times you might scream it has Linux inside. It might be neat for those that just have the burning desire of throwing money away, and that's about it.
- 2/
l
. aspx/featured_basnb?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
See for yourself...
- It was announced back in 2004, and Engadget mentioned it:
http://www.engadget.com/2004/09/08/the-pepper-pad
Then Tux Magazine reviewed it in April 2005, and it was still not available to the public:
http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000125
Now it's available for sale, but for the price it's selling ($850), you can easily pick a cheap laptop with far more expandability for quite less.
Do you think it's portable? Think again. Look at the dimensions:
http://www.pepper.com/products/specifications.htm
12.1" x 6.6" x 0.8" (309 x 175 x 20mm)
2.3 lbs (1043 grams)
Now, for something this big, why not get something that's cheaper and just better like say, the Dell Inspiron B120 for $499, with free memory and wifi upgrades? See for yourself:
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features
Just my 2 cents....
Like you, I have a large assortment of items I need to carry with me on a daily basis for work and the occasional play.
After several years of trial and error and looking at bags, I found these:
http://www.booqbags.com/index.html
I have the Python XM System with the 17" Powerbook sleeve. Everything fits perfectly in the bag, including laptop, AC adapter, assorted console cables to connect to my servers, file folders, webcam, you name it. The laptop sits a padded compartment separate from all the other items in the bag, and you can easily fit laptops up to the 17" widescreen ones (not using the powerbook sleeve, of course) in that compartment.
You can fit a PSP in the Logitech case in one of the side pockets.
The zippers have a special 'flap' over them that make them nearly waterproof, so you don't have to worry about water seeping into the bag thru the zippers. It's very nearly the perfect bag, IMHO.
I hope this helps you.
This makes me wonder if anyone even looks into the source of these reports.
Here we have an organization publishing a paper that is encouraging the use of Open Source in the government, yet these are the same people that are for globalization and outsourcing, which time and time again have been denigrated and crucified here on Slashdot and other sites of a similar nation.
I mean, check out their own About page (http://www.ced.org/about/chairman.shtml):
GLOBALIZATION & TRADE
CED's international program remains strong and saw the completion of a second project chaired by James D. Robinson III, General Partner and Co-Founder, RRE Ventures, on trade and outsourcing entitled, "Making Trade Work: Straight Talk on Jobs, Trade, and Adjustment." At CED's annual dinner on May 19, 2004, General Motors received our Excellence in Public Policy Award, and GM's former chairman and chief executive officer from 1992 to 2000, Jack Smith, spoke about GM's commitment to global corporate citizenship and also presented an overview of his company's activities in the Peoples Republic of China. GM's current chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner, presented the CED award to Mr. Smith.
Just have a look at their projects page, and after reading the transcripts of some of their meetings, you might start wondering what's behind this interest in Open Source (http://www.ced.org/projects.shtml).
So, I guess they're OK when they're 'pursuing the Open Source agenda', but when they release a report tomorrow on how free global trade and outsourcing is the next best thing to sliced bread, we can call them devils?
Help me out here, folks....
Well, the problem is that he did say it should be done if the right oportunity came along, but it would be a hard thing to do because the big corporation (he used Oracle in his example) would catch on and stomp it with its big stick.
n ition
The problem I had with his statement is that he's effectively saying you're entirely justified in 'freeing the code', regardless of who it belongs to. If it's 'closed source', it needs to be free, plain and simply. That is the kind of position that would make companies think twice about moving to Open Source.... I mean, an employee with a more radical set of beliefs that mirror those of RMS could feel 'justified' to make public some modifications or in-house forks of Open Source projects, because after all, 'code should be free'.
Also, there is such a thing as 'IP theft'. Intelectual property can be defined as follows:
"Intellectual Property: A creation of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes."
This is taken from here: http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/legal_defi
While copyright infringement is part of IP theft, it spans a few more things, including 'business methods' and 'industrial processes' which I believe software development could fall under.
So, in essence, my point is that RMS is condoning source-code theft if you are doing it for the 'right reasons' (his reasons, that is), and you can get away with it. This to me is a very dangerous thing to say, which will end up alienating those who might be more moderate.
After reading the RMS interview with Forbes, what really stuck out was the following question and his reply:
Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?
It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it).
Am I the only one that sees this statement as a dangerous precedent? I mean, for all intents and purposes, RMS feels that 'stealing' copyrighted code is justifiable, if it's done with the intent to "liberate it".
Maybe you might consider this a trolling or a flame, but I think that it is quotes such as these that may end up bringing the most amount of trouble for the RMS crowd... I think the man is losing touch with reality, and approaching a point where zealotry is clowding his judgment to a dangerous level. How can we convince businesses that using the GPL and open source is a GOOOD THING if one of the main characters is in effect condoning IP theft if done for the 'right reasons'?
But that's the problem with this proposition.
While it is being funded by the taxpayers, it is not available for public scrutiny.
The public has no say in what grants' proposals are to be considered, or given priority to.
The public has no say in who should get funding or not.
The public cannot even be present or represented in the Institute meetings, because well, they can't.
The people that are running the funding are the ones that stand to benefit the most from a financial perspective if research pays off, with virtually no returns to the tax-payer. What, you think they'll 'open-source' their findings?
The Institute that's running the show is not subject to close inspection and monitoring like regular state agencies; for all intents and purposes, it's best to think of it as a taxpayer-funded venture capital group that reports to no one.
You know, you're so right, but the saddest thing is that the guy here before him was even *worse*.
;)
How's that for a voter track record?
Please don't tell me you're so naive as to not recognize the validity of their lawsuits.
Or you prefer that they spend tax dollars with no oversight or disclosure to anyone?
Let me use this example, maybe it'll make things clearer.
Replace the following terms in the article as needed:
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine - change to Giant Oil Corporation Consortium
stem cel - change to oil
University of California - change to Exxon/BP/Texaco, whoever
biotechnology - oil drilling research
Lemme guess, now you're all outraged at house something like this be allowed.
The problem with your example is that, unlike the board members, we have access to all of Cheney's financial history. He is required, by law, to disclose any and all possible dealings and conflicts of interest that may arise out of his actions or decisions.5 ,00.html
/., but it has nothing to do with this case.
Heck, here, have a look: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,91251
That is not the case in this matter. None of them are forced to disclose anything, because the bill itself stated that the Institute was pretty much a independent entity, so the state can't regulate it.
Now, stick to the subject at hand. I know that the Administration is fair game here on
I'm not spinning. I'm a California resident, and while their end goal might be to repeal the proposition, they do bring up some valid points. Just because they're 'disgruntled voters' or 'kooks' like an Anonymous Coward mentioned below, they can't bring up valid points?
There is no close scrutiny at a state level on how the grants are going to be dolled out. The grant discussions are going to be done behind closed doors with no public opinion hearings on whether or not certain grants should be blocked.
The board members of the Institute that will be doing the funding have a number of conflicts of interest. No one can do or say anything about it though, because well, the Institute is not subject to state monitoring.
So, while I'm all for stem-cell research, I believe that this is not the way to do it. Some of that money will be my tax dollars (you know, the bonds that will be issued to fun all this will have to be paid up at some time), and I'd like to be able to see what it's being used for, and have some say in the matter.
So tell me exactly how am I spinning it?
Thanks for the 'clarification', Anonymous Coward.
Now, kindly explain in your opinion, which is the best outcome from this lawsuit:
1) The 'kooks' get shot down, and the Institute moves on with a number of possible conflicts of interest in their board, at which sometime down the road, someone will complain about only certain companies and schools are getting funding, so another lawsuit comes along;
2) The 'kooks' win the case, and the institute is folded. A new proposition is submitted where there will be a new agency closely-monitored by the state, where all discussions and grant proposals are to be discussed in a public forum, and the board members are elected from a pool of people that have no vested financial interest in the proposals' outcomes.
While they may be 'kooks' according to you, their arguments are valid. If the suits were brought on by say, an organization like the League of Women Voters, would it make any different in your opinion?