It always bothers me when a news report talks about the strategic future of things, when the reporter makes a fairly fundamental mistake to show that he/she isn't really all that familiar with the subject matter. The comment that implies that Treo 700s don't support bluetooth, plus the statement about how Palm stopped selling the 650 in Europe because of standards incompatibility, show that 1, the reporter (Marc Jones) isn't familiar with Palm software, and 2, doesn't get that older phones won't be compatible with new standards, and that it's not a bad thing when sales of them stops, when there's a new phone on the block anyways that IS compatible.
I know they're both kind of minor points, but what I hate is how it casts a shadow of doubt on the whole article. It seems like the reporter is out of touch, and so I wonder what else may be wrong that I don't know well enough to spot.
It's a little scary that a CEO is saying things like this. The first thing to make clear is that backdated options are overwhelmingly given to top execs; it's not like the rank-and-file of a company gets them, typically. And it's important to remember that the point of rewarding an executive with options, rather than with outright cash, is to incentivize them to run the company better; if you pay them money today and the company tanks tomorrow, oh well...they've been paid, no direct impact to them as long as they move on to another job (which they typically do). But if their compensation is tied to the success of the company, that's different.
On the other hand, however, if their options were back-dated, then that incentive gets short-circuited. The options are already well-ahead, so there's no real need for the company's stock to do that much better. The fact that this CEO either doesn't get it, or wants to make it seem like this fact doesn't exist, is half of what's scary here. The other half of what's scary is that, simply put, backdating options is against SEC regulations. Does he think that laws shouldn't apply, as long as he says he doesn't understand who's getting hurt?
Woo hoo! Look at me...I just got one of the least-respected certifications ("Certified Ethical Hacker") in computer security!
Woo hoo! Look at me...I'm parroting back a little bit of information, containing nothing new whatsoever in depth or breadth of scope, about protecting your identity!
Um, yeah...guess what? DivXNetworks was the company that spun off from DIVX. Trust me...I did consulting for the original DIVX, in their R&D facility in Herndon, VA. I've stood inside the vault that held digital masters of more movies than I could count. Wikipedia is very wrong on this one.
The DIVX codec is the last remaining vestige of the company DIVX. You're right, they aren't the same...one was a company and the other is the codec that was invented by the company. Grats, TMO!
A little known historical fact about Circuit City. The DIVX algorithm for video came from a company that was basically a joint venture between Circuit City and a Hollywood law firm, to produce an alternative to DVDs as they are today. The biggest pain in the ass about going to Blockbuster (or any other bricks-and-mortar video rental place) is returning it, right? Well, imagine if instead you went to a store, picked up a DVD for about four bucks, and took it home. It would come with a code, which would make it playable in your DVD player, for 4 days...after that, you pay to get a new code if you want to watch it again. (The player would dial out via included modem and retrieve the code...you get a monthly statement of all your charges.) The upshot of this is that you don't have to return the DVD, and stores don't have to maintain nearly the same kind of inventory to handle rentals.
So what's the point? Well, Circuit City isn't entirely foreign to the notions of law that come into play here, and I would be absolutely floored in amazement if they hadn't SERIOUSLY consulted with a reputable law firm before embarking on this. I doubt they're really as reckless as we may all be thinking right now.
Too bad it's not yet in existence. When I see a radically new gadget from some company I've never heard of whose press release touts multiple moves forward in different realms of technology, and all they have to show is a computer-generated graphic of the thing...well, I've never seen any such device ever show up to market. Not ever, in my memory.
I don't understand why there would be any greater implications from this event than any other. All kinds of organizations have been compromised; this is far from news, and just another example of why most security experts recommend a "multi-tiered" password scheme for users. A set of passwords, of varying importance...for the most critical things, a longer and stronger password, another middle-level password to use at other sites of lesser importance (like webmail) and a throwaway password for things that don't matter to you so much. Best of all, use unique passwords for the high-importance site, if you use something like Password Safe for Windows, KeePass for Linux, or Keyring for PalmOS to keep track of them securely.
Man, I had to go to my 419 spam archive to remind myself how to read awful english. This review is a little cryptic at times:
The PEBL comes standard with "ObeyMoto" the universal voice recognition, and this means dialing by numbers or name is a breeze. This combo really does mean you can ditch the phone into the recesses of your pants or satchel and not really the phone.
Good review other than that, although it would have been nice to see more than two companies represented.
The students are at fault, above all else. But I can't believe that the IT department of the hospital was so incredibly foolish as to put everything on the same network. Access control for the doors, computers in the ICU, the system that handles paging doctors...all on the same net instead of broken out by system? What the hell? Did the system at the nurses' station in the ICU NEED to have direct connectivity to the card reader on the door?
I don't think for an instant that the students who exploited systems at the hospital are in any way excused by the fact that the hospital set themselves up for a good hard screwing once they got exploited. But anyone...ANYONE...in a role of designing networks and systems needs to face the facts that such people do exist, are out there, and are very busy. You have to plan for certain "what if" situations, and this is a textbook example of one such scenario. That the IT department of the hospital put all of their eggs into one networking basket as they did is utterly inexcusable, and they too share some blame for planning a system on the proverbial assumption that there are no bad people in the world.
A class-action lawsuit has been formed by fat people against the Acme Spoon Company, on the claims that their products were insufficiently labeled that excessive use of their product might make someone gain weight.
With the code as large as Oracle's code is.. it could take an extremely long time.
Okay, hang on. I know Litchfield, and he's no dummy (and he's a coder as well). First of all, Oracle isn't one guy debugging the code, as you are; it's a whole huge company, with literally thousands of programmers. Their code is in a system like Rational, which helps with modeling as well (thus enabling people to find the sections of code that control various aspects of the software...so you don't have to go looking through ALL of it just to find, say, the section that checks the listener password). And Litchfield told Oracle precisely what the flaw was, the conditions that expose it, etc. So there's no way it should take them 3 months just to find the damned thing. This isn't some guy writing software on his own who hears about a bug in his code; this is an army of developers with some extremely powerful tools for code management, looking for a very well-defined and documented bug, as described to them by someone who is arguably the world's foremost expert on database security.
But let's say they did need this long just to find it? The standard rules of engagement (I'm referencing RFPolicy in particular here, as it's what I rely on, but the one developed by l0pht works too) for vulnerability disclosure make plenty of room for such an event...PROVIDED the vendor keeps in touch with the researcher who found the bug. If you just ignore him, this is what you get. David's a reasonable and generous man (he must be; he wrote the foreword to my book...that statement also serves as the disclaimer), and I'm sure he'd be willing to help in any way he can.
Does nobody remember when everyone was gloating over how these numbers showed many more vulnerabilities on the Windows side than on the Linux side? All those years we yelled at Microsoft, asking them to get better on security...were we ever planning to be happy if they actually DID? The notion that their vulnerability count is declining on a yearly basis isn't all that mysterious; they've really been doing a lot of work, from coding practices to architecture (for example, Microsoft Security Center, "Microsoft Update" replacing "Windows Update," their attempt at disabling raw sockets, etc.). So maybe they really are improving...what's so awful about that? It's not a zero-sum solution, everyone...if any single player in the OS field improves security, then that's good, no matter who it is.
Or, is this not really about security, but just trying to bash Microsoft despite the stats? Nawwwwww....:)
When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.
Actually, no. It is the duty of any moral individual to seek to change that law, and to resist it in the meanwhile. But in real world situations, that gets a little more complicated. If Microsoft refuses to comply with Chinese laws concerning censorship, do you really think it will affect those laws? I think it unlikely that Microsoft will be kicked out entirely, but there are a lot of other ways that China can enforce their will; the simplest one involves applying pressure to individuals who work for Microsoft in China to do their bidding, and would just as quickly/effectively censor without letting Microsoft have a say. And, in the meanwhile, Microsoft would almost certainly lose traction...traction which can later help in influencing laws when there's a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything on that front. It's all fine and good to sit back here and quote half of a statement relating to peaceful resistance, but in the real world it gets a little more complex, and you have to think about the results, not the intention. Morality is not a formula you just follow by rote and feel good about. Microsoft can't do a damned thing about the Chinese government's oppression of free speech and they know it, so their next duty is to avoid doing harm to themselves, their employees, and their stockholders all in the name of futility.
I've never heard of "The Scotsman" before (the news organization that is the source of this news), but I must say that based on their reporting of this, I'd not be surprised if they also reported that Duke Nukem Forever was on display at CES.:)
I don't think you understand what "price fixing" means in terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Apple is allowed to hold their ground and negotiate a fixed price from Sony, BMG, et. al.; they are a single entity, and are allowed to set their own price for their own service (in this case, iTunes). What is NOT allowed is for Sony, BMG and other competitors to get together and say, "Okay, I won't give iTunes access to our catalog of songs if you don't give it to them either, unless they agree to our terms." The reason why this is illegal under Sherman is that such a situation forms a de facto monopoly...and an invisible one, as well...which in turn disrupts the benefits of a free-market economy. Trust me, nothing good can come of this for the record industry.
I think you don't understand what "price fixing" means, in terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. It doesn't mean that a vendor can't set their OWN price for something...how else would they operate? It means that multiple companies in an industry (that are competitors with each other) can't collude to agree on prices. The point is that if all of these companies get together and say, "Yeah, I won't give iTunes access to our music if you don't give them access to your music, and he doesn't either, except if they agree to our pricing model" then the competition between them is reduced to a cartel. As a result, a de facto monopoly results, which is bad for consumers.
Steal the tracking device...what tracking device? They plan to use cameras, which will record the plates of passing cars. You submitted the article, but didn't read it?
What I found most inane was the notion that a vehicle traveling near another vehicle of interest can be incriminated by association. How did they ever come up with THAT idea?
I see where you're coming from, and agree (as much as I can, without the perspective you have). My point was that it seemed to me that the article was putting the point forth that maybe things that it (and you) outlined aren't such an impact with regard to women in general, since female gamers don't seem to mind. I can't agree with that point, and it flies in the face of logic.
Okay. So currently, many female characters in games are hypersexualized figures with gravity-defying, anatomically unrealistic bodies. And currently, most female gamers (of which there are what, twelve?) are confident enough to not feel threatened by this. So...this is an argument that those character types aren't an issue with regard to women? Isn't that a bit like saying that "Since everyone who walked on the moon had a spacesuit, the lack of any atmosphere whatsoever isn't really something to pay attention to"?
Okay, this isn't going to play well with the crowd, but let me just state that I can't STAND Dr. Felten's DMCA demagoguing. For the record, he was not threatened with a lawsuit way back when on the basis of the DMCA, regardless of what is currently believed. He was sued because the competition to test SDMI required that all participants sign an NDA...which he did...and which he would be in violation of by presenting his findings.
But, alas, this is not how it got reported. He blamed the DMCA, and that's what got spread around as information. But it got worse than that...because of this reporting, the perception became that the DMCA in fact bars not only reverse-engineering when it comes to copyright controls, but reverse engineering of everything else as well. So some companies bandied it about as an intimidation tactic (either believing the prohibition to be true, or simply counting upon the empty threat to dissuade people...which it did) and some people stifled themselves out of fear. In fact, the DMCA only applies to technical controls to prevent copyrighted content from being pirated (or to technical means that prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted content...like songs from Napster, after you cancel your subscription). Even more so, it has an exception (Section 1201(j), to be precise) specifically for the purpose of security research. Check it out here if you like. It states:
...it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
It has no teeth to prevent security research whatsoever, except in the all-too-common eyes of the misinformed.
Now, don't get me wrong; I think the DMCA is an awful law. I despise how short-sighted it is, and it's a step backwards (particularly with the way it's effectively incompatible with the notion of fair use). But Dr. Felten did everyone a disservice by purporting that the DMCA in any way prohibits or hinders security research. In the name of (in my opinion) enhancing his own visibility, he created the very dragon that he claims to be fighting.
I particularly love the notion that they have that, by sequestering porn off to its own ports, they'll manage to avoid the risk of infringement of First Amendment rights that has come with things like the CDA. But I guess they really aren't thinking about WHO will decide what is and isn't porn, are they?:)
Okay...so a 13-year-old kid plays a video game where there's magic, all kinds of non-real species and objects, all of which transpires on a place that isn't real. And from this, he develops some notion that he can fly, or survive jumps from very high up, or some other physics-ignorant notion. And some people believe that somehow, in some fashion, Blizzard is responsible?
All I have to ask is this: have the evangelical Christians been much more effective at discounting the theory of evolution in China than they have here? Kind of sounds like it...
I think it's not even that. It's the ecological effect of a sonic blast followed by the detonation of a torpedo, compared to NO sonic blast, just the detonation of the torpedo...followed immediately by the catastrophe of a nuclear vessel being sunk, complete with active reactor, all chemicals on board, etc. I'll take the first over the second any day, ecologically speaking.
Slashdot Mirror
(sigh)
It always bothers me when a news report talks about the strategic future of things, when the reporter makes a fairly fundamental mistake to show that he/she isn't really all that familiar with the subject matter. The comment that implies that Treo 700s don't support bluetooth, plus the statement about how Palm stopped selling the 650 in Europe because of standards incompatibility, show that 1, the reporter (Marc Jones) isn't familiar with Palm software, and 2, doesn't get that older phones won't be compatible with new standards, and that it's not a bad thing when sales of them stops, when there's a new phone on the block anyways that IS compatible.
I know they're both kind of minor points, but what I hate is how it casts a shadow of doubt on the whole article. It seems like the reporter is out of touch, and so I wonder what else may be wrong that I don't know well enough to spot.
It's a little scary that a CEO is saying things like this. The first thing to make clear is that backdated options are overwhelmingly given to top execs; it's not like the rank-and-file of a company gets them, typically. And it's important to remember that the point of rewarding an executive with options, rather than with outright cash, is to incentivize them to run the company better; if you pay them money today and the company tanks tomorrow, oh well...they've been paid, no direct impact to them as long as they move on to another job (which they typically do). But if their compensation is tied to the success of the company, that's different.
On the other hand, however, if their options were back-dated, then that incentive gets short-circuited. The options are already well-ahead, so there's no real need for the company's stock to do that much better. The fact that this CEO either doesn't get it, or wants to make it seem like this fact doesn't exist, is half of what's scary here. The other half of what's scary is that, simply put, backdating options is against SEC regulations. Does he think that laws shouldn't apply, as long as he says he doesn't understand who's getting hurt?
Woo hoo! Look at me...I just got one of the least-respected certifications ("Certified Ethical Hacker") in computer security!
Woo hoo! Look at me...I'm parroting back a little bit of information, containing nothing new whatsoever in depth or breadth of scope, about protecting your identity!
(yawn)
Um, yeah...guess what? DivXNetworks was the company that spun off from DIVX. Trust me...I did consulting for the original DIVX, in their R&D facility in Herndon, VA. I've stood inside the vault that held digital masters of more movies than I could count. Wikipedia is very wrong on this one.
The DIVX codec is the last remaining vestige of the company DIVX. You're right, they aren't the same...one was a company and the other is the codec that was invented by the company. Grats, TMO!
A little known historical fact about Circuit City. The DIVX algorithm for video came from a company that was basically a joint venture between Circuit City and a Hollywood law firm, to produce an alternative to DVDs as they are today. The biggest pain in the ass about going to Blockbuster (or any other bricks-and-mortar video rental place) is returning it, right? Well, imagine if instead you went to a store, picked up a DVD for about four bucks, and took it home. It would come with a code, which would make it playable in your DVD player, for 4 days...after that, you pay to get a new code if you want to watch it again. (The player would dial out via included modem and retrieve the code...you get a monthly statement of all your charges.) The upshot of this is that you don't have to return the DVD, and stores don't have to maintain nearly the same kind of inventory to handle rentals.
So what's the point? Well, Circuit City isn't entirely foreign to the notions of law that come into play here, and I would be absolutely floored in amazement if they hadn't SERIOUSLY consulted with a reputable law firm before embarking on this. I doubt they're really as reckless as we may all be thinking right now.
"Too bad it's not yet available for sale..."
Too bad it's not yet in existence. When I see a radically new gadget from some company I've never heard of whose press release touts multiple moves forward in different realms of technology, and all they have to show is a computer-generated graphic of the thing...well, I've never seen any such device ever show up to market. Not ever, in my memory.
I don't understand why there would be any greater implications from this event than any other. All kinds of organizations have been compromised; this is far from news, and just another example of why most security experts recommend a "multi-tiered" password scheme for users. A set of passwords, of varying importance...for the most critical things, a longer and stronger password, another middle-level password to use at other sites of lesser importance (like webmail) and a throwaway password for things that don't matter to you so much. Best of all, use unique passwords for the high-importance site, if you use something like Password Safe for Windows, KeePass for Linux, or Keyring for PalmOS to keep track of them securely.
Good review other than that, although it would have been nice to see more than two companies represented.
"The idea that two people could engage in consensual sex because they love each other means we can no longer enforce laws against prostitution."
The students are at fault, above all else. But I can't believe that the IT department of the hospital was so incredibly foolish as to put everything on the same network. Access control for the doors, computers in the ICU, the system that handles paging doctors...all on the same net instead of broken out by system? What the hell? Did the system at the nurses' station in the ICU NEED to have direct connectivity to the card reader on the door?
I don't think for an instant that the students who exploited systems at the hospital are in any way excused by the fact that the hospital set themselves up for a good hard screwing once they got exploited. But anyone...ANYONE...in a role of designing networks and systems needs to face the facts that such people do exist, are out there, and are very busy. You have to plan for certain "what if" situations, and this is a textbook example of one such scenario. That the IT department of the hospital put all of their eggs into one networking basket as they did is utterly inexcusable, and they too share some blame for planning a system on the proverbial assumption that there are no bad people in the world.
A class-action lawsuit has been formed by fat people against the Acme Spoon Company, on the claims that their products were insufficiently labeled that excessive use of their product might make someone gain weight.
With the code as large as Oracle's code is.. it could take an extremely long time.
Okay, hang on. I know Litchfield, and he's no dummy (and he's a coder as well). First of all, Oracle isn't one guy debugging the code, as you are; it's a whole huge company, with literally thousands of programmers. Their code is in a system like Rational, which helps with modeling as well (thus enabling people to find the sections of code that control various aspects of the software...so you don't have to go looking through ALL of it just to find, say, the section that checks the listener password). And Litchfield told Oracle precisely what the flaw was, the conditions that expose it, etc. So there's no way it should take them 3 months just to find the damned thing. This isn't some guy writing software on his own who hears about a bug in his code; this is an army of developers with some extremely powerful tools for code management, looking for a very well-defined and documented bug, as described to them by someone who is arguably the world's foremost expert on database security.
But let's say they did need this long just to find it? The standard rules of engagement (I'm referencing RFPolicy in particular here, as it's what I rely on, but the one developed by l0pht works too) for vulnerability disclosure make plenty of room for such an event...PROVIDED the vendor keeps in touch with the researcher who found the bug. If you just ignore him, this is what you get. David's a reasonable and generous man (he must be; he wrote the foreword to my book...that statement also serves as the disclaimer), and I'm sure he'd be willing to help in any way he can.
Does nobody remember when everyone was gloating over how these numbers showed many more vulnerabilities on the Windows side than on the Linux side? All those years we yelled at Microsoft, asking them to get better on security...were we ever planning to be happy if they actually DID? The notion that their vulnerability count is declining on a yearly basis isn't all that mysterious; they've really been doing a lot of work, from coding practices to architecture (for example, Microsoft Security Center, "Microsoft Update" replacing "Windows Update," their attempt at disabling raw sockets, etc.). So maybe they really are improving...what's so awful about that? It's not a zero-sum solution, everyone...if any single player in the OS field improves security, then that's good, no matter who it is.
:)
Or, is this not really about security, but just trying to bash Microsoft despite the stats? Nawwwwww....
Actually, no. It is the duty of any moral individual to seek to change that law, and to resist it in the meanwhile. But in real world situations, that gets a little more complicated. If Microsoft refuses to comply with Chinese laws concerning censorship, do you really think it will affect those laws? I think it unlikely that Microsoft will be kicked out entirely, but there are a lot of other ways that China can enforce their will; the simplest one involves applying pressure to individuals who work for Microsoft in China to do their bidding, and would just as quickly/effectively censor without letting Microsoft have a say. And, in the meanwhile, Microsoft would almost certainly lose traction...traction which can later help in influencing laws when there's a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything on that front. It's all fine and good to sit back here and quote half of a statement relating to peaceful resistance, but in the real world it gets a little more complex, and you have to think about the results, not the intention. Morality is not a formula you just follow by rote and feel good about. Microsoft can't do a damned thing about the Chinese government's oppression of free speech and they know it, so their next duty is to avoid doing harm to themselves, their employees, and their stockholders all in the name of futility.
I've never heard of "The Scotsman" before (the news organization that is the source of this news), but I must say that based on their reporting of this, I'd not be surprised if they also reported that Duke Nukem Forever was on display at CES. :)
I don't think you understand what "price fixing" means in terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Apple is allowed to hold their ground and negotiate a fixed price from Sony, BMG, et. al.; they are a single entity, and are allowed to set their own price for their own service (in this case, iTunes). What is NOT allowed is for Sony, BMG and other competitors to get together and say, "Okay, I won't give iTunes access to our catalog of songs if you don't give it to them either, unless they agree to our terms." The reason why this is illegal under Sherman is that such a situation forms a de facto monopoly...and an invisible one, as well...which in turn disrupts the benefits of a free-market economy. Trust me, nothing good can come of this for the record industry.
I think you don't understand what "price fixing" means, in terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. It doesn't mean that a vendor can't set their OWN price for something...how else would they operate? It means that multiple companies in an industry (that are competitors with each other) can't collude to agree on prices. The point is that if all of these companies get together and say, "Yeah, I won't give iTunes access to our music if you don't give them access to your music, and he doesn't either, except if they agree to our pricing model" then the competition between them is reduced to a cartel. As a result, a de facto monopoly results, which is bad for consumers.
Steal the tracking device...what tracking device? They plan to use cameras, which will record the plates of passing cars. You submitted the article, but didn't read it?
What I found most inane was the notion that a vehicle traveling near another vehicle of interest can be incriminated by association. How did they ever come up with THAT idea?
I see where you're coming from, and agree (as much as I can, without the perspective you have). My point was that it seemed to me that the article was putting the point forth that maybe things that it (and you) outlined aren't such an impact with regard to women in general, since female gamers don't seem to mind. I can't agree with that point, and it flies in the face of logic.
Okay. So currently, many female characters in games are hypersexualized figures with gravity-defying, anatomically unrealistic bodies. And currently, most female gamers (of which there are what, twelve?) are confident enough to not feel threatened by this. So...this is an argument that those character types aren't an issue with regard to women? Isn't that a bit like saying that "Since everyone who walked on the moon had a spacesuit, the lack of any atmosphere whatsoever isn't really something to pay attention to"?
But, alas, this is not how it got reported. He blamed the DMCA, and that's what got spread around as information. But it got worse than that...because of this reporting, the perception became that the DMCA in fact bars not only reverse-engineering when it comes to copyright controls, but reverse engineering of everything else as well. So some companies bandied it about as an intimidation tactic (either believing the prohibition to be true, or simply counting upon the empty threat to dissuade people...which it did) and some people stifled themselves out of fear. In fact, the DMCA only applies to technical controls to prevent copyrighted content from being pirated (or to technical means that prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted content...like songs from Napster, after you cancel your subscription). Even more so, it has an exception (Section 1201(j), to be precise) specifically for the purpose of security research. Check it out here if you like. It states:
It has no teeth to prevent security research whatsoever, except in the all-too-common eyes of the misinformed.
Now, don't get me wrong; I think the DMCA is an awful law. I despise how short-sighted it is, and it's a step backwards (particularly with the way it's effectively incompatible with the notion of fair use). But Dr. Felten did everyone a disservice by purporting that the DMCA in any way prohibits or hinders security research. In the name of (in my opinion) enhancing his own visibility, he created the very dragon that he claims to be fighting.
I particularly love the notion that they have that, by sequestering porn off to its own ports, they'll manage to avoid the risk of infringement of First Amendment rights that has come with things like the CDA. But I guess they really aren't thinking about WHO will decide what is and isn't porn, are they? :)
Okay...so a 13-year-old kid plays a video game where there's magic, all kinds of non-real species and objects, all of which transpires on a place that isn't real. And from this, he develops some notion that he can fly, or survive jumps from very high up, or some other physics-ignorant notion. And some people believe that somehow, in some fashion, Blizzard is responsible?
All I have to ask is this: have the evangelical Christians been much more effective at discounting the theory of evolution in China than they have here? Kind of sounds like it...
I think it's not even that. It's the ecological effect of a sonic blast followed by the detonation of a torpedo, compared to NO sonic blast, just the detonation of the torpedo...followed immediately by the catastrophe of a nuclear vessel being sunk, complete with active reactor, all chemicals on board, etc. I'll take the first over the second any day, ecologically speaking.