My theory is that geeks have more imagination than the average bear. They look at lines of programming but see not only the code, but also the manipulation of the screen. If you think about it, all a computer really is is a device for changing pixel colors on a screen. Geeks see how the pixels ought to look.
I could be wrong but I think this guy's been watching his The Matrix DVD a little too much.
Remember that bit when Neo's talking to Cypher aboard the ship? When Cypher says that he doesn't even see the code anymore, all he sees is blonde, brunette, etc? I just saw a glitch in the system, uh I mean, feeling of deja vu when I read that paragraph from his post.
125 degrees Celcius is above the boiling point of water. To find that kind of temperature on the surface of the Earth you'd have to be standing on an active volcano.
Didn't the fact that prolonged exposure to 125 C would be enough to kill anyone (even military grade geeks) give it away?
OK, the "good" bit is open to debate but where's the "science fiction" that you're talking about?
Philip K Dick is science fiction. Ray Bradbury is science fiction. Isaac Asimov is science fiction. Star Trek, Star Wars and Stargate are all science fiction (although, for Star Wars at least, the term space opera is more accurate) but Buffy is not.
Why? Because it's not science fiction. Period.
Buffy is fantasy fiction, just like Xena, Hercules, etc.
Pedantic perhaps but sci fi and fantasy are two seperate genres. Please, don't interchange the two.
After all, you wouldn't say Windows when you mean Linux would you?
What's the big attraction with Buffy? What makes it so worthy of attention? Why does Buffy count as "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" whilst the similar Charmed doesn't rate a mention?
I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does. Can someone please explain it to me?
I've watched several episodes of Buffy, as well as a handful of Charmed. I can't say I've ever for a split second thought that either show had much merit but, obviously, there are those out there that disagree with me?
Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing? I've read so many posts on Slashdot, in various discussions about quality television and I find it amazing that Buffy is even mentioned in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24.
I'm not looking to troll here - seriously, that's an honest statement - but just what is it about Buffy that has some of you ga-ga over it? Schoolboy fantasies? Demonic possession? Please elaborate.
Personally, I think that the BBC News and NewsNow sites are both well layed out, work well, etc. Skimming either can be done in seconds and give you a good snapshot of what's going on in the world.
Drilling down to an area of interest on either site is very clean, quick and easy too.
In the past, Opera made a name for itself by being a smaller, faster browser. That's still true, but now it also has a superior feature set that elevates it above all browsers.
Som of the better features include:
Sessions - allow you to open up many different pages at once, either at startup or at any time; Mouse gestures - semi-intuitive mouse click and movement patterns that allow you to go back (hold down right mouse button, click the left one), go forward (hold down left mouse button, click the right one), etc, that greatly speed up the browsing experience; Notes - just what the name suggests; this lets you save and enter snippets of text to and from a browser window; M2 mail client - integrated mail client with spam filtering and POP3, IMAP, and ESMTP support; Wand - a fantastic password manager that saves lots of time when logging into sites; Transfers - a decent download manager; and Fast Forward and Rewind - lets you navigae forward automatically using the most obvious link (which can great but can also be a bit hit and miss sometimes).
That's not an exhaustive list, it's just some of the features that I've found in Opera that make me love it. Yes, some of these features can be found in Mozilla but, equally, some of them can't.
And while Opera might not be free, it's not exactly a rip-off either. True, there is an ad-supported version that won't cost you anything (and that doesn't impact on your surfing speed - check out the Opera website to find out why) but when a product's this good and "just works", why not support the developers by buying it?
If you haven't already tried Opera then do it right away. Give it a month or two and you'll never want to go back to MSIE, Netscape, Mozilla or whatever else you've been using.
If that something is a single event, then it must be fundamentaly different, and destroy the prior 'world': Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Marx' theory of class struggle (good and bad).
What did the Apollo moon landings destroy? Or climbing Mount Everest? Or the creation of the Olympic movement? Or Pasteur's work in medicine?
I'm sorry, but I don't see how something has to be destructive, even in the loosest sense of the word as you're applying it, to be either influential or historical.
Oh, and as for just who "invented" the television, well, that's a real can of worms you've opened there. Farnsworth? George Carey? W. E. Sawyer? Edwin Belin? Vladimir Kosma Zworykin? John Logie Baird? Denes von Mihaly? Take your pick.
Farnsworth's showed off his technology on September 7, 1927. Baird's first public demonstration (to the general public in a department store) was on March 25, 1925, and he had a working model a year earlier.
Of all the pioneers who can claim to have invented the television, Farnsworth's claim isn't the strongest. But, obviously, because he was American he's the one Americans credit.
1981 - Bill Gates embarks on heroic and lifelong quest to piss off every person in America.
1992 - World-Wide Web released by CERN. Group suggests someone invent a web browser so people can use it.
Bill Gates gets a mention (although not a positive one) but Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web doesn't? How bad is that?
It amazes me that Berners-Lee isn't more widely acknowledged for his contribution to today's internet. Granted he's never been a man who's to court publicity, but he will go down in history as one of the most influential figures of the 20th century.
Arguably, he's been as important to the information revolution as Gutenberg was to the printing one. I'm not saying that he created everything single-handedly, only that his work should be acknowledged.
Yes, I realise that the The Lemon timeline is meant to be jokey but shouldn't a guy who's made so much possible for so many - for geeks the world over to argue with each other over which edition of AD&D is the best, people who've never had a social life to order a bride without leaving their front rooms and teenagers everywhere to download more porn than their Dad's could ever have imagined - get at least a tip of the hat?
For one thing, I don't like the fact that these products aren't being tested in biospheres or other sealed environments - from day one the biotechs have tested these products out in the open and their figures for how far GM seeds could possibly travel under their own accord are laughable - a few hundred metres maximum was one quoted figure.
For another, I don't think that these products have been thoroughly tested before being thrusted upon the general public as a fait acompli. Do you know what how GM crops could mutate over the next 5, 50 or 500 years? No, you don't. And neither do the biotechs.
This isn't a new car tyre we're talking about. This isn't a new AIDS drug. As vital as those are, they only affect a small subset of the population, and leave the environment unchanged. And, if they're defective or deadly, they can be recalled or destroyed. Tell me, how would you recall a deadly or environmentally detrimental GM seed variety once it's out there?
I have my reasons for being skeptical about GM products, and my reasons are all based on science. Tell me, what reasons do you have for putting your faith blindly in the hands of corporations who are more loyal to the bottom line than the buying public?
Hey, I subscribe to New Scientist. I read Astrophysics at university. I'm a journalist by profession. I not ignorant when it comes to science and I'm not ignorant when it comes to spin either.
Anti-science? Luddite? That's a laugh.
I know what I'm talking about, and I don't need howstuffworks.com to tell me what GM foods entail. The basic, hold-your-hand howstuffworks.com link was for your benefit, buddy, not mine.
I suggest you really read up on GM crops and found out what they are. It seems like you have some evil vision in your head of something that is no different than evolution at an accelerated rate.
I think Monsanto is evil here, they can't control their crops and I firmly disagree with allowing patents on process/creations such as these but GM foods are not some evil boogy monster, any more so than modern farming techniques.
I know exactly what GM crops are thank you. I was just providing another example (albeit in a different sphere) of just how greedy biotech companies are, even in life or death situations.
GM crop development isn't about speeding up natural or artificial selection. It's about taking the qualities you want, perhaps from two different plant types, perhaps from more, to develop a more "desirable" product.
So, you could be talking about taking one type of plant and transplanting genetic code from a totally different type of plant into it to give the first plant some of the genetic properties of the second plant.
Want wheat that doesn't fall down so easily? Take the relevant genetic code (the bit that says "make this plant's stalk strong" from a totally different plant and replace the corresponding code in the wheat's DNA. Want longer lasting apples? Replace the relevant genetic code with some from a plant that bears fruit that doesn't go rotten as quickly.
Obviously, with natural or artificial selection, it's possible to do this to a degree, but it isn't possible to take the properties of two completely different species and combine them - you can't cross breed an apple and an orange through traditional methods but with genetic modification you can - that is what GM crops and products are about.
There is no way that modern farming techniques could ever produce the kind of seed that Monsanto has made, because it is modified at the genetic level using genetic code from several totally different plant species. Please don't suggest that it's "evolution at an accelerated rate". That's just plain ignorance.
Perhaps, as you seem so ignorant about the facts, you should do some research. Here's a Google link to help you out: GM foods.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick to death of biotech companies experimenting on us with GM foods, etc for no better reason than profit.
They'll willingly gamble with all of our lives, betting the pot that their crops are safe to us and the environment yet they'll be the first to walk away and just shrug their shoulders if something goes wrong.
I recently watched a programme about how Novartis was screwing Korean leukemia sufferers over the cost of their Glivec/Gleevec drug treatment. The very patients that were part of the company's clinical trials are now being fleeced by the company, blackmailed into paying tens of thousands of US dollars a year for a drug that they themselves helped bring to the market! This for a drug that costs pennies to mass produce.
In fact, the whole Glivec issue is such a big deal in Korea (ask any Korean that you know) that although it's a life-saving drug, the name Glivec is now synonymous with death - that's how much Novartis's greed has pissed off an entire nation.
A viable alternative to the shuttle was on the drawing board as far back as the late 1980s. HOTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing), similar in appearance to current generation supersonic aircraft was designed by British rocket veteran Alan Bond.
Unfortunately, as soon as Bond had designed the revolutionary air-breathing engine that the project was based on, it was classified by the British government. Score one for stupid politics. So, perhaps the best rocketry engine designed never got built.
Later, HOTOL variants and derivatives were proposed, including an Anglo-Russian project called Interim HOTOL.
Here are a few related links to check out, most of which contain illustrations of what the orbiter would have looked like:
ummm..18 cent coin? hmm...somehow I missed that one:).
Didn't you get the email? Just as the $20 bill is being replaced with a new design, the 10 cent coin is being phased out in favour of a 18 cent one.
This has advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
The new coin has exactly the same appearance as the old 10 cent coin that it's replacing. This makes it both easier to recognise and use in vending machines. Oh, and they can still use the same mint presses too.
The new coin gives you 80 percent increase in buying power over the old one, overnight and in the same form factor. Moore's Law, watch out!
No need to ask the boss for a raise, because everyone has more money to spend.
NFL defensive coordinators need never have to watch game film again! The new improved dime defense allows an extra eight defenders on the field of play, making the passing game obsolete and taking the game back to the I-wing formation era. Extra bonus: wide receivers are rendered useless once more, and Randy Moss and Terrell Owens finally have to shut their mouths and join the rest of us in the real world.
Disadvantages:
Not everyone recognises the new coins straight off the bat. Some people still insist that they are only worth 10 cents. Don't let them shortchange you! Demand your 18 cents worth!
Base 18 is a bitch.
By the way, I'll soon be selling shares in my new e-venture: www.boyhaveigotabridgeforyou.com. Sign up now before the stock rockets!
(Originally posted elsewhere in this story but the parent post got modded way down before I hit the Submit button, thus rendering my efforts below the attention threshold of the masses who browse at the default settings. Isn't it a bitch when you go to the trouble of being original and that happens?)
Another reason why copy protection will never really exist.
Don't you just love the way they call it "copy protection", rather than "copy prevention", a more accurate term?
The reasons why are clear - "protection" makes it sound like a feature that the customer will benefit from, whereas "prevention" makes it more obvious to the average Joe that it's not their interests that are being protected but that of the software/CD/whatever vendor.
Yes, I respect a company's (or an individual's) rights to prevent me from mass redistribution of their work but, where the copy prevention mechanism is sufficiently complex as to require user interaction and/or impacts on reasonable customer expectations, I think it would be more honest if the relevant details were made clear up front so that customers could make more honestly informed decisions.
I'm not just thinking about the DRM used by Intuit here but of DRM in all shapes and sizes. A prominent warning on the box that a software product may require the user to do x, y and z in order to work properly, or that a "CD" does not adhere to established standards and thus won't work in any PC, Mac, games console, most in-car stereos or any newer hifi system that is sufficiently advanced (and why this is so) would be more preferable than the current situation.
A tiny, obscure little message in 10 point font hidden on the reverse of the packaging somewhere near the copyright notification just doesn't cut it. If companies are really interested in the rights of the consumer (which is something that they always say but rarely ever show) isn't honesty up front the least that we can expect from them?
Well I will be the first to admit that this punches a whole in my theory. Cause I can't imagine how you could hide a 600 mile wide ring like this. Anyone think of a way?
Don't forget that in Britain (and many other countries) bills of different values have differnt physical sizes.
This statement can't be underestimated. Bleaching $1 notes and using the very same bleached ink to reprint the clean note as a $100 is one of the best methods of creating forged bills in the US. After all, you're using exactly the right paper and exactly the right ink, which is half the battle.
One other unfortunate side effect of having notes that are all the same size is that blind and visually impared people have no way of easily differentiating between denominations. Ie, there's no way they can tell if the "$20" that they've got back from a cashier as change is really a $1, as they're the same size and feel the same too.
Obviously, this isn't a problem if your notes are of different sizes and/or that are easily distinguishable through touch (via metallic foil, etc).
Although changing to notes of varying sizes would be of great benefit to the America public, it's unlikely to happen any time soon. Why? Well, big business is against it, especially those that have a lot of money invested in keeping the status quo - nobody wants to have to go through the expense and inconvenience of replacing and/or updating ATMs, ticket and other vending machines, etc if they can possibly avoid it.
Firstly, I think you mean counterfeiters, not counter fitters - counterfeiters forge money, passports, designer clothes, etc but counter fitters fit counters. OK?
Secondly, issuing a new design of bank note clearly cuts down on counterfeiting and opportunities to commit monetary fraud in several ways:
1. The new design is different from the old one.
Thus, any plates, etc a counterfeiter has for the old note are useless once the old note has been removed from general circulation. This also applies to all the counterfeit notes out there too.
2. A new design takes time to counterfeit.
Granted, today's hardware and software has speeded up the traditional counterfeiting process (Photoshop, Illustrator and QuarkXPress coupled with the best printers will work wonders), but the fact remains that being able to successfully reproduce a bank note's aesthetic appearance is still time consuming and expensive. Obviously, if you're good at it, money's no object because you'll be able to print your own...
3. New designs incorporate tougher security measures.
Watermarks, magnetic strips, even holograms can be used to make notes harder to forge. These features cost treasuries money to incorporate but they cost counterfeiters even more (per bill) to duplicate. Most will mimic some features but not all, making detection possible to anyone who's vigilant enough to care.
4. New note designs promote consumer vigilance.
Seeing something different reminds consumers that bank notes can be forged and subconsciously encourages them to be more alert to the possibility of receiving counterfeit notes. Ever checked your speed after seeing a police car? It's the same thing.
5. New bank notes are successfully introduced and old ones replaced every day.
Just about every country on the planet retires old designs in favour of new, more secure ones on a regular basis. The people in those countries don't have any problems with new bills leading to more rather than less fraud, so why would the opposite be true in the US?
I live in the UK and all of our notes (£5, £10, £20, £50) have undergone at least one redesign each in the last twenty years and there's never been one occasion where a new note has led to more fraud. The same can pretty much be said of the rollout of the Euro notes throughout most of the EU, which was the single biggest rollout of paper money ever.
Again, unless you're suggesting that the average American is too dumb to take care of their own money, why would there be a problem?
(NB. This isn't meant to be a rant. This isn't meant to start an OS flame war. This isn't a troll. It's just an observation.)
Sometimes Microsoft copies Apple, sometimes Apple copies Microsoft. Sometimes Linux copies from both of them, sometimes they both copy from Linux.
Big deal.
Playing feature catch-up isn't anything new. It's been around since the stone age - "Hey, look, that guy's spear flies truer than ours because it's lighter and straighter. Let's do that too."
Apart from OS zealots, does anyone really give a damn which OS was the first to sport a particular feature? I mean, do you really care more about which OS had the feature first than which has the best implementation? Even then, how often is one single feature* the overriding factor when determining your choice of platform?
(*Just to be clear, when I say feature, I'm talking about code, like pre-emptive multi-tasking, not price and real-world aesthetics, such as how much an OS costs or how good the box looks on your desktop. Obviously, there are people out there who'll use Linux because it's a low cost solution and there are people out there who'll use Apple Macs because they like their physical design.)
Slashdot Mirror
My theory is that geeks have more imagination than the average bear. They look at lines of programming but see not only the code, but also the manipulation of the screen. If you think about it, all a computer really is is a device for changing pixel colors on a screen. Geeks see how the pixels ought to look.
I could be wrong but I think this guy's been watching his The Matrix DVD a little too much.
Remember that bit when Neo's talking to Cypher aboard the ship? When Cypher says that he doesn't even see the code anymore, all he sees is blonde, brunette, etc? I just saw a glitch in the system, uh I mean, feeling of deja vu when I read that paragraph from his post.
They're talking Farenheit, not Celcius.
125 degrees Celcius is above the boiling point of water. To find that kind of temperature on the surface of the Earth you'd have to be standing on an active volcano.
Didn't the fact that prolonged exposure to 125 C would be enough to kill anyone (even military grade geeks) give it away?
...because you can daisy chain 127 of them together.
That "no carrier" joke really doesn't work if you include your sig.
Sorry, no cigar for you.
How in the hell is Buffy "good science fiction"?
OK, the "good" bit is open to debate but where's the "science fiction" that you're talking about?
Philip K Dick is science fiction. Ray Bradbury is science fiction. Isaac Asimov is science fiction. Star Trek, Star Wars and Stargate are all science fiction (although, for Star Wars at least, the term space opera is more accurate) but Buffy is not.
Why? Because it's not science fiction. Period.
Buffy is fantasy fiction, just like Xena, Hercules, etc.
Pedantic perhaps but sci fi and fantasy are two seperate genres. Please, don't interchange the two.
After all, you wouldn't say Windows when you mean Linux would you?
What's the big attraction with Buffy? What makes it so worthy of attention? Why does Buffy count as "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" whilst the similar Charmed doesn't rate a mention?
I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does. Can someone please explain it to me?
I've watched several episodes of Buffy, as well as a handful of Charmed. I can't say I've ever for a split second thought that either show had much merit but, obviously, there are those out there that disagree with me?
Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing? I've read so many posts on Slashdot, in various discussions about quality television and I find it amazing that Buffy is even mentioned in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24.
I'm not looking to troll here - seriously, that's an honest statement - but just what is it about Buffy that has some of you ga-ga over it? Schoolboy fantasies? Demonic possession? Please elaborate.
We share 50% of our DNA with lettuce - that's how common much of our genetic code is on the planet.
Last time I checked, nobody was comparing the salad aisle of the supermarket for long-lost relatives.
How can you call this a waste of time? Anything that let's you get 0.0001 extra frames per second in Quake 3 for free shouldn't be laughed at!
Personally, I think that the BBC News and NewsNow sites are both well layed out, work well, etc. Skimming either can be done in seconds and give you a good snapshot of what's going on in the world.
Drilling down to an area of interest on either site is very clean, quick and easy too.
Opera has a lot going for it.
In the past, Opera made a name for itself by being a smaller, faster browser. That's still true, but now it also has a superior feature set that elevates it above all browsers.
Som of the better features include:
Sessions - allow you to open up many different pages at once, either at startup or at any time;
Mouse gestures - semi-intuitive mouse click and movement patterns that allow you to go back (hold down right mouse button, click the left one), go forward (hold down left mouse button, click the right one), etc, that greatly speed up the browsing experience;
Notes - just what the name suggests; this lets you save and enter snippets of text to and from a browser window;
M2 mail client - integrated mail client with spam filtering and POP3, IMAP, and ESMTP support;
Wand - a fantastic password manager that saves lots of time when logging into sites;
Transfers - a decent download manager; and
Fast Forward and Rewind - lets you navigae forward automatically using the most obvious link (which can great but can also be a bit hit and miss sometimes).
That's not an exhaustive list, it's just some of the features that I've found in Opera that make me love it. Yes, some of these features can be found in Mozilla but, equally, some of them can't.
And while Opera might not be free, it's not exactly a rip-off either. True, there is an ad-supported version that won't cost you anything (and that doesn't impact on your surfing speed - check out the Opera website to find out why) but when a product's this good and "just works", why not support the developers by buying it?
If you haven't already tried Opera then do it right away. Give it a month or two and you'll never want to go back to MSIE, Netscape, Mozilla or whatever else you've been using.
If that something is a single event, then it must be fundamentaly different, and destroy the prior 'world': Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Marx' theory of class struggle (good and bad).
What did the Apollo moon landings destroy? Or climbing Mount Everest? Or the creation of the Olympic movement? Or Pasteur's work in medicine?
I'm sorry, but I don't see how something has to be destructive, even in the loosest sense of the word as you're applying it, to be either influential or historical.
Oh, and as for just who "invented" the television, well, that's a real can of worms you've opened there. Farnsworth? George Carey? W. E. Sawyer? Edwin Belin? Vladimir Kosma Zworykin? John Logie Baird? Denes von Mihaly? Take your pick.
Farnsworth's showed off his technology on September 7, 1927. Baird's first public demonstration (to the general public in a department store) was on March 25, 1925, and he had a working model a year earlier.
Of all the pioneers who can claim to have invented the television, Farnsworth's claim isn't the strongest. But, obviously, because he was American he's the one Americans credit.
1981 - Bill Gates embarks on heroic and lifelong quest to piss off every person in America.
1992 - World-Wide Web released by CERN. Group suggests someone invent a web browser so people can use it.
Bill Gates gets a mention (although not a positive one) but Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web doesn't? How bad is that?
It amazes me that Berners-Lee isn't more widely acknowledged for his contribution to today's internet. Granted he's never been a man who's to court publicity, but he will go down in history as one of the most influential figures of the 20th century.
Arguably, he's been as important to the information revolution as Gutenberg was to the printing one. I'm not saying that he created everything single-handedly, only that his work should be acknowledged.
Yes, I realise that the The Lemon timeline is meant to be jokey but shouldn't a guy who's made so much possible for so many - for geeks the world over to argue with each other over which edition of AD&D is the best, people who've never had a social life to order a bride without leaving their front rooms and teenagers everywhere to download more porn than their Dad's could ever have imagined - get at least a tip of the hat?
For one thing, I don't like the fact that these products aren't being tested in biospheres or other sealed environments - from day one the biotechs have tested these products out in the open and their figures for how far GM seeds could possibly travel under their own accord are laughable - a few hundred metres maximum was one quoted figure.
For another, I don't think that these products have been thoroughly tested before being thrusted upon the general public as a fait acompli. Do you know what how GM crops could mutate over the next 5, 50 or 500 years? No, you don't. And neither do the biotechs.
This isn't a new car tyre we're talking about. This isn't a new AIDS drug. As vital as those are, they only affect a small subset of the population, and leave the environment unchanged. And, if they're defective or deadly, they can be recalled or destroyed. Tell me, how would you recall a deadly or environmentally detrimental GM seed variety once it's out there?
I have my reasons for being skeptical about GM products, and my reasons are all based on science. Tell me, what reasons do you have for putting your faith blindly in the hands of corporations who are more loyal to the bottom line than the buying public?
Hey, I subscribe to New Scientist. I read Astrophysics at university. I'm a journalist by profession. I not ignorant when it comes to science and I'm not ignorant when it comes to spin either.
Anti-science? Luddite? That's a laugh.
I know what I'm talking about, and I don't need howstuffworks.com to tell me what GM foods entail. The basic, hold-your-hand howstuffworks.com link was for your benefit, buddy, not mine.
I suggest you really read up on GM crops and found out what they are. It seems like you have some evil vision in your head of something that is no different than evolution at an accelerated rate.
I think Monsanto is evil here, they can't control their crops and I firmly disagree with allowing patents on process/creations such as these but GM foods are not some evil boogy monster, any more so than modern farming techniques.
I know exactly what GM crops are thank you. I was just providing another example (albeit in a different sphere) of just how greedy biotech companies are, even in life or death situations.
GM crop development isn't about speeding up natural or artificial selection. It's about taking the qualities you want, perhaps from two different plant types, perhaps from more, to develop a more "desirable" product.
So, you could be talking about taking one type of plant and transplanting genetic code from a totally different type of plant into it to give the first plant some of the genetic properties of the second plant.
Want wheat that doesn't fall down so easily? Take the relevant genetic code (the bit that says "make this plant's stalk strong" from a totally different plant and replace the corresponding code in the wheat's DNA. Want longer lasting apples? Replace the relevant genetic code with some from a plant that bears fruit that doesn't go rotten as quickly.
Obviously, with natural or artificial selection, it's possible to do this to a degree, but it isn't possible to take the properties of two completely different species and combine them - you can't cross breed an apple and an orange through traditional methods but with genetic modification you can - that is what GM crops and products are about.
There is no way that modern farming techniques could ever produce the kind of seed that Monsanto has made, because it is modified at the genetic level using genetic code from several totally different plant species. Please don't suggest that it's "evolution at an accelerated rate". That's just plain ignorance.
Perhaps, as you seem so ignorant about the facts, you should do some research. Here's a Google link to help you out: GM foods.
The third link is particularly helpful, so I'll include it here for your benefit: HowStuffWorks - What are genetically modified (GM) foods?.
By the way, for someone who's criticising other people for what they do and don't know, your lack of basic knowledge on the subject is stunning.
Why don't you check out the facts? The fucking URL of the Google search is just there for you to click on.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick to death of biotech companies experimenting on us with GM foods, etc for no better reason than profit.
They'll willingly gamble with all of our lives, betting the pot that their crops are safe to us and the environment yet they'll be the first to walk away and just shrug their shoulders if something goes wrong.
I recently watched a programme about how Novartis was screwing Korean leukemia sufferers over the cost of their Glivec/Gleevec drug treatment. The very patients that were part of the company's clinical trials are now being fleeced by the company, blackmailed into paying tens of thousands of US dollars a year for a drug that they themselves helped bring to the market! This for a drug that costs pennies to mass produce.
In fact, the whole Glivec issue is such a big deal in Korea (ask any Korean that you know) that although it's a life-saving drug, the name Glivec is now synonymous with death - that's how much Novartis's greed has pissed off an entire nation.
(For more, check out this Google search: novartis glivec korea.
These assholes seriously piss me off. Profits are one thing, but profits before people isn't just immoral and unethical, it's disgusting.
A viable alternative to the shuttle was on the drawing board as far back as the late 1980s. HOTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing), similar in appearance to current generation supersonic aircraft was designed by British rocket veteran Alan Bond.
Unfortunately, as soon as Bond had designed the revolutionary air-breathing engine that the project was based on, it was classified by the British government. Score one for stupid politics. So, perhaps the best rocketry engine designed never got built.
Later, HOTOL variants and derivatives were proposed, including an Anglo-Russian project called Interim HOTOL.
Here are a few related links to check out, most of which contain illustrations of what the orbiter would have looked like:
HOTOL
HOTOL and Interim HOTOL
Wikipedia entry for HOTOL
Google search for "HOTOL"
Of course, HOTOL and HOTOL-derived orbiters are still a viable alternative today. Air-breathing engines seem to be the logical next step.
Didn't you get the email? Just as the $20 bill is being replaced with a new design, the 10 cent coin is being phased out in favour of a 18 cent one.
This has advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
- The new coin has exactly the same appearance as the old 10 cent coin that it's replacing. This makes it both easier to recognise and use in vending machines. Oh, and they can still use the same mint presses too.
- The new coin gives you 80 percent increase in buying power over the old one, overnight and in the same form factor. Moore's Law, watch out!
- No need to ask the boss for a raise, because everyone has more money to spend.
- NFL defensive coordinators need never have to watch game film again! The new improved dime defense allows an extra eight defenders on the field of play, making the passing game obsolete and taking the game back to the I-wing formation era. Extra bonus: wide receivers are rendered useless once more, and Randy Moss and Terrell Owens finally have to shut their mouths and join the rest of us in the real world.
Disadvantages:- Not everyone recognises the new coins straight off the bat. Some people still insist that they are only worth 10 cents. Don't let them shortchange you! Demand your 18 cents worth!
- Base 18 is a bitch.
By the way, I'll soon be selling shares in my new e-venture: www.boyhaveigotabridgeforyou.com. Sign up now before the stock rockets!(Originally posted elsewhere in this story but the parent post got modded way down before I hit the Submit button, thus rendering my efforts below the attention threshold of the masses who browse at the default settings. Isn't it a bitch when you go to the trouble of being original and that happens?)
Another reason why copy protection will never really exist.
Don't you just love the way they call it "copy protection", rather than "copy prevention", a more accurate term?
The reasons why are clear - "protection" makes it sound like a feature that the customer will benefit from, whereas "prevention" makes it more obvious to the average Joe that it's not their interests that are being protected but that of the software/CD/whatever vendor.
Yes, I respect a company's (or an individual's) rights to prevent me from mass redistribution of their work but, where the copy prevention mechanism is sufficiently complex as to require user interaction and/or impacts on reasonable customer expectations, I think it would be more honest if the relevant details were made clear up front so that customers could make more honestly informed decisions.
I'm not just thinking about the DRM used by Intuit here but of DRM in all shapes and sizes. A prominent warning on the box that a software product may require the user to do x, y and z in order to work properly, or that a "CD" does not adhere to established standards and thus won't work in any PC, Mac, games console, most in-car stereos or any newer hifi system that is sufficiently advanced (and why this is so) would be more preferable than the current situation.
A tiny, obscure little message in 10 point font hidden on the reverse of the packaging somewhere near the copyright notification just doesn't cut it. If companies are really interested in the rights of the consumer (which is something that they always say but rarely ever show) isn't honesty up front the least that we can expect from them?
Well I will be the first to admit that this punches a whole in my theory. Cause I can't imagine how you could hide a 600 mile wide ring like this. Anyone think of a way?
Bury it. It worked for the Stargate.
Don't forget that in Britain (and many other countries) bills of different values have differnt physical sizes.
This statement can't be underestimated. Bleaching $1 notes and using the very same bleached ink to reprint the clean note as a $100 is one of the best methods of creating forged bills in the US. After all, you're using exactly the right paper and exactly the right ink, which is half the battle.
One other unfortunate side effect of having notes that are all the same size is that blind and visually impared people have no way of easily differentiating between denominations. Ie, there's no way they can tell if the "$20" that they've got back from a cashier as change is really a $1, as they're the same size and feel the same too.
Obviously, this isn't a problem if your notes are of different sizes and/or that are easily distinguishable through touch (via metallic foil, etc).
Although changing to notes of varying sizes would be of great benefit to the America public, it's unlikely to happen any time soon. Why? Well, big business is against it, especially those that have a lot of money invested in keeping the status quo - nobody wants to have to go through the expense and inconvenience of replacing and/or updating ATMs, ticket and other vending machines, etc if they can possibly avoid it.
This will be a boon for counter fitters.
Firstly, I think you mean counterfeiters, not counter fitters - counterfeiters forge money, passports, designer clothes, etc but counter fitters fit counters. OK?
Secondly, issuing a new design of bank note clearly cuts down on counterfeiting and opportunities to commit monetary fraud in several ways:
1. The new design is different from the old one.
Thus, any plates, etc a counterfeiter has for the old note are useless once the old note has been removed from general circulation. This also applies to all the counterfeit notes out there too.
2. A new design takes time to counterfeit.
Granted, today's hardware and software has speeded up the traditional counterfeiting process (Photoshop, Illustrator and QuarkXPress coupled with the best printers will work wonders), but the fact remains that being able to successfully reproduce a bank note's aesthetic appearance is still time consuming and expensive. Obviously, if you're good at it, money's no object because you'll be able to print your own...
3. New designs incorporate tougher security measures.
Watermarks, magnetic strips, even holograms can be used to make notes harder to forge. These features cost treasuries money to incorporate but they cost counterfeiters even more (per bill) to duplicate. Most will mimic some features but not all, making detection possible to anyone who's vigilant enough to care.
4. New note designs promote consumer vigilance.
Seeing something different reminds consumers that bank notes can be forged and subconsciously encourages them to be more alert to the possibility of receiving counterfeit notes. Ever checked your speed after seeing a police car? It's the same thing.
5. New bank notes are successfully introduced and old ones replaced every day.
Just about every country on the planet retires old designs in favour of new, more secure ones on a regular basis. The people in those countries don't have any problems with new bills leading to more rather than less fraud, so why would the opposite be true in the US?
I live in the UK and all of our notes (£5, £10, £20, £50) have undergone at least one redesign each in the last twenty years and there's never been one occasion where a new note has led to more fraud. The same can pretty much be said of the rollout of the Euro notes throughout most of the EU, which was the single biggest rollout of paper money ever.
Again, unless you're suggesting that the average American is too dumb to take care of their own money, why would there be a problem?
(NB. This isn't meant to be a rant. This isn't meant to start an OS flame war. This isn't a troll. It's just an observation.)
Sometimes Microsoft copies Apple, sometimes Apple copies Microsoft. Sometimes Linux copies from both of them, sometimes they both copy from Linux.
Big deal.
Playing feature catch-up isn't anything new. It's been around since the stone age - "Hey, look, that guy's spear flies truer than ours because it's lighter and straighter. Let's do that too."
Apart from OS zealots, does anyone really give a damn which OS was the first to sport a particular feature? I mean, do you really care more about which OS had the feature first than which has the best implementation? Even then, how often is one single feature* the overriding factor when determining your choice of platform?
(*Just to be clear, when I say feature, I'm talking about code, like pre-emptive multi-tasking, not price and real-world aesthetics, such as how much an OS costs or how good the box looks on your desktop. Obviously, there are people out there who'll use Linux because it's a low cost solution and there are people out there who'll use Apple Macs because they like their physical design.)
Didn't they learn anything from Terry Gilliam?