As the other reply to your post points out with Adobe Illustrator, Blizzard games WON their lawsuit against a production company for naming their movie "Diablo." Diablo is a common word, but because Blizzard said they "plan" to make a movie of the game (not that they even have a script or any other formal beginnings) the production company (which has already pretty much finished the movie) had to change the title of their movie.
On a side note, while slashdot made a huge deal about the filing of the lawsuit, slashdot didn't even mention it when the verdict came in (even though I submitted it).
$2000 freakin dollars?! I'm sorry, but for that kind of money I can go to ebay and buy an HDTV projector that can put a 300" screen on my wall if I want it. I can also take the extra $500 I'll have after buying that and buy a few 60 GB harddrives and make my own 320 hour DVR using Linux tools that already exist and a simple $40 TV card.
Yeah, as a diver, I always carry a knife, but it is only to be used as a tool for cutting fishing lines (you can get tangled in old fishing equipment very easily and that crap is all over the bottom of the ocean) and for prying things open and banging against your tank for noise. One small person with a small knife is only going to piss off an 8 foot reef shark, let alone a 20 foot great white. By the time the shark is close enough to actually use it, you're hosed. Like the Anonymous Coward just posted, you're just going to piss him off.
That aside, though, I think the judge will probably be lenient if you show up in court sans leg (or leg in hand). I imagine they'll let you off if it is a first offense. You're right, the law isn't meant to punish justifiable killings, but if you do happen to kill one you had damn well better use every small bit of it (shark skin boots, jacket, ear muffs, gloves, underwear, and socks).
I saw them as a kid so I can't say anything, but if you read some of the posts here on/. you'll notice that a lot of the people saw them when they were in their 20's in 1977 (remember, people stood in lines for days to watch the movie repeatedly back then, when you were 8 would your mom let you stand outside in the city for days to watch a movie?). My parents liked the movie when they saw it originally (as adults). There were plenty of 45+ year olds at the theatre both times I saw TPM (I went openning day by myself on vacation, then again with my friends, not because I actually liked the movie).
The problem with enforcing a law about killing animals only in self defense is in how do you prove self defense? Think about the South Park episode where they go hunting and have to yell "It's coming right for us!" before killing it, even though it wasn't moving at all. There are too many loopholes if you set up the law with self defense as a just cause. How can you prove that shark was really attacking you with the intent to kill? If a shark is coming right for you and it looks like he's going to attack, who's to say he's not just trying to scare you off. If he bites your leg off, he might've been just testing your flavor and will then leave (this is what happens in the majority of shark attacks), so why kill him if he has learned that humans don't taste good.
I guess my point is that this might be the only way to completely discourage the killing of great whites. If you think hard about it, the only person really capable of killing one of these guys is someone who is going out there to specifically do just that. If you are out surfing, swimming, or SCUBA diving you probably aren't going to be able to adequately defend yourself with deadly force against one of those tough bastards. If they really want to kill you, they will. If they don't want to kill you but just taste you, then you should only be able to defend yourself with equal force (bite their fins off).
Researchers have actually been looking at this atoll for quite some time as a possible crash site for her. A couple of unidentified skeletons were found on the atoll as were various pieces of her actual wreckage. So they know she wrecked somewhere within the area (a very large area because of currents, but at least it was narrowed down). They don't know if the skeletons are her and/or her partner, but they might be and the wreckage is, iirc, definitely hers. These also aren't just random sat photos, they actually commissioned these photos to be taken of this specific spot.
Re:Ben Affleck was more lifelike in this movie.
on
Review: Final Fantasy
·
· Score: 2
Alec Baldwin's character looked like Ben Affleck and Donald Sutherland's looked like Ben Kingsley, but they aren't the Ben's. Check IMDB.
Re:Ben Affleck was more lifelike in this movie.
on
Review: Final Fantasy
·
· Score: 1
Ben Affleck isn't in the movie. Check IMDB. Maybe you mean Alec Baldwin's voice, even though the character looks a lot like Ben Affleck.
Everybody move along... nothing to see here
on
Are Men Obsolete?
·
· Score: 2
While this may be a really good thing for infertile couples, it is a long way from making men obsolete.
From the article, re: lesbians having babies
"However, this could prove problematical as aspects of development are controlled by a paternal gene."
From the article, re: asexual reproduction
"However, the use of chromosomes from the same person massively increased the risk that a baby would suffer from genetic defects."
It also doesn't mention if there are side effects long term (as in cloning) from this technique. They use a chemical process (similar to what happens in natural conception) to seperate the two sets of chromosomes from a cell (essentially creating a sex cell), but does the process alter or damage the genetic info?
Of course, if it works fine and there is massive male sterilization and we cure a few diseases...
Sex all the time, baby!
The only downside of having sex will then be psychological; and, well, we can just breed a superior race of uber-psychologists to deal with it.
There were a lot of really cheesy things about the first series that I thought could've been done better (the ornithopters for instance), but I think it stayed pretty true to the book and it was a pretty entertaining movie.
For them to make the second and third books will require more interesting visual effects (spoilers: how will they deal with the Bene Tlailaxu (sp?) and those little fishy guys that cover Leto II's body to make him the worm). It will also be more difficult to make a GOOD movie about them because, let's face it, they just don't touch the original in terms of quality.
I am still pretty excited to see this, though, because it has the opportunity to show the general public what good sci-fi can be (whether it does or not is a different story).
Just because it is closer now than ever doesn't mean it is easier to get to. Because of orbital mechanics and propulsion technologies, it is actually much cheaper and more feasible to do a mission that meets up with Mars on the other side of the sun (conjunction) than when it is on the same side (opposition). Not only do the cost and ease of mission make the conjunction class trajectories better, but opposition class trajectories only allow for VERY short stays on Mars (~30 days compared to ~500 days). This close approach is Mars in opposition.
In about 12-13 years (July-ish 2014), Mars will be in PERFECT position for a conjunction class trajectory that even allows for a "free-return" to Earth. This is what Apollo 13 did when it didn't have the fuel to return to Earth; they used a non-propulsive gravity assist around the moon to return (hence "free" because no fuel was used). We could send a manned mission to Mars and if, when we get to Mars, our in-situ plant hasn't made the required fuel or something went wrong with the ship in transit, we could just stay on the same trajectory and return right back to Earth. We should've been designing and sending the mission for then, but funding and politics prevent it now... it's just too late to make that date. The next free return isn't for another 32 AFTER then (2046) and I'll be too old to be the first man on Mars.
I don't think this is a case of Lucas milking a dead cash cow. It looks like the studio execs (we all know how Krusty the Clown feels about them) are just kicking around the idea (as well as the dead horses). Lucas hasn't signed anything.
The hopes don't seem so high from other sources...
According to IMDB, the hopes aren't very high for this sequel. Also, according to the article from this BBC story, this is a very common rumor that pops up every few months.
I didn't do a search for the poster, but for the picture I want on the poster. I KNOW the web has a picture I want because I have seen it many times before. If I do a search for "barney sidecar" I find the pic I'm looking for (on a mug and a t-shirt). The problem is that I have to know it is called the barney sidecar picture even though he is clearly not in the sidecar, but on the bike. In the Andy Griffith episode he may have ridden all over the place in the sidecar with someone, but on the pic he is on the bike.
I just did a rather varied bevvy of searches on this and came up with very mixed results.
The first search was for "dog on a bike" just to look for a very obscure and odd picture item. Lo and behold, the 15th or so picture is of a dog sitting on a motorcycle. I was really excited at how well it worked. The rest were pictures of either dogs and/or bikes, which is understandable.
Next search was for "standing in the rain" to find a common picture of a specific scenario. The results were not so good. I did find pictures of people standing in the rain, but I found more drawings and things that had nothing to do with rain.
Next I played around with the 'mature content filter' and searched for "bath tub." I got about 20000 pictures of bath tubs and showers and the like, but not one porn pic. Although I guess this is good if you're shopping for bath tubs, it did miss a large segment of people looking for pics of women in a bath tub. I'm sure if you did a search for "hardcore porn", you'd find hardcore porn, but I'm at work and I'd get in trouble for doing that.
The final search was for a SPECIFIC picture that would make this search engine pretty useful. My father is looking for the poster of Barney Fife sitting on a big motorcycle. It's a funny poster, but we haven't found it anywhere (I have found the picture at some sites, just not the poster). I did multiple searches for "barney fife," "fife bike," "fife motorcycle," barney motorcycle,"... you get the picture. Almost every picture that came up was a banner-ad type picture advertising different websites. Only when I searched for just "barney fife" did I find pictures of barney fife. Otherwise, I would ONLY get little icons and other useless graphics. No motorcycles or barneys at all. I even got a graphic for an anti-DVD website.
The useless graphics and icons were prevalent in every search I did. I'm guessing if you're searching for a graphic of something like a smiley face, this would be helpful. Otherwise, it was only marginally interesting.
I don't really know as much about the infrastructure of the internet as I guess I should, but I thought the govt took over control of the backbone from the original companies. I also thought that, since the internet was original govt project, part of it was still owned by them. If the govt doesn't own any of the infrastructure, then spammers should pay whoever owns/maintains it.
I forgot to answer the question about whom they should pay. That is a very hard question, but I guess the only fair answer is the govt since they are using their resources for most of the email's journey. I don't want to get paid per SPAM, I would just be happy to make sure they paid a fair amount to SOMEONE for annoying me.
Assuming I get charged for bandwidth (since, in a sense, I do when I pay tuition), they are using more bandwidth per email than I would normally need. This bandwidth costs money. Telemarketers call me and use my resources, sure, but I don't get charged extra for each call like is the case with email. If they got ahold of my cell phone #, though, I'd be super-pissed because that is the same as spamming, since I DO pay for 'bandwidth' in terms of minutes.
Besides, there are many "free" ISPs out there that spammers can use. They can also borrow someone else's account or use one account for 50 people at the same time (firewall networking). You can't really do that with Telemarketing or Junk Mail. One email sent to 1,000,000 people only uses a very small amount of "their" bandwidth. Once it leaves their mail server, though, it uses the bandwidth of 1,000,000 people. Telemarketing and Junk Mail costs the company one "item" per person
it contacts. Spammers are only charged one "item" per bulk email (possibly millions of people).
I know this is a sticky area that would never actually work, but maybe they should pay more for mass emailings or something. I know they would get around it (by writing scripts or whatever). I just think that SPAMmers should have to pay more for the mail they send. Making them pay more while normal emailers pay the same as they do now is the tricky part.
As for your other arguments, the mailbox is actually government property (even though you paid for it) so the money goes to the govt when they send junk mail. Also, it doesn't cost you anything to receive mail does it? There is a small upfront cost of the physical box, but after that there is no cost to you for the mail put in there. With email, every message uses resources you pay for (ISP, email address, your hard drive space) every time (small amounts, sure, but still it costs something every time). So, there is both an upfront charge (your computer) and a per message charge with email; that is the difference as I see it.
The garbage service is probably required wherever you live anyway (apt complex, housing addition, etc) regardless of the junk mail you receive or the amount you receive. If it isn't required, you can always dump it at the local bin behind the supermarket (don't even make an extra trip, just do it everytime you go shopping somewhere). That costs you nothing (if you don't make a special trash trip).
Mailing someone is (roughly) the same as emailing them. Companies have to pay to mail something to me, why shouldn't they pay to email something to me? Telemarketers have to pay for all of the many phone lines they use to call me and 1000 other people in a 12 hour period. Spammers only need to borrow one computer for 10 seconds to spam a million people.
Although I guess it SHOULD be a company's right to call me (I hate it, though) at least make them pay for it like every other means of bothering me without my permission.
He's not talking about limiting speech, just making them pay for their usage of the hardware medium they choose. They can come to my door for free and speak all they want. They shouldn't, however, be able to use the computer resources _I_ pay for to bother me.
Actually, I would think it has to do with the fact that there is no atmosphere (not enough gravity) to trap any heat so, therefore, in the shadows it would be like the cold depths of space or the craters of our moon.
Actually, just because you eat a venomous creature, you won't necessarily become sick
(or even get the dose). Venom has to be injected into the blood stream (well, I know hemotoxins do but I'm not sure about neurotoxins, they might have to have contact with the nervous system; I'm not that knowledgable about that aspect of venom). Eating something won't always put stuff in your blood stream. The venom might get altered from digestion; it might not get digested at all and pass right through your body.
Important case in point:
King snakes' (non-venomous) prey on and eat the rattlesnake (highly venomous). They aren't immune to the bite of the rattler; but, if they kill and eat the rattler without being bitten, they are just fine. So, venomous != poisonous.
I said "dictionary.com" isn't necessarily correct; I never said that all dictionaries aren't. Besides, have you read some dictionary entries? Slang terms don't always mean what the dictionary says. Scientific jargon doesn't always mean the same thing the dictionary says (some dictionaries are more abridged than others); they have dictionaries specifically for scientific terms (which would've been a better place to look up venomous and poisonous). Look at the definition of "stress." Stress is an applied force on a body. Depending on the physical properties of the material it should CAUSE strain (a non-dimensional factor that describes the internal forces on the body caused by deformation). Some dictionaries list strain as a synonym for stress. In structural mechanics, this is absolutely FALSE. A body can be under strain without any stress.
If the "dictionary" was the definitive authority on the meaning of a word, there would only be the need for one dictionary. Every dictionary you read has a slightly different definition for the same word. Which is right? They all mean basically the same thing, but some use different examples to get their point across. A dictionary also isn't as precise with its meanings either; they intentionally give more general definitions so that a greater number of people will be able to understand the basic idea of the word. Another case in point is poisonous and pestilent. A pestilent is not necessarily a poison. It can be but is only truly synonymous with poisonous in the "socially/morally/politically harmful" definition.
My favorite quote:
"There are about 50,000 species of spider worldwide, only six of which are known to be poisonous."
ALL spiders are venomous, but only a few are dangerous to humans. Note: Daddy Long-Legs and Harvester spiders are NOT spiders and are not, contrary to popular opinion, venomous. Maybe there are six species that are harmful or fatal if swallowed.
Slashdot Mirror
On a side note, while slashdot made a huge deal about the filing of the lawsuit, slashdot didn't even mention it when the verdict came in (even though I submitted it).
$2000 freakin dollars?! I'm sorry, but for that kind of money I can go to ebay and buy an HDTV projector that can put a 300" screen on my wall if I want it. I can also take the extra $500 I'll have after buying that and buy a few 60 GB harddrives and make my own 320 hour DVR using Linux tools that already exist and a simple $40 TV card.
That aside, though, I think the judge will probably be lenient if you show up in court sans leg (or leg in hand). I imagine they'll let you off if it is a first offense. You're right, the law isn't meant to punish justifiable killings, but if you do happen to kill one you had damn well better use every small bit of it (shark skin boots, jacket, ear muffs, gloves, underwear, and socks).
I saw them as a kid so I can't say anything, but if you read some of the posts here on /. you'll notice that a lot of the people saw them when they were in their 20's in 1977 (remember, people stood in lines for days to watch the movie repeatedly back then, when you were 8 would your mom let you stand outside in the city for days to watch a movie?). My parents liked the movie when they saw it originally (as adults). There were plenty of 45+ year olds at the theatre both times I saw TPM (I went openning day by myself on vacation, then again with my friends, not because I actually liked the movie).
I guess my point is that this might be the only way to completely discourage the killing of great whites. If you think hard about it, the only person really capable of killing one of these guys is someone who is going out there to specifically do just that. If you are out surfing, swimming, or SCUBA diving you probably aren't going to be able to adequately defend yourself with deadly force against one of those tough bastards. If they really want to kill you, they will. If they don't want to kill you but just taste you, then you should only be able to defend yourself with equal force (bite their fins off).
Researchers have actually been looking at this atoll for quite some time as a possible crash site for her. A couple of unidentified skeletons were found on the atoll as were various pieces of her actual wreckage. So they know she wrecked somewhere within the area (a very large area because of currents, but at least it was narrowed down). They don't know if the skeletons are her and/or her partner, but they might be and the wreckage is, iirc, definitely hers. These also aren't just random sat photos, they actually commissioned these photos to be taken of this specific spot.
Alec Baldwin's character looked like Ben Affleck and Donald Sutherland's looked like Ben Kingsley, but they aren't the Ben's. Check IMDB.
Ben Affleck isn't in the movie. Check IMDB. Maybe you mean Alec Baldwin's voice, even though the character looks a lot like Ben Affleck.
From the article, re: lesbians having babies
"However, this could prove problematical as aspects of development are controlled by a paternal gene."
From the article, re: asexual reproduction
"However, the use of chromosomes from the same person massively increased the risk that a baby would suffer from genetic defects."
It also doesn't mention if there are side effects long term (as in cloning) from this technique. They use a chemical process (similar to what happens in natural conception) to seperate the two sets of chromosomes from a cell (essentially creating a sex cell), but does the process alter or damage the genetic info?
Of course, if it works fine and there is massive male sterilization and we cure a few diseases...
Sex all the time, baby!
The only downside of having sex will then be psychological; and, well, we can just breed a superior race of uber-psychologists to deal with it.
For them to make the second and third books will require more interesting visual effects (spoilers: how will they deal with the Bene Tlailaxu (sp?) and those little fishy guys that cover Leto II's body to make him the worm). It will also be more difficult to make a GOOD movie about them because, let's face it, they just don't touch the original in terms of quality.
I am still pretty excited to see this, though, because it has the opportunity to show the general public what good sci-fi can be (whether it does or not is a different story).
In about 12-13 years (July-ish 2014), Mars will be in PERFECT position for a conjunction class trajectory that even allows for a "free-return" to Earth. This is what Apollo 13 did when it didn't have the fuel to return to Earth; they used a non-propulsive gravity assist around the moon to return (hence "free" because no fuel was used). We could send a manned mission to Mars and if, when we get to Mars, our in-situ plant hasn't made the required fuel or something went wrong with the ship in transit, we could just stay on the same trajectory and return right back to Earth. We should've been designing and sending the mission for then, but funding and politics prevent it now... it's just too late to make that date. The next free return isn't for another 32 AFTER then (2046) and I'll be too old to be the first man on Mars.
The hopes don't seem so high from other sources... According to IMDB, the hopes aren't very high for this sequel. Also, according to the article from this BBC story, this is a very common rumor that pops up every few months.
And, according to IMDB, the hopes aren't very high for this sequel.
I didn't do a search for the poster, but for the picture I want on the poster. I KNOW the web has a picture I want because I have seen it many times before. If I do a search for "barney sidecar" I find the pic I'm looking for (on a mug and a t-shirt). The problem is that I have to know it is called the barney sidecar picture even though he is clearly not in the sidecar, but on the bike. In the Andy Griffith episode he may have ridden all over the place in the sidecar with someone, but on the pic he is on the bike.
Dude, you rock. I had actually been to this website about a year ago looking for it, but they didn't have it then. Thanks.
The first search was for "dog on a bike" just to look for a very obscure and odd picture item. Lo and behold, the 15th or so picture is of a dog sitting on a motorcycle. I was really excited at how well it worked. The rest were pictures of either dogs and/or bikes, which is understandable.
Next search was for "standing in the rain" to find a common picture of a specific scenario. The results were not so good. I did find pictures of people standing in the rain, but I found more drawings and things that had nothing to do with rain.
Next I played around with the 'mature content filter' and searched for "bath tub." I got about 20000 pictures of bath tubs and showers and the like, but not one porn pic. Although I guess this is good if you're shopping for bath tubs, it did miss a large segment of people looking for pics of women in a bath tub. I'm sure if you did a search for "hardcore porn", you'd find hardcore porn, but I'm at work and I'd get in trouble for doing that.
The final search was for a SPECIFIC picture that would make this search engine pretty useful. My father is looking for the poster of Barney Fife sitting on a big motorcycle. It's a funny poster, but we haven't found it anywhere (I have found the picture at some sites, just not the poster). I did multiple searches for "barney fife," "fife bike," "fife motorcycle," barney motorcycle,"... you get the picture. Almost every picture that came up was a banner-ad type picture advertising different websites. Only when I searched for just "barney fife" did I find pictures of barney fife. Otherwise, I would ONLY get little icons and other useless graphics. No motorcycles or barneys at all. I even got a graphic for an anti-DVD website.
The useless graphics and icons were prevalent in every search I did. I'm guessing if you're searching for a graphic of something like a smiley face, this would be helpful. Otherwise, it was only marginally interesting.
I don't really know as much about the infrastructure of the internet as I guess I should, but I thought the govt took over control of the backbone from the original companies. I also thought that, since the internet was original govt project, part of it was still owned by them. If the govt doesn't own any of the infrastructure, then spammers should pay whoever owns/maintains it.
I forgot to answer the question about whom they should pay. That is a very hard question, but I guess the only fair answer is the govt since they are using their resources for most of the email's journey. I don't want to get paid per SPAM, I would just be happy to make sure they paid a fair amount to SOMEONE for annoying me.
Besides, there are many "free" ISPs out there that spammers can use. They can also borrow someone else's account or use one account for 50 people at the same time (firewall networking). You can't really do that with Telemarketing or Junk Mail. One email sent to 1,000,000 people only uses a very small amount of "their" bandwidth. Once it leaves their mail server, though, it uses the bandwidth of 1,000,000 people. Telemarketing and Junk Mail costs the company one "item" per person it contacts. Spammers are only charged one "item" per bulk email (possibly millions of people).
As for your other arguments, the mailbox is actually government property (even though you paid for it) so the money goes to the govt when they send junk mail. Also, it doesn't cost you anything to receive mail does it? There is a small upfront cost of the physical box, but after that there is no cost to you for the mail put in there. With email, every message uses resources you pay for (ISP, email address, your hard drive space) every time (small amounts, sure, but still it costs something every time). So, there is both an upfront charge (your computer) and a per message charge with email; that is the difference as I see it.
The garbage service is probably required wherever you live anyway (apt complex, housing addition, etc) regardless of the junk mail you receive or the amount you receive. If it isn't required, you can always dump it at the local bin behind the supermarket (don't even make an extra trip, just do it everytime you go shopping somewhere). That costs you nothing (if you don't make a special trash trip).
Although I guess it SHOULD be a company's right to call me (I hate it, though) at least make them pay for it like every other means of bothering me without my permission.
He's not talking about limiting speech, just making them pay for their usage of the hardware medium they choose. They can come to my door for free and speak all they want. They shouldn't, however, be able to use the computer resources _I_ pay for to bother me.
Actually, I would think it has to do with the fact that there is no atmosphere (not enough gravity) to trap any heat so, therefore, in the shadows it would be like the cold depths of space or the craters of our moon.
Important case in point:
King snakes' (non-venomous) prey on and eat the rattlesnake (highly venomous). They aren't immune to the bite of the rattler; but, if they kill and eat the rattler without being bitten, they are just fine. So, venomous != poisonous.
If the "dictionary" was the definitive authority on the meaning of a word, there would only be the need for one dictionary. Every dictionary you read has a slightly different definition for the same word. Which is right? They all mean basically the same thing, but some use different examples to get their point across. A dictionary also isn't as precise with its meanings either; they intentionally give more general definitions so that a greater number of people will be able to understand the basic idea of the word. Another case in point is poisonous and pestilent. A pestilent is not necessarily a poison. It can be but is only truly synonymous with poisonous in the "socially/morally/politically harmful" definition.
"There are about 50,000 species of spider worldwide, only six of which are known to be poisonous."
ALL spiders are venomous, but only a few are dangerous to humans. Note: Daddy Long-Legs and Harvester spiders are NOT spiders and are not, contrary to popular opinion, venomous. Maybe there are six species that are harmful or fatal if swallowed.