How can anyone fail to understand the massive threat we are under? We don't have time to consider the consequences - this is a time for ACTION! We are at WAR!
"But wasn't there only one attack, and wasn't that three years ago?" you say?
"Are you a freaking communist?!" I say!
Pansy countries like England, who faced IRA terrorist attacks from the IRA for decades, never managed to secretly detain suspects for years. Wimps. They never even bothered to monitor the books and magazines their citizens were reading!
As usual, America is showing how to do things right!
I agree. The tiny handful of people who have used their programmers for useful, creative purposes won't find it difficult to prove that this is the case. And I think there's a decent chance that in such cases, a painless settlement would result.
But suggesting that drug possession isn't legal evidence of drug use (because I might be a researcher working on coccaine addiction, bringing materials to my lab) would be... counterproductive.
Stating the obvious...
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
...about an article that stated the obvious.
Although this series of articles may yet become meaningful and/or useful, Part I was not.
My new chair's tragic lack of innovation
on
Is Windows Worth $45?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Indeed. When I buy an operating system, its value is determined by how useful it is - not how innovative it is.
I recently bought a chair for about $45 which is not innovative in the least. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy with it.
Precisely. This could well be a computer-generated Slashdot simulation. The typical output of such generators tends to be either Microsoft=evil or "cult of personality" type articles regarding Mr. Torvalds.
Relatively speaking, of course. If "Screw the big labels, who overcharge for music and cannot assemble a coherent internet strategy - I'll just get it for free" is a reasonable response to the status quo, then a blanket tax on traffic to "reclaim lost media revenue" is also reasonable.
At some point, isn't it easier to just run Win2K? As a former Amiga user, I remember what it was like to be a ghetto gang-banger. But, um, then I grew up.
Not because of Palladium, which will still be a series of white papers and some sample code, but because the rest of Longhorn should be far enough along to be rather interesting. Hopefully we'll get our first look at what the revised GUI brings to the table.
As for Palladium, it sounds quite appealing. Being able to run sensitive applications in a secure environment would be nice.
In the future, if we have an excess of vowels that needs to be dealt with, could we export them to Croatia or some other vowel-starved nation instead of inflicting them upon a harmless planet?
These new boxes will be like souped up TiVos, with the ability to play DVDs and MP3s. They still seem a bit expensive, despite all that functionality, but I suppose reduced clutter and a pretty interface are worth something.
So they can't burn DVDs. Big deal. The target market for these boxes won't care. My only question is: Why is the DVD-RW even in there?
Hmm. I re-read my original post a few times, and I still can't see where you'd get the idea that I've seen these movies "100 times each." Once or twice is more than enough to judge a movie, in experience. In the case of ST II, I've probably seen it three times.
And even if your guess was correct, your argument still doesn't hold water. How could anyone watch a movie umpteen times without finding it enjoyable?
...is that it *was* one of the best among major characters in the Trek movies. Although hammy and employing considerable scenery-chewing, Montalban was almost subtle compared to Shatner's various performances.
The fact that ST II is arguably still the best Trek movie is another source of shame.
The knee-jerk reaction against gene patents is unwarranted, and propogated almost entirely by non-biologists.
Gene patents will be justifiably enforceable when gene products (ie. proteins) or closely-related elements are used as therapeutics. If I clone a tumor suppressor gene and use that gene to make a protein which kills tumors when intravenously injected, I deserve patent protection.
If I make a product which exploits the gene sequence, such as antisense RNA, I also deserve patent protection.
If I express the protein, generate an antibody against that protein, and introduce it as a product, I also deserve patent protection.
Those who reflexively assert that "These are my goldarn genes, yoo kant patent me yoo nazi!" need to do some more reading.
Tissue regeneration doesn't require genetic modification. By supplying normal stem cells to a location of injury or degeneration, you induce tissue repair. And since stem cells, by definition, can generate more stem cells, this repair is either permanent or at least long-term.
But fat tissue is a poor source of stem cells, and isn't likely to see therapeutic application. In order of likelyhood of utility: 1) Embryonic stem cells induced to differentiate into the desired tissue 2) Fetal stem cells collected from the tissue type of interest 3) Adult stem cells collected and purified from the tissue type of interest
I agree with the sentiment, although honestly, Katz can go see whatever movies he wants. And if you want/don't want to comment on his reviews, that's fine.
He's not a movie critic, and has no obligation to see everything.
For what it's worth, I thought Amelie was great, but if you consider Memento a 2001 movie then Amelie wasn't the best film of 2001. And Mulholland Drive gets an honorable mention.
I think you'll find that very little has changed lately. Scientists have always been very careful about what information they share with others, for fear of giving an advantage to competitors.
If a project is in the early stages, you don't talk about it at all.
If a project has produced some great results, and it is well in progress, you'll talk about it, but might be a bit hazy on the details. For example, take a geneticist who is hunting for genes contributing to a certain disease. He/she has it partially narrowed down, and is showing a map of the BACs and YACs in the candidate region. Try asking them what chromosome they are looking at. They won't tell you.
If a project is near complete, and is being written up or has already been submitted to a journal, you'll be very open. The odds of being "scooped" at this point are minimal.
These rules vary somewhat depending on whether we're talking about a resource-rich lab that works on projects almost no one else can do, or a small lab doing projects that can be rapidly repeated somewhere else. But in general I think they hold true, and have for many years.
I suppose they chose Farscape because it was a cheap license, but sheesh. Licensed games have a history of being disappointing, and licenses of questionable quality... well... let's just say this does not bode well.
Slashdot Mirror
Note to self: make your satire even MORE obvious in the future.
How can anyone fail to understand the massive threat we are under? We don't have time to consider the consequences - this is a time for ACTION! We are at WAR!
"But wasn't there only one attack, and wasn't that three years ago?" you say?
"Are you a freaking communist?!" I say!
Pansy countries like England, who faced IRA terrorist attacks from the IRA for decades, never managed to secretly detain suspects for years. Wimps. They never even bothered to monitor the books and magazines their citizens were reading!
As usual, America is showing how to do things right!
I agree. The tiny handful of people who have used their programmers for useful, creative purposes won't find it difficult to prove that this is the case. And I think there's a decent chance that in such cases, a painless settlement would result.
But suggesting that drug possession isn't legal evidence of drug use (because I might be a researcher working on coccaine addiction, bringing materials to my lab) would be... counterproductive.
...about an article that stated the obvious.
Although this series of articles may yet become meaningful and/or useful, Part I was not.
Indeed. When I buy an operating system, its value is determined by how useful it is - not how innovative it is.
I recently bought a chair for about $45 which is not innovative in the least. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy with it.
Precisely. This could well be a computer-generated Slashdot simulation. The typical output of such generators tends to be either Microsoft=evil or "cult of personality" type articles regarding Mr. Torvalds.
Relatively speaking, of course. If "Screw the big labels, who overcharge for music and cannot assemble a coherent internet strategy - I'll just get it for free" is a reasonable response to the status quo, then a blanket tax on traffic to "reclaim lost media revenue" is also reasonable.
At some point, isn't it easier to just run Win2K? As a former Amiga user, I remember what it was like to be a ghetto gang-banger. But, um, then I grew up.
Not because of Palladium, which will still be a series of white papers and some sample code, but because the rest of Longhorn should be far enough along to be rather interesting. Hopefully we'll get our first look at what the revised GUI brings to the table.
As for Palladium, it sounds quite appealing. Being able to run sensitive applications in a secure environment would be nice.
I fully support Quaoar's candidacy in the planet club. Quaoar isn't a Roman god? No problem; we'll make him one. "Quaoar, god of burlap"
Works for me.
The only problem is that Mac IE5 is not supported for some reason. We have a lot of Macs at work, but PCs as well, so it's not insurmountable.
In the future, if we have an excess of vowels that needs to be dealt with, could we export them to Croatia or some other vowel-starved nation instead of inflicting them upon a harmless planet?
Good try. But I don't think there's any way of forstalling the "Why doesn't it use OGG?" and "If only it was open-source" posts...
I'm guessing not many.
These new boxes will be like souped up TiVos, with the ability to play DVDs and MP3s. They still seem a bit expensive, despite all that functionality, but I suppose reduced clutter and a pretty interface are worth something.
So they can't burn DVDs. Big deal. The target market for these boxes won't care. My only question is: Why is the DVD-RW even in there?
Hmm. I re-read my original post a few times, and I still can't see where you'd get the idea that I've seen these movies "100 times each." Once or twice is more than enough to judge a movie, in experience. In the case of ST II, I've probably seen it three times.
And even if your guess was correct, your argument still doesn't hold water. How could anyone watch a movie umpteen times without finding it enjoyable?
...is that it *was* one of the best among major characters in the Trek movies. Although hammy and employing considerable scenery-chewing, Montalban was almost subtle compared to Shatner's various performances.
The fact that ST II is arguably still the best Trek movie is another source of shame.
The knee-jerk reaction against gene patents is unwarranted, and propogated almost entirely by non-biologists.
Gene patents will be justifiably enforceable when gene products (ie. proteins) or closely-related elements are used as therapeutics. If I clone a tumor suppressor gene and use that gene to make a protein which kills tumors when intravenously injected, I deserve patent protection.
If I make a product which exploits the gene sequence, such as antisense RNA, I also deserve patent protection.
If I express the protein, generate an antibody against that protein, and introduce it as a product, I also deserve patent protection.
Those who reflexively assert that "These are my goldarn genes, yoo kant patent me yoo nazi!" need to do some more reading.
Tissue regeneration doesn't require genetic modification. By supplying normal stem cells to a location of injury or degeneration, you induce tissue repair. And since stem cells, by definition, can generate more stem cells, this repair is either permanent or at least long-term.
But fat tissue is a poor source of stem cells, and isn't likely to see therapeutic application. In order of likelyhood of utility:
1) Embryonic stem cells induced to differentiate into the desired tissue
2) Fetal stem cells collected from the tissue type of interest
3) Adult stem cells collected and purified from the tissue type of interest
[blush]
Despite the fact that I wrote KING LEAR three times in a short message, I did actually mean The Tempest.
Forbidden Planet isn't science fiction. It isn't just an homage to King Lear: It *is* King Lear.
And King Lear ain't sci-fi.
I'd also suggest that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction, and shouldn't have been included on the list either.
I agree with the sentiment, although honestly, Katz can go see whatever movies he wants. And if you want/don't want to comment on his reviews, that's fine.
He's not a movie critic, and has no obligation to see everything.
For what it's worth, I thought Amelie was great, but if you consider Memento a 2001 movie then Amelie wasn't the best film of 2001. And Mulholland Drive gets an honorable mention.
I think you'll find that very little has changed lately. Scientists have always been very careful about what information they share with others, for fear of giving an advantage to competitors.
If a project is in the early stages, you don't talk about it at all.
If a project has produced some great results, and it is well in progress, you'll talk about it, but might be a bit hazy on the details. For example, take a geneticist who is hunting for genes contributing to a certain disease. He/she has it partially narrowed down, and is showing a map of the BACs and YACs in the candidate region. Try asking them what chromosome they are looking at. They won't tell you.
If a project is near complete, and is being written up or has already been submitted to a journal, you'll be very open. The odds of being "scooped" at this point are minimal.
These rules vary somewhat depending on whether we're talking about a resource-rich lab that works on projects almost no one else can do, or a small lab doing projects that can be rapidly repeated somewhere else. But in general I think they hold true, and have for many years.
I suppose they chose Farscape because it was a cheap license, but sheesh. Licensed games have a history of being disappointing, and licenses of questionable quality... well... let's just say this does not bode well.
Because, uh, there are no advantages to an LCD? Right?
I think the cynicism monster may have gotten to you...
I have no cross-genre issues. But I can't imagine that this could *possibly* approach the quality of, say, Hyperion. Or The Man in the High Castle.
(And no, I haven't read any HP books. I'm assuming that they are similar to Ursula K. LeGuin's "EarthSea" books)