This is one of those ambiguous uses of the English language.
When I read it, I took it to mean,
I want any given user out of a set of users to see the same colors on all monitors.
It appears that you took it to mean,
I want every user out of a set of users to see the same color on any single (or) on all monitors.
Since the phosphers are fairly standard from monitor to monitor in the same manufacturing run (ie, red gives of a certian wavelength across a range of monitors) then it's easily possible to make it so that any group of monitors made at the same time produce the same color regardless of the user's perception. Blue may look different for user A than for user B, but user A will see that same blue on the other monitor that they saw on the first, and user B will see the same blue they saw on the second monitor that they saw on the first.
I imagine that phospher emission wavelength is fairly standard within a narrow range, but I suspect that different models, even within the same original manufacturer, may have slight variations in emission. Therefore to get the best matching color you'd really need to purchase high quality (meant for imaging applications) monitors from the same manufacturer at the same time. You can usually tell that they're high quality and meant for imaging applications by inflated cost and included calibration device, though it's not universally true (ie, if you don't know any better, then this is about as close as you're going to get without a lot more research)
It must have been a very long time ago that you used to work in a video store. The video stores sued the movies studios for inflating prices a long time ago. Now the videos come to the stores for $20 to $30 per video for smaller chains that purchase them through distributers. Blockbuster is its own publisher and distributer so I'd be surprised if they were paying more than $20 per movie after licensing, production,l and distribution.
clippy: (In a loud voice) I see you're buying hemmoroid cream. Would you also like to purchase Tucks(tm)?
clippy: I notice you're buying a lot of antihistamine products. Would you like me to take you to the facial tissue aisle, or would you like a new meth recipe?
clippy: You're passing a great sale on bright red lipstick. Are you sure you want to pass this opportunity up? Buy some for the kids! It also makes a great marker for the person who keeps taking your parking spot.
An architect is someone that isn't man enough to be an engineer, but not gay anough to be an interior decorator.
I think the joke sums it up nicely.... Oh, and my family is about 60% architects.
Now if only you had gay and engineering relatives then the rest of the joke could be as inoffensive as the architect part.
In other words, if you believe you have to qualify your 'expertise' in delivering a joke for whatever reason, chances are good that either you aren't qualified to deliver it, or it's not appropiate.
Sorry, it's just always bugged me that people think it's ok to insult and degrade "their own kind" while taking it as an insult when delivered by one who is not part of their race/class/gender/etc.
While I'm at it, just because you don't find something attractive, aesthetically pleasing or particularily useful doesn't mean that it isn't any of those things to another person. I can think of several good reasons to have the kitchen near the bedroom, and in the end it's a matter of personal taste and convenience.
To label someone else's creation as ugly and broken (not to mention non-creative, clunky, flawed design, non-functional, etc) is, at best, short sighted and elitist.
industry group which will work with federal regulators to come up with standards to promote crew and passenger safety.
Which, of course, is formed by those already in the industry who, incidently, may have financial reasons to want tighter regulations thus raising the bar for others who may want to get in the new space race.
Of course, that isn't completely accurate, but it paints an interesting picture of the situation.
1. Pointing an object that has as much mass as the hubble is expensive enough as it is. To create a robot that would attach, and have enough energy (via solar cells, I suppose you expect?) to rotate both itself and Hubble would be cost-prohibitive, even if it could be developed, tested, and built in time to save the Hubble in time.
2. There is more equipment on the Hubble that is failed or will soon fail than just the Gyros. The batteries, some of the subsystems, and probably the gas canisters used to boost the hubble back into orbit occasionally are all items which need maintenance. It is unlikely that a robot could be developed in the time-frame and budget given that would not only point the hubble, but interface to its failing systems and supply the needed resources (batteries, especially).
No time frame has been given. This announcement is simply describing the current budget allocation.
Please remember that a controlled de-orbit while the hubble is still retrievable by a robot is much preferable to an uncrontrolled de-orbit where the hubble may take on an orbit, spin, or fall that would make it impossible to attach to once out of our control. It is likely that the robot must be attached before the last three gryos fail if a robot is going to be attached at all. This means it needs to be done soon.
It is unlikely that even given a large budget a reliable robot for fixing the Hubble could be developed in time to attach to the Hubble before it becomes uncontrolled.
If a scientist is making statements based on what they're paid to say rather than what is supported by the evidence, are they doing science or public relations/propaganda?
Personal financial interest drives most science these days. If a scientist does not produce the expected result from their research, they don't get further funding and may lose their job at whetever research institution they work at. Currently very few 'unbiased' sources of funding renew any grants to scientists whose previous work shows that global warming might have causes other than human activity, regardless of how that research was carried out or how many others can duplicate the results and reach the same conclusions.
Scientists who perform research on behalf of corporations are not necessarily any less honest than scientists performing research for the government or other 'unbiased' source of funding.
It's bad enough that you put scientific research on a pedestal and expect every scientist to be some sort of altruistic super-human, but do you have to hold this public relations ploy to try to convince people that your views are right despite evidence and in the face of so many examples of bad scientists?
While I understand Slashdot does not follow the basic rule of journalism, "Try to present an unbiased view of the issue," this is simply ridiculous.
Michael's description of one set of scientists as "fake" and another as not-fake is a much worse public relations ploy than the so-called fake scientists are making. They aren't even claiming that GW is false, they are simply pointing out that many claims made by the so-called not-fake scientists require leaps over large gaps in knowledge and studies.
Of course companies have an interest in downplaying GW, and they will certianly do what they can to reduce impact to their bottom line.
However, anyone who thinks the scientists don't have a vested *financial* interest in continuing to publicize GW is deluded. These scientists are doing this work as much for continued support and grants as they are 'for the good of humanity.' Further, most scientists on both sides of the debate go into their studies with bias on one side or the other.
It's very telling that few scientists have changed their views on GW after entering the field. They usually go in with prejudice, and their tests come out in their favor.
This means, at the minimum, that there is insufficient knowledge to accurately test whether GW is 1) caused by human activity 2) stoppable or 3) part of the cyclic nature of the universe.
Michael's characterization of the issue and scientists involved leaves me in awe. I can see he has extraordinarily strong feelings on this issue - but it's one which he should probably take a back seat to given his obvious tunnel vision.
This graph proves nothing. The only thing it shows is that there appears to be a correlation between human existance and CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Further, showing back to 300,000 years ago has no real significance unless there are additional data points such as "Death of dinosaurs", "Beginning of life", etc.
It's nice to see the natural waves of CO2 levels, but all this graph really shows is that humans burn stuff, and generally convert O2 into CO2. The significance of this to the climate of the planet is, at best, theorized. We have no past data to go on - a bunch of theories and a few limited studies.
I'm not claiming that there is no problem, but I don't want you to fall out of your chair - your personal risk of fatal injury is greater falling out of your chair than suffering due to global warming.
While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here?
No, I'm stupid. Howabout you tell me?
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Ah. Yes. This is the old "What if the bad guy could use it against us!" Silly me, I should have guessed.
Every technology can be used equally by anyone with any motive. The minivan is great for soccer moms, but what if the MAN uses them to transport innocent victims of the justice system or *GASP* spy on people?!?
Yes, the patent covers a technology which couldn't possibly work right now except under some exceptionally limited circumstances. Think of taking a picture of a crowd. What technology could possibly pick the one person out of the crowd that has this device and blank out only their face without user intervention and fits in a large camera, nevermind a cellphone? None. This is a useless IP grab.
But let's assume it's possible. Well, then either you use cameras that don't have this feature, you disable the feature on cameras you use, and otherwise you shouldn't care because it's not your *$#!@ camera or picture.
Worried about this technology being mandated by congress? It's unlikely given that anything done in public is public. They'd have to take away a ton of civil rights before they even got close to being able to prevent public pictures in public places.
No, Chicken little, the sky is not falling. It's not even overcast. There is little in this topic that's worth discussing to any degree as any intelligent person can work through all the scenarios and satisfy themselves of the limited utility of this patent.
The workload scales exponentially. Even with some wicked parallel code running on computing clusters the problem is intractable - you can support 10k people on 10 server racks, or 100k people on 200 server racks. Since the 10x increase in people requires 20x the servers it makes more sense to split things up.
There is a balance here.
As processing power becomes cheaper this problem will ease, but in the end it's still O(n) hardware trying to solve an O(n^x) problem.
If they could distribute the processing to the users securely (right!) then the problem would become almost trivial.
Did you mean: ("NYC" OR "Long Island" OR "Brooklyn" OR "Queens" OR "Manhattan" OR "Bronx" OR "New York City" OR "Big Apple") ("moving company" OR "moving companies" OR "specialty movers" OR "professional movers" OR "uhaul" OR "apartment movers") ("fragile" OR "antiques" OR "china" OR "difficult to move")
If only Bram Cohen would had licensed the original bittorrent under the GPL (rather than the MITL), people would not be able to profit so easily from his work.
And we wouldn't have exeem. Unless, of course, you can point out an open source solution that provides the same (and better, according to you) features compared to exeem?
Don't you hate it when people complain about the GPL restricting their free use of software? You are complaining about another person's use of a license.
When you release your software, you get to choose the license. Don't complain about another author's choice of license. I want other people to use my software, even to make money off it. Therefore I use the BSD license. We have philisophical and political differences, but that doesn't make my choice bad and your choice good. In my case, I don't want to force others to give back to the 'community' - I let them choose how they contribute (or if) to society. The GPL preference is to tell people, "Use my software and you have to release all your efforts - if not, I'm taking my toys and going home."
Sarcasm aside, each has its advantages and disadvantages. I suspect many choose the GPL not because they have an altruistic desire to further society. Many release it for the reasons you imply when you say, "people would not be able to profit so easily from his work." They don't want other people profiting off their work. "If I can't or didn't make money off it, neither can you." Which, I feel, is a very different goal than the claimed altruism of the GPL.
I don't mean to imply that most people have this in mind when choosing a license, but I've seen this side of the license debate more than I care to.
If your system can handle receiving and then writing to disc at 20Mbits/sec then you can receive and record regular HDTV. Most systems won't have a problem. The MPEG2 decoder built in to most video cards make it so playing it at the same time won't likely be difficult either.
Once you start time shifting, though, you're receiving and recording 20Mbps to the HD, then reading and decoding 20Mbps from the HD. Many systems will stumble a little bit just because of bus contention issues.
As a data point, I'm using an Athlon64 with 1GB of ram, a plain 7200 rpm ATA hard drive and ATI's HDTV Wonder without problems. The video card was the cheapest ATI directx9 compatible card I could find (the HDTV Wonder has some special features with directx 9 ATI cards) - I think it was a 128MB 9600.
However, it stumbles playback slightly when I scroll or load a webpage. Recording seems unaffected. I'm planning on setting up a simple striped SATA RAID and will probably upgrade the video sooner or later.
Perhaps I'm misreading, but I don't see 'carcinigen' in there. Toxic, yes. Mutagenic data...? This is mutation, not cancer.
Further, you're reading the data sheet for the pure chemical. Of course the risks and the care that must be taken are significantly greater than the 1% or so solution used for mosquito protection.
As I said - no need to put 'believed'. Lots of people believe in an alien conspiracy - let's talk about what we know to be true, or even theories, not what is 'believed.'
I love this type of statement. It just reeks with the type of FUD that flies back and forth in the OS war.
If it's a belief, then it has no place in the introduction - it's a myth or rumor.
If, however, there are studies which cast doubt on its safety then it's well and good to show that with a statement like, "and are shown to be carcinogenic in some studies."
Gah. I realize I'm being pedantic, but can we please stop the rumors and FUD in general? Or are we merely being hypocritical by letting our own FUD be published while decrying FUD used against us?
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of those ambiguous uses of the English language.
When I read it, I took it to mean,
I want any given user out of a set of users to see the same colors on all monitors.
It appears that you took it to mean,
I want every user out of a set of users to see the same color on any single (or) on all monitors.
Since the phosphers are fairly standard from monitor to monitor in the same manufacturing run (ie, red gives of a certian wavelength across a range of monitors) then it's easily possible to make it so that any group of monitors made at the same time produce the same color regardless of the user's perception. Blue may look different for user A than for user B, but user A will see that same blue on the other monitor that they saw on the first, and user B will see the same blue they saw on the second monitor that they saw on the first.
I imagine that phospher emission wavelength is fairly standard within a narrow range, but I suspect that different models, even within the same original manufacturer, may have slight variations in emission. Therefore to get the best matching color you'd really need to purchase high quality (meant for imaging applications) monitors from the same manufacturer at the same time. You can usually tell that they're high quality and meant for imaging applications by inflated cost and included calibration device, though it's not universally true (ie, if you don't know any better, then this is about as close as you're going to get without a lot more research)
-Adam
It must have been a very long time ago that you used to work in a video store. The video stores sued the movies studios for inflating prices a long time ago. Now the videos come to the stores for $20 to $30 per video for smaller chains that purchase them through distributers. Blockbuster is its own publisher and distributer so I'd be surprised if they were paying more than $20 per movie after licensing, production,l and distribution.
-Adam
clippy: (In a loud voice) I see you're buying hemmoroid cream. Would you also like to purchase Tucks(tm)?
clippy: I notice you're buying a lot of antihistamine products. Would you like me to take you to the facial tissue aisle, or would you like a new meth recipe?
clippy: You're passing a great sale on bright red lipstick. Are you sure you want to pass this opportunity up? Buy some for the kids! It also makes a great marker for the person who keeps taking your parking spot.
-Adam
How is such a thing delivered? Does the Reaper come in person?
It goes something like this:
Reaper: <hack><hack><slash><slash>
Reaper: You've been interred.
-Adam
When she does she'll be singing
...
DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS!
Hopefully she'll ditch the sweaty underarms and have more hair...on her head...
-Adam
My hosting service just caught fire.
It's probably just their printer: lp0 reported invalid error status (on fire, eh?)
Tell them that they don't need to tail > lp0 the server log.
-Adam
An architect is someone that isn't man enough to be an engineer, but not gay anough to be an interior decorator.
... Oh, and my family is about 60% architects.
I think the joke sums it up nicely.
Now if only you had gay and engineering relatives then the rest of the joke could be as inoffensive as the architect part.
In other words, if you believe you have to qualify your 'expertise' in delivering a joke for whatever reason, chances are good that either you aren't qualified to deliver it, or it's not appropiate.
Sorry, it's just always bugged me that people think it's ok to insult and degrade "their own kind" while taking it as an insult when delivered by one who is not part of their race/class/gender/etc.
While I'm at it, just because you don't find something attractive, aesthetically pleasing or particularily useful doesn't mean that it isn't any of those things to another person. I can think of several good reasons to have the kitchen near the bedroom, and in the end it's a matter of personal taste and convenience.
To label someone else's creation as ugly and broken (not to mention non-creative, clunky, flawed design, non-functional, etc) is, at best, short sighted and elitist.
-Adam
nothing to see here.
" I called in sick so many times, next time I've going to have to call in dead."
Even though the pattern is similar, the actual message is exponentially increasing in hostility.
At what point do you start ignoring bomb threats for a school just because you receive them weekly?
If you learn over time to treat every threat as 'Just another empty threat' don't be surprised when someone actually follows through with the threat.
-Adam
industry group which will work with federal regulators to come up with standards to promote crew and passenger safety.
Which, of course, is formed by those already in the industry who, incidently, may have financial reasons to want tighter regulations thus raising the bar for others who may want to get in the new space race.
Of course, that isn't completely accurate, but it paints an interesting picture of the situation.
-Adam
1. Pointing an object that has as much mass as the hubble is expensive enough as it is. To create a robot that would attach, and have enough energy (via solar cells, I suppose you expect?) to rotate both itself and Hubble would be cost-prohibitive, even if it could be developed, tested, and built in time to save the Hubble in time.
2. There is more equipment on the Hubble that is failed or will soon fail than just the Gyros. The batteries, some of the subsystems, and probably the gas canisters used to boost the hubble back into orbit occasionally are all items which need maintenance. It is unlikely that a robot could be developed in the time-frame and budget given that would not only point the hubble, but interface to its failing systems and supply the needed resources (batteries, especially).
No time frame has been given. This announcement is simply describing the current budget allocation.
Please remember that a controlled de-orbit while the hubble is still retrievable by a robot is much preferable to an uncrontrolled de-orbit where the hubble may take on an orbit, spin, or fall that would make it impossible to attach to once out of our control. It is likely that the robot must be attached before the last three gryos fail if a robot is going to be attached at all. This means it needs to be done soon.
It is unlikely that even given a large budget a reliable robot for fixing the Hubble could be developed in time to attach to the Hubble before it becomes uncontrolled.
-Adam
If a scientist is making statements based on what they're paid to say rather than what is supported by the evidence, are they doing science or public relations/propaganda?
Personal financial interest drives most science these days. If a scientist does not produce the expected result from their research, they don't get further funding and may lose their job at whetever research institution they work at. Currently very few 'unbiased' sources of funding renew any grants to scientists whose previous work shows that global warming might have causes other than human activity, regardless of how that research was carried out or how many others can duplicate the results and reach the same conclusions.
Scientists who perform research on behalf of corporations are not necessarily any less honest than scientists performing research for the government or other 'unbiased' source of funding.
It's bad enough that you put scientific research on a pedestal and expect every scientist to be some sort of altruistic super-human, but do you have to hold this public relations ploy to try to convince people that your views are right despite evidence and in the face of so many examples of bad scientists?
-Adam
While I understand Slashdot does not follow the basic rule of journalism, "Try to present an unbiased view of the issue," this is simply ridiculous.
Michael's description of one set of scientists as "fake" and another as not-fake is a much worse public relations ploy than the so-called fake scientists are making. They aren't even claiming that GW is false, they are simply pointing out that many claims made by the so-called not-fake scientists require leaps over large gaps in knowledge and studies.
Of course companies have an interest in downplaying GW, and they will certianly do what they can to reduce impact to their bottom line.
However, anyone who thinks the scientists don't have a vested *financial* interest in continuing to publicize GW is deluded. These scientists are doing this work as much for continued support and grants as they are 'for the good of humanity.' Further, most scientists on both sides of the debate go into their studies with bias on one side or the other.
It's very telling that few scientists have changed their views on GW after entering the field. They usually go in with prejudice, and their tests come out in their favor.
This means, at the minimum, that there is insufficient knowledge to accurately test whether GW is 1) caused by human activity 2) stoppable or 3) part of the cyclic nature of the universe.
Michael's characterization of the issue and scientists involved leaves me in awe. I can see he has extraordinarily strong feelings on this issue - but it's one which he should probably take a back seat to given his obvious tunnel vision.
-Adam
Correlation != causation
This graph proves nothing. The only thing it shows is that there appears to be a correlation between human existance and CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Further, showing back to 300,000 years ago has no real significance unless there are additional data points such as "Death of dinosaurs", "Beginning of life", etc.
It's nice to see the natural waves of CO2 levels, but all this graph really shows is that humans burn stuff, and generally convert O2 into CO2. The significance of this to the climate of the planet is, at best, theorized. We have no past data to go on - a bunch of theories and a few limited studies.
I'm not claiming that there is no problem, but I don't want you to fall out of your chair - your personal risk of fatal injury is greater falling out of your chair than suffering due to global warming.
-Adam
You could do that before:
PI Phone Number Search Engine
-Adam
What? They couldn't fit the '3' on the disc???
Duh! It's 30 times larger than the next digit, which is 2.5 times bigger than the next digit, etc.
The biggest savings occurs by chopping off the "3."
-Adam
The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.
While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here?
No, I'm stupid. Howabout you tell me?
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Ah. Yes. This is the old "What if the bad guy could use it against us!" Silly me, I should have guessed.
Every technology can be used equally by anyone with any motive. The minivan is great for soccer moms, but what if the MAN uses them to transport innocent victims of the justice system or *GASP* spy on people?!?
Yes, the patent covers a technology which couldn't possibly work right now except under some exceptionally limited circumstances. Think of taking a picture of a crowd. What technology could possibly pick the one person out of the crowd that has this device and blank out only their face without user intervention and fits in a large camera, nevermind a cellphone? None. This is a useless IP grab.
But let's assume it's possible. Well, then either you use cameras that don't have this feature, you disable the feature on cameras you use, and otherwise you shouldn't care because it's not your *$#!@ camera or picture.
Worried about this technology being mandated by congress? It's unlikely given that anything done in public is public. They'd have to take away a ton of civil rights before they even got close to being able to prevent public pictures in public places.
No, Chicken little, the sky is not falling. It's not even overcast. There is little in this topic that's worth discussing to any degree as any intelligent person can work through all the scenarios and satisfy themselves of the limited utility of this patent.
-Adam
Perhaps Apple actually listened to people complaining about overpriced upgrades.
Or they misjudged market demand for upgraded units and have warehouses full of units that aren't selling while the bottom end is oversold.
-Adam
Note that this is an 8MB Flash so after you click you will be presented with a blank screen for a while.
Also, when slashdotted, the 'a while' becomes 'ever'.
-Adam
The workload scales exponentially. Even with some wicked parallel code running on computing clusters the problem is intractable - you can support 10k people on 10 server racks, or 100k people on 200 server racks. Since the 10x increase in people requires 20x the servers it makes more sense to split things up.
There is a balance here.
As processing power becomes cheaper this problem will ease, but in the end it's still O(n) hardware trying to solve an O(n^x) problem.
If they could distribute the processing to the users securely (right!) then the problem would become almost trivial.
-Adam
Did you mean: ("NYC" OR "Long Island" OR "Brooklyn" OR "Queens" OR "Manhattan" OR "Bronx" OR "New York City" OR "Big Apple") ("moving company" OR "moving companies" OR " specialty movers" OR "professional movers" OR " uhaul " OR "apartment movers") ("fragile" OR "antiques" OR "china" OR "difficult to move")
And just as pedantic as ever...
-Adam
If only Bram Cohen would had licensed the original bittorrent under the GPL (rather than the MITL), people would not be able to profit so easily from his work.
And we wouldn't have exeem. Unless, of course, you can point out an open source solution that provides the same (and better, according to you) features compared to exeem?
Don't you hate it when people complain about the GPL restricting their free use of software? You are complaining about another person's use of a license.
When you release your software, you get to choose the license. Don't complain about another author's choice of license. I want other people to use my software, even to make money off it. Therefore I use the BSD license. We have philisophical and political differences, but that doesn't make my choice bad and your choice good. In my case, I don't want to force others to give back to the 'community' - I let them choose how they contribute (or if) to society. The GPL preference is to tell people, "Use my software and you have to release all your efforts - if not, I'm taking my toys and going home."
Sarcasm aside, each has its advantages and disadvantages. I suspect many choose the GPL not because they have an altruistic desire to further society. Many release it for the reasons you imply when you say, "people would not be able to profit so easily from his work." They don't want other people profiting off their work. "If I can't or didn't make money off it, neither can you." Which, I feel, is a very different goal than the claimed altruism of the GPL.
I don't mean to imply that most people have this in mind when choosing a license, but I've seen this side of the license debate more than I care to.
-Adam
If your system can handle receiving and then writing to disc at 20Mbits/sec then you can receive and record regular HDTV. Most systems won't have a problem. The MPEG2 decoder built in to most video cards make it so playing it at the same time won't likely be difficult either.
Once you start time shifting, though, you're receiving and recording 20Mbps to the HD, then reading and decoding 20Mbps from the HD. Many systems will stumble a little bit just because of bus contention issues.
As a data point, I'm using an Athlon64 with 1GB of ram, a plain 7200 rpm ATA hard drive and ATI's HDTV Wonder without problems. The video card was the cheapest ATI directx9 compatible card I could find (the HDTV Wonder has some special features with directx 9 ATI cards) - I think it was a 128MB 9600.
However, it stumbles playback slightly when I scroll or load a webpage. Recording seems unaffected. I'm planning on setting up a simple striped SATA RAID and will probably upgrade the video sooner or later.
-Adam
And what was it that you thought cancer actually *is*?
Cancer is a very specific type of mutation. The vast majority of mutations don't cause cells to replicate dangerously.
-Adam
Perhaps I'm misreading, but I don't see 'carcinigen' in there. Toxic, yes. Mutagenic data...? This is mutation, not cancer.
Further, you're reading the data sheet for the pure chemical. Of course the risks and the care that must be taken are significantly greater than the 1% or so solution used for mosquito protection.
As I said - no need to put 'believed'. Lots of people believe in an alien conspiracy - let's talk about what we know to be true, or even theories, not what is 'believed.'
-Adam
...and are believed by some to be carcinogenic.
I love this type of statement. It just reeks with the type of FUD that flies back and forth in the OS war.
If it's a belief, then it has no place in the introduction - it's a myth or rumor.
If, however, there are studies which cast doubt on its safety then it's well and good to show that with a statement like, "and are shown to be carcinogenic in some studies."
Gah. I realize I'm being pedantic, but can we please stop the rumors and FUD in general? Or are we merely being hypocritical by letting our own FUD be published while decrying FUD used against us?
-Adam