When someone takes an abstract for an upcoming talk, Googles the software-assigned name "K40506A," from said abstract, then plays around with the url to get access to unlinked data, then points their telescope at the spot mentioned in the data, then sends out an email (from the same computer used to access the data in the first place) saying "here's our discovery, look at my new data plus some archival data from this telescope," and doesn't even mention the data access, doesn't even respond when confronted...well yeah, my bullshit alarm goes off.
Look, here's the timeline (which you never read, because your entire expertise on this comes from the link to Mike Brown's blog you saw elsewhere in the discussion -- those who have followed this for a while have a bit of an advantage, eh?).
Maybe Moreno couldn't be convicted in a court of law. But anybody that believes Moreno's highly improbable account has his brain dribbling from his nose-holes.
It seems clear that you simply read my original quote from Wikipedia, thought that was all there was, and became a Slashdot InstaExpert on the subject. You probably do it all the time. Once I called you on it, you did a little extra reading, found that I was right, and retreated to your "no firm evidence" stance. Just because you own a keyboard doesn't mean we need to see you pontificate on every subject under the sun. The internet will be a better place with a little less of your stupidity in the future, huh?
Here's a bit more information from Brown, if you don't really understand how astronomy works: hasty announcement and the reports of "hacking". Yes, yes, I know that you are even now composing a reply with a huge list of your qualifications. The hacking discussion was linked from the original 2005 New York Times article about the controversy, which again, you never read, but which I saw when the story broke.
The claim that Moreno had also been looking at the object for a while has been discussed before, and is highly dubious. I'm curious as to what special information you have that makes it so believable to you.
This was basically a dirty move by Moreno's team, taking credit for the discovery. The story has appeared on Slashdot before, but here is the Wikipedia entry for Moreno:
Michael E. Brown and his team at Caltech had also had been observing Haumea, and for a longer period of time than Ortiz, but had withheld publication pending securing its orbital parameters. Brown initially supported Ortiz and his team being given credit for the discovery. However, he withdrew that support when it turned out that Ortiz had accessed Brown's public observation logs and research just before announcing the discovery. Ortiz maintained that he only did so to see if this was the same object that his team had been tracking. The IAU awarded credit to Ortiz, as credit is given to the first person to publish or notify the IAU about a discovery, and there was no evidence of impropriety. However, it accepted Brown's suggested name of Haumea rather than Ortiz's Ataecina.
I know that "intellectual property" is a dirty word. But patents are useful in fields outside the computer industry (you know, fields where things actually get done or built). Now please continue with your "oh noes, but what about my pirated downloads?"
"Mac users might be quite amused, considering that (like many other TV shows) the set of Seinfeld always had a Macintosh prominently displayed in the background."
Yes. And after a long hard days filming, the stars of the show would all use that computer to surf the net and read Slashdot, because that's the kind of introverted computer nerds they were.
Wrong. There is good government and there is bad government. It generally depends on the people conducting said government. Spend a couple years in the third world (or New Mexico, where I live), and you will quickly discover that good government actually means a lot. Being able to collect taxes, keep the electricity on, and keep civil servant bribes to an absolute minimum turns out to be wonderful for improving quality of life.
Pohl was good, but the person whom he wrote "The Space Merchants" with was masterly. Cyril Kornbluth was one of most underrated science fiction authors of his time.
There's something missing from your argument. Oh yeah, basic probability. You might want to spend a couple of hours thinking about why investors might weigh the probability of an event happening into their decisions. It'll be a real puzzler for you, no doubt. After you figure that out, read this next line:
Chance of cancer remission > chance of being hit be a car
Sure, the small screens are a challenge, but that's nothing that a quick bird's eye view couldn't fix.
Which is one of the things the iPhone does right. You wouldn't believe how much of a difference it makes to browse on the iPhone versus Windows Mobile.
Adobe wants their pound of flesh and neither Microsoft nor Apple is willing to give it to them.
It's not a bad bet on Adobe's part to think Apple or Microsoft will pay up eventually. Everyone knows that Flash will be a "killer app" for either Windows Mobile or the iPhone. (As long as the other party doesn't have it.)
I wonder if the programmer responsible for the crack and the patch is the same individual? He probably just submitted what he'd already written as his own work. That's a much more likely scenario than the idea that Ubisoft downloads a NoCD crack off the web and releases it as a patch. This Slashdot story won't be good for him, if so.
The basic Debian and Fedora installs both offer full hard drive encryption as an option. It's a really good idea on any (backed-up) system with data that you don't want falling into the wrong hands.
Slashdot Mirror
When someone takes an abstract for an upcoming talk, Googles the software-assigned name "K40506A," from said abstract, then plays around with the url to get access to unlinked data, then points their telescope at the spot mentioned in the data, then sends out an email (from the same computer used to access the data in the first place) saying "here's our discovery, look at my new data plus some archival data from this telescope," and doesn't even mention the data access, doesn't even respond when confronted...well yeah, my bullshit alarm goes off.
Look, here's the timeline (which you never read, because your entire expertise on this comes from the link to Mike Brown's blog you saw elsewhere in the discussion -- those who have followed this for a while have a bit of an advantage, eh?).
Maybe Moreno couldn't be convicted in a court of law. But anybody that believes Moreno's highly improbable account has his brain dribbling from his nose-holes.
It seems clear that you simply read my original quote from Wikipedia, thought that was all there was, and became a Slashdot InstaExpert on the subject. You probably do it all the time. Once I called you on it, you did a little extra reading, found that I was right, and retreated to your "no firm evidence" stance. Just because you own a keyboard doesn't mean we need to see you pontificate on every subject under the sun. The internet will be a better place with a little less of your stupidity in the future, huh?
Here's a bit more information from Brown, if you don't really understand how astronomy works: hasty announcement and the reports of "hacking". Yes, yes, I know that you are even now composing a reply with a huge list of your qualifications. The hacking discussion was linked from the original 2005 New York Times article about the controversy, which again, you never read, but which I saw when the story broke.
The claim that Moreno had also been looking at the object for a while has been discussed before, and is highly dubious. I'm curious as to what special information you have that makes it so believable to you.
I know that "intellectual property" is a dirty word. But patents are useful in fields outside the computer industry (you know, fields where things actually get done or built). Now please continue with your "oh noes, but what about my pirated downloads?"
Whoever decided that typing in "w" to the "awesomebar" should bring up other sites that start with "www" was in the middle of a bad trip.
They are trying to get a good Zero Punctuation review from Yahtzee.
Come on, Oblivion's story sucked worse than the level scaling.
Yes. And after a long hard days filming, the stars of the show would all use that computer to surf the net and read Slashdot, because that's the kind of introverted computer nerds they were.
Yes, girls don't like Linux because of all the sexism. You keep telling yourself that. On the inside, they're just big nerdy guys with breasts.
Still at 250,000 a day for us. Would you like some of it to make up for your lack?
Wrong. There is good government and there is bad government. It generally depends on the people conducting said government. Spend a couple years in the third world (or New Mexico, where I live), and you will quickly discover that good government actually means a lot. Being able to collect taxes, keep the electricity on, and keep civil servant bribes to an absolute minimum turns out to be wonderful for improving quality of life.
Pohl was good, but the person whom he wrote "The Space Merchants" with was masterly. Cyril Kornbluth was one of most underrated science fiction authors of his time.
There's something missing from your argument. Oh yeah, basic probability. You might want to spend a couple of hours thinking about why investors might weigh the probability of an event happening into their decisions. It'll be a real puzzler for you, no doubt. After you figure that out, read this next line:
Chance of cancer remission > chance of being hit be a car
If you are reading this, then you are illegally wiretapping my Slashdot messages by intercepting them with your eyes. Hope you like jail time.
Which is one of the things the iPhone does right. You wouldn't believe how much of a difference it makes to browse on the iPhone versus Windows Mobile.
Adobe wants their pound of flesh and neither Microsoft nor Apple is willing to give it to them.
It's not a bad bet on Adobe's part to think Apple or Microsoft will pay up eventually. Everyone knows that Flash will be a "killer app" for either Windows Mobile or the iPhone. (As long as the other party doesn't have it.)
I wonder if the programmer responsible for the crack and the patch is the same individual? He probably just submitted what he'd already written as his own work. That's a much more likely scenario than the idea that Ubisoft downloads a NoCD crack off the web and releases it as a patch. This Slashdot story won't be good for him, if so.
Okay, okay, I admit that The Dark Knight Returns is one of the greatest comic books ever.
I wonder if one of Apple's competitors won't pick up their legal fees.
That's only if he wasn't smart enough to disable NTLM hash in the registry (or if he's not using a Windows version newer than XP).
Really? Why don't you try that on my system?
It'll be hard without knowing the LUKS passphrase to my encrypted partitions though.
Don't be a drama queen. If everyone were being treated like a violator, they'd all be receiving lawsuit notices in the mail.
As opposed to siding with the "rights violators?"
The basic Debian and Fedora installs both offer full hard drive encryption as an option. It's a really good idea on any (backed-up) system with data that you don't want falling into the wrong hands.