This isn't news. ANY anti-phishing tool that checks to see if a page is a phishing site is going to have to send it SOMEWHERE... or did you think that they were just going to be able to magically download a tiny file on your computer that would just 'know' all the phishing sites?
They all do this, which is why I don't use them. Some common sense will tell you if a site is phishing. If you try to go to a bank website and get http://bank-0-am3rika.tv/l0g0n, then you might want to reconsider putting in your username and password.
Basing -any- major decision heavily on publications is dangerous -- but it happens in a lot of disciplines. Whether or not the publications are any good is often overlooked, just as long as you've generated something in a journal. I've known good solid smart researchers who had half the publications of rather poor scientists (who were nonetheless better paid and higher ranking!), because those researchers chose to put out solid work instead of half-baked MPUs (minimum publishable units)
Well, not really. The body's more active defenses are geared toward certain things; proteins, for example are -really- good at activating the immune system.
Other things (carbohydrates, lipids) aren't so hot, but there are certain types of T-cells (Gamma-Delta T cells) that can initiate a T-cell receptor binding complex with those. My theory (DNRTFA) is that these plastic beads aren't going to do much. They're probably some sort of simple polymer that by itself isn't going to trigger any immune responses as long as it doesn't contain any particularly nasty compounds.
Because big telcom will pay off the FCC to make it as hard as possible for small-time operators to get their hands on any of that; why do you think they pushed so hard for that spectrum to be reallocated in the first place?
We don't have to like Brazil, or Thailand, or any of those other countries that block YouTube. I don't like it, and it's just blocking freedom of expression, which I think everyone is entitled to.
But on the other hand, look at these drug companies. They're hardly hurting for profits, are they? Not when they can charge insurance companies 200 dollars a bottle for stuff like Nexium (I know, I use it).
When does the overwhelming greed of the corporate monolith have to take a back seat to helping people because we/can/?
I'm hardly saying that these companies need to start giving away metric tons of pills; but it certainly wouldn't crush their bottom line to offer licensing to produce these medications to poor countries and a very significant decrease. They'd still be making money, it would still be legal, and they'd get a spectacular PR boost. On the other hand, they could just be hardasses who need to be even greedier, and then the countries in question will just produce the drugs they need anyway.
I say good for them. Maybe if Congress wasn't in their pockets, they'd start feeling a little pressure to actually compete.
Assuming that we're talking about a heterogeneous combination of laptops, some of which are unlikely to be anywhere near current, I think Windows (as far as driver support, at least) would be the sensible solution. Since they all likely come with a license for one or the other version, there shouldn't be much of an issue with legality anyway.
Linux would be more flexible, yes, but not when you're trying to get old displays working as fast as possible, along with builtin networking or even wireless, without having to go through a tedious setup for each different machine.
This really doesn't seem feasible, unless you have some serious hardware engineering prowess. What it seems like you want to do is span the laptop video on multiple monitors? If you want to do this with 'external' displays, then the problem is spanning across those individual laptops. With network access, you might be able to fudge something with VNC (although, don't expect great speed on that). Otherwise, I'd say probably not. From what I know, most of those art displays using regular PCs/monitors used specialized software or particular effects not available in a standard configuration to do what they do.
Really. I mean, sure, many of the journals make a profit; however, a number of them probably do so via the enormous subscription costs that PhDs (and even graduate students, sometimes) must pay to get access to the paper copies and electronic PDFs from said journal.
Even today in the advent of electronic publishing, it is still a gigantic cost to print each issue; yes, we pay (sometimes hundreds of dollars) per page for things like color micrographs and the like, but considering that many times these journals have readerships that are less than ten thousand (sometimes considerably less) in the entire WORLD, to make these things self-sustaining is difficult at best.
Let us not forget also that the journal editors orchestrate peer review. Certainly you might say that would be simple to resolve, but there are often good reasons why editors will avoid candidates for peer review that might look good to someone who hasn't been doing the job for years. Doctor X might work with Doctor Y, for example. Editors often have an eye to catch situations that might represent conflict of interest and avoid them. This also works in reverse as well. Without some sort of oversight, the less scrupulous researcher could simply send all his or her publications to be peer-reviewed by a friend, who would give them great ratings and send them on to be published online. The problem is that most researchers live in a bit of a vacuum. They work in a rather narrow margin within a field and sometimes get to know others just by the work they've published if it falls along close lines. That would make it very, very hard to objectively self-review (among themselves, that is) publications.
Does it still happen in the current system? I'm sure it does. I also know that bad papers still get published, and good papers are rejected because one of the peer reviewers is working along similar lines and wants to be first to get it out (I've seen this happen).
The system is imperfect, but it provides a structure under which we can have some sort of independent review. Simply tossing everything out in the open sounds good, but would be quite a different issue in practice.
Besides, not to put too fine a point on it, but what is the general public going to do with all of this? The Federal government has required for a long time that the titles of all NSF (maybe NIH too) grants are made available to the public. What happened? People objected because studies were being done with cannibis, or other 'bad' drugs for purely medical reasons. Now we are specifically taught how to word grants so that they don't inflame the 'layperson' and get funding rejected because someone didn't like the title. What do you think will happen when we start touting all the 'free and open access' to papers? People who have no idea what is going on will raise holy hell because mice are being used for experiments or god forbid we're using heroin to test it's effect on X or Y.
I'm all for freedom of information, but I don't see what good this will accomplish.
Not to be a prude about this, but what exactly is the point? How much do regular pedometers cost?
I know I've seen some for less than 30 bucks. Yeah, sure. There's the wow factor
(hey, lookee at my over-priced Nikes. Did you know I spent 30 bucks more and they can talk to my iPod? -- wow, I've gone to the couch and back six times in the last hour, logging 50 steps!)
But not much else. I love technology as much as the next person on/., but there's got to be a better use for it.
Really, this has already been done before. A company called 'Monsanto' (too lazy to look up a link), has been making genetically modified foods for years now. They also happen to make Roundup-brand weed killers (and pesticides, too).
Their crops are engineered to be resistant to the Roundup products; specifically, they bill them as 'Roundup-ready'. They have also been attempting off and on to engineer crops that do not produce reusable seeds -- in other words, farmers who buy these crops cannot harvest part of them to use to plant again next year, they'll have to buy them new every season.
Once you get past the idea of the corporations using genetic engineering to fleece us (surprise), putting human genes in a plant is no different than putting the genes that produce ampicillin into a bacterial plasmid (or human insulin, so on).
The problem is that the public is basically ignorant of the mechanics behind it. Especially with rice, the chance that this is going to manage to spread outside these crops is very, very remote -- and certainly not to other things, like wheat or corn. I will be the first to say that nobody ever seems to want to do long-term trials of this stuff before releasing it, which I think is sorely needed, but once again, leave it to the media to sensationalize anything.
Just slap 'bio engineered' and 'human genes' into the same headline, and the conservatives will be screaming (probably the liberals too, as a matter of fact).
The biggest problem I see is that the more advanced computers get, the easier it is to get _good_ Trek-style special effects.
No computer in the world can help you write a better script, though. I certainly hope more emphasis is put on the writing this time around -- don't get me wrong, I thought the premise in Pirkinning was certainly interesting -- but calling it a Star Trek/B5 crossover is somewhat unrealistic, given what happened in the movie.
That doesn't mean I have any major issues to complain about overall. These people are doing this because they want to, and we really don't have the right to argue against a labor of love.
As for charging a fee to view this new movie: If it's reasonable, I'll pay without question. There's a difference in charging because you need to recoup operating costs: despite the (relative) ease in creating special effects, you need computers, props, makeup, time, effort, catering (pizza), film equipment, and so on, as opposed to churning out Star Trek: XI (thanks again, Paramount. After that last one, the idea makes me sick), to continue milking the cash cow for profits, damn your viewers to hell.
Hmm. I'd say 7 incidents in one building is probably very high; even so, that depends entirely on the relative frequency of the specific kind of tumor.
Also, did any of these people work in hazardous areas? A university can have all sorts of nasty stuff around.
It would seem to me that these incidents could be related to the cell phone tower; or it could be a very sad coincidence. You can't just freeze everything at one single point in time and go ah-ha!
There are too many other factors that aren't considered.
Is a myth. Irrelevant. Mantras and ethically-pleasing slogans sound great when a company is growing. It -certainly- helps when you're looking primarily at US investments and venture capital.
Once you're big and multinationally, however, the corporate entity is just as ethics neutral as you can possibly be. The corporation as a person has just one goal. Make money for stockholders. Above all else.
And if you believe otherwise, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn that you can have for next to nothing. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft. They're not thinking about the quash of free speech, they're thinking of ways to get access to the world's largest consumer base.
Well, duh. But not because I think my equipment is broken.. because the company that made it is clearly looking to get support from the people who stand to make money from all those (shiatty) commercials I'm forced to watch.
So Philips wants to make it easier for broadcasters to force me into watching ads for stuff I won't buy anyway, and then they've the audacity to attempt to chalk up their user's (inevitable) complaints to 'improperly working equipment'.So we need to watch more crap, and we're stupid to boot.
This is really exciting for me as a space buff, but bittersweet at the same time.
It's great to know that something launched before I was born (1980), can still be found and active.. but at the same time, where is the spirit NASA used to have? These days it always seems about money & more money, while they whine and complain about the ever present-flaws in the space shuttle.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do everything possible to keep our astronauts safe, but if they hadn't contracted the shuttle out to the lowest bidder in the first place, we might have better craft.
I wonder how much it would cost to launch a few more Voyager-like probes?
Let's see now. If I want to help people in the third-world.. hmm. Well, they obviously aren't starving, have -spectactular- medical care, there's no problem with HIV, and we made sure they all have clean water and nice 2-story ranch houses. Crime is at an all-time low and there aren't -any- despots or tyrannical dictators that let American corporations in to use their citizens as dirt-cheap overworked labor for pennies.
So, lets get them all cheap, ubiquitous computing.
(You show me a man who can eat a $100 laptop, and I'll show you someone who needs affordable health care)
No matter how you look at this, it's a mix of a lot of different factors.
Functionally, 'Vista-approved' machines probably means that Vista will have all the drivers to make this fully functional -- in other words, that some goon at MS actually tested this configuration (or one very similar to it) and made sure that it would all work.
As far as to what 'level' it will work, I was under the impression that the 'basic' version wouldn't even have Aero. Even if Grandma goes to WalMart and buys a machine that is 'Vista-approved' but not beefy enough to handle that 3d goodness, either she'll be getting Basic or (hopefully) the OS will be smart enough to offer recommendations for appropriate levels of eye candy. The point is that Grandma isn't going to care either way if she doesn't have swishy dialog boxes and shiny translucent things - as long as her email opens (no matter whether it takes one second or ten), she's happy.
Mid-range computer users are going to be smart enough to ask and to look for a machine that will _run_ Aero if they want that, and the power folks are going to go out and build a machine that will surpass these requirements/anyway/.
I dunno about that; what portion of the game 'producers' are going to want to bring games to the table for a system like that?
Yes, perhaps games for younger players, but still.. when they see a side-to-side comparison of the graphics and 'WOW' factor, which will they choose?
Considering that the 'playability' of games has taken a far backseat to graphics and flashy stuff, I see this being the biggest flop since that 3D gameboy thing.
There is no guarantee when you pick up most books that they're factual.. even if they say non-fiction on them; it is up to the reader to weigh evidence and decide..
In this case it's even more so. It's his personal RECOLLECTION of events. So what if he lied, if you enjoy the story, just take a big fat magic marker and cross out 'Memoir' and write 'Fiction'. Then shut up.
This really reads like one of those Chick tracts, so I expect that either you're simply pulling our collective legs, or you should work on reinforcing that line between fantasy and reality.
Obviously (and it is, even though the radical conservatives seem to think otherwise), you should be capable of making those distinctions BEFORE picking up a set of dice (or GTA: San Andreas, etc, etc).
If you can't, then it's your (or your parents, since you probably still live with them) responsibility to stop before you think you can leap off buildings and cast magic spells. Sheesh.
Oh, yes. Movie was exceptional. I knew people like that in college.
Not to be a troll or anything (really), but I have -absolutely- no idea why a story where Microsoft changes the names of icons merits a story.
No, they're not patching security flaws in XP, or making it possible for me to remove Internet Explorer entirely, or opening the Office format so I can share documents as a Linux user more easily, they're CHANGING THE NAMES OF ICONS.
Asinine. And we lend them legitimacy by putting it on the front page of one of the most widely-read websites out there in the computing world. Fantastic. Tomorrow they'll change the default wallpaper for Longhorn and we'll have a bloody parade.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to admit that looked ok at first -- but I still read it twice before clicking on it.
I bet we wouldn't have half the phishing problems we do now if people just stopped automatically trusting everything they see on the internet.
This isn't news. ANY anti-phishing tool that checks to see if a page is a phishing site is going to have to send it SOMEWHERE... or did you think that they were just going to be able to magically download a tiny file on your computer that would just 'know' all the phishing sites?
They all do this, which is why I don't use them. Some common sense will tell you if a site is phishing. If you try to go to a bank website and get http://bank-0-am3rika.tv/l0g0n, then you might want to reconsider putting in your username and password.
Silly sensationalism. nothing more.
Basing -any- major decision heavily on publications is dangerous -- but it happens in a lot of disciplines. Whether or not the publications are any good is often overlooked, just as long as you've generated something in a journal. I've known good solid smart researchers who had half the publications of rather poor scientists (who were nonetheless better paid and higher ranking!), because those researchers chose to put out solid work instead of half-baked MPUs (minimum publishable units)
Well, not really. The body's more active defenses are geared toward certain things; proteins, for example are -really- good at activating the immune system.
Other things (carbohydrates, lipids) aren't so hot, but there are certain types of T-cells (Gamma-Delta T cells) that can initiate a T-cell receptor binding complex with those. My theory (DNRTFA) is that these plastic beads aren't going to do much. They're probably some sort of simple polymer that by itself isn't going to trigger any immune responses as long as it doesn't contain any particularly nasty compounds.
Because big telcom will pay off the FCC to make it as hard as possible for small-time operators to get their hands on any of that; why do you think they pushed so hard for that spectrum to be reallocated in the first place?
We don't have to like Brazil, or Thailand, or any of those other countries that block YouTube. I don't like it, and it's just blocking freedom of expression, which I think everyone is entitled to.
/can/?
But on the other hand, look at these drug companies. They're hardly hurting for profits, are they? Not when they can charge insurance companies 200 dollars a bottle for stuff like Nexium (I know, I use it).
When does the overwhelming greed of the corporate monolith have to take a back seat to helping people because we
I'm hardly saying that these companies need to start giving away metric tons of pills; but it certainly wouldn't crush their bottom line to offer licensing to produce these medications to poor countries and a very significant decrease. They'd still be making money, it would still be legal, and they'd get a spectacular PR boost. On the other hand, they could just be hardasses who need to be even greedier, and then the countries in question will just produce the drugs they need anyway.
I say good for them. Maybe if Congress wasn't in their pockets, they'd start feeling a little pressure to actually compete.
Assuming that we're talking about a heterogeneous combination of laptops, some of which are unlikely to be anywhere near current, I think Windows (as far as driver support, at least) would be the sensible solution. Since they all likely come with a license for one or the other version, there shouldn't be much of an issue with legality anyway.
Linux would be more flexible, yes, but not when you're trying to get old displays working as fast as possible, along with builtin networking or even wireless, without having to go through a tedious setup for each different machine.
This really doesn't seem feasible, unless you have some serious hardware engineering prowess. What it seems like you want to do is span the laptop video on multiple monitors? If you want to do this with 'external' displays, then the problem is spanning across those individual laptops. With network access, you might be able to fudge something with VNC (although, don't expect great speed on that). Otherwise, I'd say probably not. From what I know, most of those art displays using regular PCs/monitors used specialized software or particular effects not available in a standard configuration to do what they do.
Really. I mean, sure, many of the journals make a profit; however, a number of them probably do so via the enormous subscription costs that PhDs (and even graduate students, sometimes) must pay to get access to the paper copies and electronic PDFs from said journal.
Even today in the advent of electronic publishing, it is still a gigantic cost to print each issue; yes, we pay (sometimes hundreds of dollars) per page for things like color micrographs and the like, but considering that many times these journals have readerships that are less than ten thousand (sometimes considerably less) in the entire WORLD, to make these things self-sustaining is difficult at best.
Let us not forget also that the journal editors orchestrate peer review. Certainly you might say that would be simple to resolve, but there are often good reasons why editors will avoid candidates for peer review that might look good to someone who hasn't been doing the job for years. Doctor X might work with Doctor Y, for example. Editors often have an eye to catch situations that might represent conflict of interest and avoid them. This also works in reverse as well. Without some sort of oversight, the less scrupulous researcher could simply send all his or her publications to be peer-reviewed by a friend, who would give them great ratings and send them on to be published online. The problem is that most researchers live in a bit of a vacuum. They work in a rather narrow margin within a field and sometimes get to know others just by the work they've published if it falls along close lines. That would make it very, very hard to objectively self-review (among themselves, that is) publications.
Does it still happen in the current system? I'm sure it does. I also know that bad papers still get published, and good papers are rejected because one of the peer reviewers is working along similar lines and wants to be first to get it out (I've seen this happen).
The system is imperfect, but it provides a structure under which we can have some sort of independent review. Simply tossing everything out in the open sounds good, but would be quite a different issue in practice.
Besides, not to put too fine a point on it, but what is the general public going to do with all of this? The Federal government has required for a long time that the titles of all NSF (maybe NIH too) grants are made available to the public. What happened? People objected because studies were being done with cannibis, or other 'bad' drugs for purely medical reasons. Now we are specifically taught how to word grants so that they don't inflame the 'layperson' and get funding rejected because someone didn't like the title. What do you think will happen when we start touting all the 'free and open access' to papers? People who have no idea what is going on will raise holy hell because mice are being used for experiments or god forbid we're using heroin to test it's effect on X or Y.
I'm all for freedom of information, but I don't see what good this will accomplish.
Even if it -wasn't- the most seen term on Wikipedia; it's going to be now.
Why is this news?
Boy, this is probably the first time I wanted the mod system to go higher than +5. Blah.
Not to be a prude about this, but what exactly is the point? How much do regular pedometers cost?
/., but there's got to be a better use for it.
I know I've seen some for less than 30 bucks. Yeah, sure. There's the wow factor
(hey, lookee at my over-priced Nikes. Did you know I spent 30 bucks more and they can talk to my iPod? -- wow, I've gone to the couch and back six times in the last hour, logging 50 steps!)
But not much else. I love technology as much as the next person on
Really, this has already been done before. A company called 'Monsanto' (too lazy to look up a link), has been making genetically modified foods for years now. They also happen to make Roundup-brand weed killers (and pesticides, too).
Their crops are engineered to be resistant to the Roundup products; specifically, they bill them as 'Roundup-ready'. They have also been attempting off and on to engineer crops that do not produce reusable seeds -- in other words, farmers who buy these crops cannot harvest part of them to use to plant again next year, they'll have to buy them new every season.
Once you get past the idea of the corporations using genetic engineering to fleece us (surprise), putting human genes in a plant is no different than putting the genes that produce ampicillin into a bacterial plasmid (or human insulin, so on).
The problem is that the public is basically ignorant of the mechanics behind it. Especially with rice, the chance that this is going to manage to spread outside these crops is very, very remote -- and certainly not to other things, like wheat or corn. I will be the first to say that nobody ever seems to want to do long-term trials of this stuff before releasing it, which I think is sorely needed, but once again, leave it to the media to sensationalize anything.
Just slap 'bio engineered' and 'human genes' into the same headline, and the conservatives will be screaming (probably the liberals too, as a matter of fact).
I watched Pirkinning some time ago.
The biggest problem I see is that the more advanced computers get, the easier it is to get _good_ Trek-style special effects.
No computer in the world can help you write a better script, though. I certainly hope more emphasis is put on the writing this time around -- don't get me wrong, I thought the premise in Pirkinning was certainly interesting -- but calling it a Star Trek/B5 crossover is somewhat unrealistic, given what happened in the movie.
That doesn't mean I have any major issues to complain about overall. These people are doing this because they want to, and we really don't have the right to argue against a labor of love.
As for charging a fee to view this new movie: If it's reasonable, I'll pay without question. There's a difference in charging because you need to recoup operating costs: despite the (relative) ease in creating special effects, you need computers, props, makeup, time, effort, catering (pizza), film equipment, and so on, as opposed to churning out Star Trek: XI (thanks again, Paramount. After that last one, the idea makes me sick), to continue milking the cash cow for profits, damn your viewers to hell.
Hmm. I'd say 7 incidents in one building is probably very high; even so, that depends entirely on the relative frequency of the specific kind of tumor.
Also, did any of these people work in hazardous areas? A university can have all sorts of nasty stuff around.
It would seem to me that these incidents could be related to the cell phone tower; or it could be a very sad coincidence. You can't just freeze everything at one single point in time and go ah-ha!
There are too many other factors that aren't considered.
Is a myth. Irrelevant. Mantras and ethically-pleasing slogans sound great when a company is growing. It -certainly- helps when you're looking primarily at US investments and venture capital.
Once you're big and multinationally, however, the corporate entity is just as ethics neutral as you can possibly be. The corporation as a person has just one goal. Make money for stockholders. Above all else.
And if you believe otherwise, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn that you can have for next to nothing. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft. They're not thinking about the quash of free speech, they're thinking of ways to get access to the world's largest consumer base.
Philips acknowledges that (etc, etc)
Well, duh. But not because I think my equipment is broken.. because the company that made it is clearly looking to get support from the people who stand to make money from all those (shiatty) commercials I'm forced to watch.
So Philips wants to make it easier for broadcasters to force me into watching ads for stuff I won't buy anyway, and then they've the audacity to attempt to chalk up their user's (inevitable) complaints to 'improperly working equipment'.So we need to watch more crap, and we're stupid to boot.
Har-de-har-har.
+1 for inventive hacking/creative thinking
-10000 for degrading music as an art form.
Not looking good, Bob.
This is really exciting for me as a space buff, but bittersweet at the same time.
It's great to know that something launched before I was born (1980), can still be found and active.. but at the same time, where is the spirit NASA used to have? These days it always seems about money & more money, while they whine and complain about the ever present-flaws in the space shuttle.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do everything possible to keep our astronauts safe, but if they hadn't contracted the shuttle out to the lowest bidder in the first place, we might have better craft.
I wonder how much it would cost to launch a few more Voyager-like probes?
Really.
Someone needs to hit these people with 2x4s.
Let's see now. If I want to help people in the third-world.. hmm. Well, they obviously aren't starving, have -spectactular- medical care, there's no problem with HIV, and we made sure they all have clean water and nice 2-story ranch houses. Crime is at an all-time low and there aren't -any- despots or tyrannical dictators that let American corporations in to use their citizens as dirt-cheap overworked labor for pennies.
So, lets get them all cheap, ubiquitous computing.
(You show me a man who can eat a $100 laptop, and I'll show you someone who needs affordable health care)
No matter how you look at this, it's a mix of a lot of different factors.
/anyway/.
Functionally, 'Vista-approved' machines probably means that Vista will have all the drivers to make this fully functional -- in other words, that some goon at MS actually tested this configuration (or one very similar to it) and made sure that it would all work.
As far as to what 'level' it will work, I was under the impression that the 'basic' version wouldn't even have Aero. Even if Grandma goes to WalMart and buys a machine that is 'Vista-approved' but not beefy enough to handle that 3d goodness, either she'll be getting Basic or (hopefully) the OS will be smart enough to offer recommendations for appropriate levels of eye candy. The point is that Grandma isn't going to care either way if she doesn't have swishy dialog boxes and shiny translucent things - as long as her email opens (no matter whether it takes one second or ten), she's happy.
Mid-range computer users are going to be smart enough to ask and to look for a machine that will _run_ Aero if they want that, and the power folks are going to go out and build a machine that will surpass these requirements
So in essence, this is more hype over nothing.
I dunno about that; what portion of the game 'producers' are going to want to bring games to the table for a system like that?
Yes, perhaps games for younger players, but still.. when they see a side-to-side comparison of the graphics and 'WOW' factor, which will they choose?
Considering that the 'playability' of games has taken a far backseat to graphics and flashy stuff, I see this being the biggest flop since that 3D gameboy thing.
I'm probably going to get modded down for this..
There is no guarantee when you pick up most books that they're factual.. even if they say non-fiction on them; it is up to the reader to weigh evidence and decide..
In this case it's even more so. It's his personal RECOLLECTION of events. So what if he lied, if you enjoy the story, just take a big fat magic marker and cross out 'Memoir' and write 'Fiction'. Then shut up.
This really reads like one of those Chick tracts, so I expect that either you're simply pulling our collective legs, or you should work on reinforcing that line between fantasy and reality.
Obviously (and it is, even though the radical conservatives seem to think otherwise), you should be capable of making those distinctions BEFORE picking up a set of dice (or GTA: San Andreas, etc, etc).
If you can't, then it's your (or your parents, since you probably still live with them) responsibility to stop before you think you can leap off buildings and cast magic spells. Sheesh.
Oh, yes. Movie was exceptional. I knew people like that in college.
Not to be a troll or anything (really), but I have -absolutely- no idea why a story where Microsoft changes the names of icons merits a story.
No, they're not patching security flaws in XP, or making it possible for me to remove Internet Explorer entirely, or opening the Office format so I can share documents as a Linux user more easily, they're CHANGING THE NAMES OF ICONS.
Asinine. And we lend them legitimacy by putting it on the front page of one of the most widely-read websites out there in the computing world. Fantastic. Tomorrow they'll change the default wallpaper for Longhorn and we'll have a bloody parade.