. If his "death threat" was someone saying that he won't see temperature returning to normal before he dies, I don't think it was a death threat.
According to TFA: he "received five deaths threats by email". Wow. Who hasn't? Next he'll be telling us someone was looking at him funny in the street. Also:
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
So the guy is on TV, in the newspaper. He obviously doesn't take these threats seriously. Except as a way to promote his agenda.
did the Times really make such an awful grammatical mistake?
of course not. The Times' headline is "As Mobile Phones Grow More Complex, Carriers Insist on Fewer Operating Systems". Typos happen, but never like that in a newspaper headline. The blame is 100% on the illiterate Slashdot editor (regardless of what was submitted, editors are supposed to be quality control).
The last 2 words [file edit] of that sentence just drove off 2/3 of Dell's customers.
That 2/3 are never going to buy Linux regardless. But just imagine for a moment they did, that would create a demand for a point-and-click solution. Perhaps copmmercial, perhaps freeware, but it would be solved.
the things improved by a "hybridizing" a car are very closely analogous to the things improved by "hybridizing" a hard drive
Not "closely", but even so, what's the point of drawing such an analogy? The basic ideas of how a hard disc works are actually simpler than the workings of a modern car. An analogy is supposed to help understand a complex or new concept by comparing it with a known, simpler one. This actually does the reverse.
A hybrid drive is more like a hybrid car than a genetic hybrid.
But it's more like a hybrid drive. I think most people here understand how drives work better than they do cars -- I certainly do -- so an "explanation" comparing it to car mechanics is less than illuminating. The word "hybrid" itself tells you the general idea. I also note that in TFA they didn't feel the need to bring in cars to explain the concept.
Too late? Then bear rather than bull.
It may be politically correct to say that these horrible nasty illegal spams cannot be exploited, but that doesn't make it true.
Not politically incorrect. Impossible.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortsell ing/shortselling1.asp
"There are many restrictions on the size, price and types of stocks you are able to short sell. For example, you can't short sell penny stocks and most short sales need to be done in round lots."
Sure you could, by shorting the stock...Unfortunately (as I learned the last time this was discussed on Slashdot) you're not actually allowed to short-sell penny stocks
"Before brokerage fees, the average investor who buys a stock on the day it is most heavily touted and sells it 2 days after the touting ends will lose approximately 5.5%. For the top half of most thoroughly touted stocks, a spammer who buys at the ask price on the day before unleashing touts and sells at the bid price on the day his or her touting is the heaviest will, on average, earn 5.79%."
You think you can squeeze a profit while the spammer is cashing out and the price is falling, good luck. They know the game, you don't.
You don't have to get in before the spam hits, just before the wave crests, that's all.
There was a story on the economics of these scams a few months ago. One conclusion: no, you can't profit riding on the coat-tails. One reason is that penny stocks are very thinly traded, you can't instantly buy shares. By the time your order is processed, it's too late. You're buying from the pumpers as they cash out (of course, they bought in days before). And they only average about 5% gain.
How did you make it to 2007 without knowing this, anyhow?
I guess I've been living in a cave for the last 6 years too, first I've heard it. Seems rather a pointless abbreviation. Replace "2007" with "2k7", saving a grand total of one character, and confuse half your readers. If you must abbreviate, try '07, which at least is a standard form, and will work after 2010 too (or are you going to write "2k10"?).
The problem is that the site, "www.itsnotcheating.com.au" was obviously created just for this campaign by some advertising agency. So it shares many of the qualities of a phishing site; no history, lots of content referring to a "trusted" site or a big company. If marketing idiots didn't insist on creating a new TLD for every campaign, people would simply know that if it didn't end in microsoft.com(.au) then it was bogus. Would it really have been so hard to use "itsnotcheating.microsoft.com.au"?
And looking at the who is info for the site, it's no wonder it's flagged as suspicious. Microsoft is never mentioned at all.
Domain Name: itsnotcheating.com.au Last Modified: Never Updated Registrar ID: R00014-AR Registrar Name: PlanetDomain Status: OK Registrant: AMNESIA CREATIVE PTY LIMITED Registrant ID: ABN 65091735867 Eligibility Type: Company Registrant ROID: C2767016-AR Registrant Contact Name: Iain McDonald Registrant Email: domains@amnesia.com.au Tech ID: C2767016-AR Tech Name: Iain McDonald Tech Email: domains@amnesia.com.au Name Server: ns2.iprimus.com.au Name Server IP: 203.134.65.67 Name Server: ns1.iprimus.com.au Name Server IP: 203.134.64.67
I have to admit, if Hollywood was realistic and didn't have sound in space it would make sci-fi action films pretty dull. It would just have a lot of background music so I let them off on that one.
The few movies that do respect "in space no one can hear you scream" -- or anything else -- have a greater impact, as it helps you to believe that you really are somewhere different. What's the point of setting a movie in space if it's just WWI fighters with spacesuits? There are plenty of ways to spice up the soundtrack without silly whooshing and explosions. Music and the ambient sounds the pilots would hear, as you mentioned, in 2001.
The bigger dumb convention of Hollywood SF is the almost universal gravity. In this case they do have a practical problem in that it's hard and expensive to do zero G on screen. But for a spaceship to have artifical gravity (not from spinning) would be such an astounding breakthrough physics that it would make the whiole idea of rockets obsolete.
Or that spaceships have to get within arm's length to have a battle; as Star Trek in all its version did. A space battle is going to start, and probably finish, by firing weapons at the moment the enemy is detected, if not light years away (in Trek tech this seems possible) then certainly thousands of km. As for "ramming", if a spaceship travelling at km/sec hits another head on, it will be more than a fender-bender.
The truly bizarre thing about that statement is that until the last couple of centuries, most art was inspired by religion. I'm at a loss as to where he got the idea that men produced art by paying attention to the Natural stream of thought rather than the Supernatural.
Rubbish. Perhaps most FAMOUS art was inspired by religion, because that's where a lot of sponsorship of the arts came from, so that's where the most talented professionl artists worked. Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of religious art, because he was paid to by the Church. But he also did portraits (i.e. inspired by the "natural" world) of rich merchants and their familes (perhaps you've heard of Mona Lisa?). And even most "religious" works depicted real people as models and landscapes. Aside from the grand masters, people have been decorating their clothes, tools, homes and bodies since the Stone Age. The impulse to create art is perhaps related to the religious impulse, but not dependent on it.
do you think any of the oss libraries require the user to sign something? of course not.
Probably, but not very relevant. OSS is already protected by copyright, the licence terms are actually extending more rights than the law requires, not trying to take them away.
But in general, just saying the reader has to do something is not a contract.
don't see how Doom9 can win when on the third page of AACS Specifications http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS _Spec_Common_0.91.pdf, it says: Intellectual Property Implementation of this specification requires a license from AACS LLC
That's interesting, but does the AAAC have the ability to publish and enforce laws? Is this a contract that the autjopr of the software in question has signed?
If you believe that, by reading this you have agreed to hand over all your money... etc ad absurdum.
Slashdot Mirror
According to TFA: he "received five deaths threats by email". Wow. Who hasn't? Next he'll be telling us someone was looking at him funny in the street. Also:
So the guy is on TV, in the newspaper. He obviously doesn't take these threats seriously. Except as a way to promote his agenda.of course not. The Times' headline is "As Mobile Phones Grow More Complex, Carriers Insist on Fewer Operating Systems". Typos happen, but never like that in a newspaper headline. The blame is 100% on the illiterate Slashdot editor (regardless of what was submitted, editors are supposed to be quality control).
That 2/3 are never going to buy Linux regardless. But just imagine for a moment they did, that would create a demand for a point-and-click solution. Perhaps copmmercial, perhaps freeware, but it would be solved.
Not "closely", but even so, what's the point of drawing such an analogy? The basic ideas of how a hard disc works are actually simpler than the workings of a modern car. An analogy is supposed to help understand a complex or new concept by comparing it with a known, simpler one. This actually does the reverse.
But it's more like a hybrid drive. I think most people here understand how drives work better than they do cars -- I certainly do -- so an "explanation" comparing it to car mechanics is less than illuminating. The word "hybrid" itself tells you the general idea. I also note that in TFA they didn't feel the need to bring in cars to explain the concept.
The word "hybrid" has a meaning outside automobiles. Originally it was a biological term.
Not politically incorrect. Impossible.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortsell ing/shortselling1.asp
"There are many restrictions on the size, price and types of stocks you are able to short sell. For example, you can't short sell penny stocks and most short sales need to be done in round lots."
So what's your point?
You must be new here...
Why should the CEO care, unless he's about to cash out himself?
The best scams are those that make the sucker think he's pulling a fast one. It doesn't work. The "smart" people trying to cash in on this lose.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =920553
"Before brokerage fees, the average investor who buys a stock on the day it is most heavily touted and sells it 2 days after the touting ends will lose approximately 5.5%. For the top half of most thoroughly touted stocks, a spammer who buys at the ask price on the day before unleashing touts and sells at the bid price on the day his or her touting is the heaviest will, on average, earn 5.79%."
You think you can squeeze a profit while the spammer is cashing out and the price is falling, good luck. They know the game, you don't.
There was a story on the economics of these scams a few months ago. One conclusion: no, you can't profit riding on the coat-tails. One reason is that penny stocks are very thinly traded, you can't instantly buy shares. By the time your order is processed, it's too late. You're buying from the pumpers as they cash out (of course, they bought in days before). And they only average about 5% gain.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/21/202 9210
I guess I've been living in a cave for the last 6 years too, first I've heard it. Seems rather a pointless abbreviation. Replace "2007" with "2k7", saving a grand total of one character, and confuse half your readers. If you must abbreviate, try '07, which at least is a standard form, and will work after 2010 too (or are you going to write "2k10"?).
These other researchers must have been pretty clueless then. Or you didn't actually read that either.
Or in other words, you didn't RTFA.
RTFA. There are three types: Head, pubic, clothing.
And looking at the who is info for the site, it's no wonder it's flagged as suspicious. Microsoft is never mentioned at all.
The few movies that do respect "in space no one can hear you scream" -- or anything else -- have a greater impact, as it helps you to believe that you really are somewhere different. What's the point of setting a movie in space if it's just WWI fighters with spacesuits? There are plenty of ways to spice up the soundtrack without silly whooshing and explosions. Music and the ambient sounds the pilots would hear, as you mentioned, in 2001.
The bigger dumb convention of Hollywood SF is the almost universal gravity. In this case they do have a practical problem in that it's hard and expensive to do zero G on screen. But for a spaceship to have artifical gravity (not from spinning) would be such an astounding breakthrough physics that it would make the whiole idea of rockets obsolete.
Or that spaceships have to get within arm's length to have a battle; as Star Trek in all its version did. A space battle is going to start, and probably finish, by firing weapons at the moment the enemy is detected, if not light years away (in Trek tech this seems possible) then certainly thousands of km. As for "ramming", if a spaceship travelling at km/sec hits another head on, it will be more than a fender-bender.
A "Supernatural Deity"? Is there another kind of deity?
Rubbish. Perhaps most FAMOUS art was inspired by religion, because that's where a lot of sponsorship of the arts came from, so that's where the most talented professionl artists worked. Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of religious art, because he was paid to by the Church. But he also did portraits (i.e. inspired by the "natural" world) of rich merchants and their familes (perhaps you've heard of Mona Lisa?). And even most "religious" works depicted real people as models and landscapes. Aside from the grand masters, people have been decorating their clothes, tools, homes and bodies since the Stone Age. The impulse to create art is perhaps related to the religious impulse, but not dependent on it.
Their main function is to think of the "from the ... dept." line. Doing a spellcheck or other mundane editing tasks would distract them from that.
Isn't it an asteroid?
Probably, but not very relevant. OSS is already protected by copyright, the licence terms are actually extending more rights than the law requires, not trying to take them away.
But in general, just saying the reader has to do something is not a contract.
That's interesting, but does the AAAC have the ability to publish and enforce laws? Is this a contract that the autjopr of the software in question has signed?
If you believe that, by reading this you have agreed to hand over all your money... etc ad absurdum.