I saw a sign in the airport las weekend. "The backscatter scanner exposes you the same amount of radiation as you receive in two minutes in the airplane". Yeah but think of it this way; standing on a beach on a sunny day would you accept someone telling you that you were going to get a sun blast equal to two minutes in the sun in two seconds? Radiation doesn't always hurt bit it is always harmful to your DNA. There is a reason heath care providers put a limit on the number of X-rays you get in year.
And of course should they try to placate you with such an answer, you can respond loudly with, "So you're trying to assuage my concerns by saying this thing exposes me to SIXTY TIMES more radiation than I would normally get?"
Although I wouldn't recommend it if you have somewhere to be in any sort of hurry...
So if the UN were just a meeting place for diplomacy, that'd be great. An organization where nations can get together and talk shit out. Fine.
However all this world government shit? Ya that is where I have problems. Not only because I don't agree with the idea but because they are so toothless when it comes to shit that actually matters. They want money, troops, etc, and to play at being a government, but then really do a lot of nothing useful (and do shit like Sierra Leon head the human rights council).
So we don't need to get rid of it, but it should be scaled back to just an international forum for diplomacy.
Exactly. The UN completely fails when it has to actually do anything. To paraphrase a post I found on here some years back, "It would seem the UN is unable to put together anything bigger or more complex than a boy scout camping trip without massive corruption, waste, and/or bad blood being created between member nations."
I love how HotHardware went out of their way to use Javascript to prevent you from opening them in pop-up windows. You have to click the image, then copy the URL, then open a tab, then paste the URL. Did they not think that comparing screen shots might be something the reader wants to do??? It would also be a bit easier without 3 flash ads on every single picture. Thank God for flashblock. That is not a site I will be visiting often.
Open image 1, drag to tab bar, open image 2, drag to tab bar, done...
There's a quote by a politician (perhaps a US President) which I can't find exactly, but I can paraphrase it: The best way to expose and destroy an unjust law is by rigorously enforcing it. If anyone knows the exact quote please tell me.
I've always been of the same view. If SOPA passes (I pray it does not), what can I, as an individual, do with it to cause chaos? Could I force Amazon to remove all of my product reviews? Mess with eBay seller feedback? Post copyrighted material in comments on Whitehouse.gov and get the site shut down?
That's a nice thought, and fine in theory. However, it won't work that way in practice. You see, should SOPA become law, it will be enforced on the little guy when some corporation needs to shake someone down for cash or silence criticism. The politicians who actually vote for it will likely be exempt. Sure, you COULD try to call out a supporter when you see them committing willful infringement, but since they voted FOR the measure, everyone will look the other way. Can't have the lobbyists biting the hand that fed them exactly what they wanted, can we?
Withdrawing support is all fine and good. But companies who don't like SOPA shouldn't just rest at not supporting it. They should be actively against it, and make it clear in public statements, along with why they're against it. Whether they believe in free speech not being infringed (unlikely), don't like that SOPA will break the internet in the long run, or they just say they don't support it because it will cost them money, they need to say so. Any of these reasons are valid, and public awareness would increase.
Nixing support is most likely for the last reason, but this too can show the unaware that SOPA is NOT just about "protecting copyright." It's about incurring real financial costs in order to support the whims of a chosen few. Then it can be further explained that the monetary cost is only the beginning, and that it will be abused to silence dissent in ways that make the DMCA look like a jaywalking fine.
Everyone, not just the techies, needs to be made aware of exactly what SOPA and it's evil twin are, and the threat they represent. If you have non-techie friends, explain it to them in terms they will identify with. Going into all the talk about protocols, blocklists, etc, will probably garner the same reaction it got in the House...i.e. "I don't understand this because I'm not a nerd." But if you show them how it will impact their daily lives, they'll get the picture.
It's a pretty grim picture given that congress doesn't listen to the people they supposedly represent. But if enough of those people start voicing their disagreement with it can still be stopped. That's why the word needs to go out to everyone. Forget Linux on the desktop, make 2012 the year SOPA is buried in a deep-dark hole never to be seen again.
Actually, it wouldn't be slander at all. That line in Spider Man from Jonah Jameson was actually spot on. "Slander is spoken! In print, it's libel!" It's all defamation, but they're still two legally distinct offenses.
You don't need "tools" or "toys" - when I was 5, I tested what this "it's HOT! you'll BURN YOURSELF!" stuff was all about with my index finger on an iron. Lost the fingerprint on the tip of that finger - and yet, I lived.
And sadly enough, it would be a completely different story for a kid today. The mother would scream her lungs out and floor it to the ER in her SUV (endangering tons of people along the way). Once there, she would scream at the charge nurse for having to wait behind a multiple-GSW patient who is bleeding into his lungs. After finally seeing a PA, she would get the same advice most people used to take for granted - put some ointment on it, keep it cool and dry, and make an appointment with the family doctor if it doesn't get better in a couple of days.
Oh yeah, and you better believe she would call for a MASSIVE lawsuit against the manufacturer of the iron because it was "too hot" and her precious little snowflake is now "permanently disfigured."
Instead of the hassle of bringing in TV cameras, they could just route all those CCTV's to the broadcast trucks. I'm sure there's plenty of existing network infrastructure in place for that system anyway!
900 miles in a day... ouch... that's trucker distance...
900 miles / 60 mph = 15 hours... jesus.
And it amazes me how they do it day in and day out. I drove from here to Austin, TX last year in about the same amount of time. Even stopping for a couple hours to meet up with a friend for breakfast (since I left home at 5am), I was fighting the urge to run idiots off the road by the time I passed Waco. I don't see how they deal with that kind of stress and annoyance all the time.
But to keep things on track, this trip would not have been possible with an EV. Even with the supposed 320 mile range of a Tesla S, I would have had to stop several times to recharge, and the trip would have taken closer to three or four days. I'm glad they're working on options to decrease charge time to something in the range of a petrol fill-up, since that's going to hold EV's back as much as anything else will. The technology WON'T be widely available yet, nor will any quick-swap stations. But unless they start working on the technical issues and logistics NOW, it will never happen at all. Every new technology has to go through similar growing pains, and I'm hoping this one survives them and helps us burn less oil and spend less to transport goods and people.
In my own little ideal world, all electricity would be from fusion/wind/hydro/solar (i.e. "clean" energy), all passenger cars/trucks would be electric (with the same range/performance as petrol), and the only reason we would need to burn anything for propulsion would be long-haul freight or air travel. But I'm realistic enough to know that won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe for my children or grandchildren...
This car has range and performance similar to the Leaf and the upcoming Focus, yet will cost less than 1/5 what either of those overpriced toys go for, and also looks better. What's your excuse?
(Sidenote, if I can get a tax credit of up to $7500 from Uncle Sam for purchasing an EV, does that mean I actually MAKE $500 to drive this thing? They'll probably cite the "up to" part and give me a whopping $20 for this, but I can dream, can't I?)
Every time they act like they're adding more privacy controls, along comes yet another feature that makes it that much more difficult to control who sees what. The annoying ticker on the right was bad enough, but now being able to see who's unfriended you at any point? I expect this will start a LOT of drama over "OMFG Y U UNFRIEND ME!??!?!?" type stuff from people who normally wouldn't give a crap. Most likely it will be the "friend-whores" who just collect friends to have a higher number. One drops and they have no idea who it was. But now they'll be able to see who decreased their precious friend count, and start all kinds of crap over it.
teach them kids good, they will need to be prepared to kill people in the next war.. i mean police action.. i mean liberation.. i mean contingency operation..... ...
what would happen if they spent their childhood playing games where you learn stuff or have to puzzle out complicated stories?
Col. Grossman,
You're already relegated to being nothing more than a footnote in history. Your buddy Mr. Thompson has been disgraced and disbarred. Just admit that your "games are evil murder simulators" campaign has failed. Why can't the two of you retire somewhere out in the middle of nowhere and leave the rest of society alone?
they should look at their LOCAL database of do-not-track ip addrs
IP addresses don't opt out of things; people do. There has to be some way of associating a request that they want to track, with an earlier opt-out request. Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
All fine and good, but why should I HAVE to opt out of something like this just to protect my privacy? What makes these marketing troglodytes think they have a right to track my browsing habits by default?
If it does, I guess we've solved the mystery of how to make sure a photo is actually removed from Facebook instead of just removed from your profile and stored away in some archive forever...
Maybe I'm just behind the times, but I honestly don't understand the point of these "cloud services" for things such as music. I have a Dropbox account, but I use that for tossing files to friends without the hassle of running an Apache daemon, setting up an FTP, or choking an email server with large attachments. I don't understand the need to have my entire collection available across every device I might possibly want to use.
But that brings up another issue. If this is anything like iCloud, there's going to be a 5gb or so limit. I don't have a huge amount of music, but it far outstrips that paltry offering. But in reality I don't WANT all my music with me at any given time. My MP3 player is used for running. It's a 4gb model, and every song I could possibly want while working out is already on there. I don't need to synch more. My phone has 12gb of memory built-in, and I stuck a 16gb MicroSDHC card in there as well. Even with tons of apps and videos, there's still enough space for the vast majority of my music collection if I wanted to take it with me.
So what, again, is the point of synching to some cloud under someone else's control, when I can just plug a USB cable in for a few seconds if there's a song I REALLY need to put on either device? And that's saying nothing about how Best Buy will probably butcher it into uselessness just like everything else they've gotten their hands on...
In her message she says she was using her phone as a flashlight to find her seat (one of the most annoying things you can do in a theater), so chances are she came in mid-movie and didn't see the trailers or the warnings.
Meaning she wasn't even considerate enough to come in on time for the movie, so to hell with her. And even that would have only gotten one warning, ergo she had to have kept using the phone after being warned once. Additionally, there are signs posted that warn of this policy as well.
Another damn good reason for this policy is safety. As there are staff constantly walking around the theater serving food and drinks (in glass containers, no less) in the darkness, the last thing I would want is for some poor staff member to have their low-light vision impaired and end up tripping with a full tray of glass + food/drink.
I went to Alamo Drafthouse with some friends a couple of weeks ago when I was in town, and there is NO way this woman could have been ignorant of the policy. Before the trailers there are multiple announcements (some quite amusing) that spell out very clearly that texting, talking, or using your bright-as-twenty-suns cellphone in any capacity are NOT tolerated. They also clearly state that you get one and ONLY one warning. After that, you're ass is outta there. But she apparently chose to ignore the multiple warnings, and now she's pissy that they enforced a clearly defined policy? Sucks for her. Maybe next time she'll put the damned phone away.
I knew this policy quite well and I've only ever visited the chain ONCE. Plus I don't even live in the area. This woman has no excuse.
The real question is why would anyone pre-order any big title.
Not necessarily. This IS GameStop we're talking about, here. A friend of mine in SF went in to pickup a copy of LA Noire on launch day. The salesdroid rather rudely stated, "We don't have any copies for non-preorders. If you wanted to play this game, then you should have preordered it." At which point he promptly went 5 minutes down the street to the pit of hell known as Best Buy and picked up one of the hundred or so copies on the shelf. He then returned to GameStop to give them a hearty "fuck you".
The lesson here is that a LOT of GameStop managers will ONLY order enough stock to cover preorders. They do this in a misguided attempt to coerce people into preordering future titles so they can artificially inflate the metrics for their store. This is also the same company that likes to sell used copies on launch day, and shove strategy guides down your throat like a Geek Squad goon pitches dubious service plans.
In Modern America, there just isn't any place for science, mathematics, engineering, and anything else that's remotely technical.
In Modern America, it's important to know about sports and Christianity. That is all that one needs to know.
I find it interesting that so many people seem to think science and faith are mutually excluseive. In my church we have medical professionals (doctors, surgeons, a medical examiner, and pharmacists), network engineers, broadcast engineers, etc. All very technically minded people, and all very much connected to their faith. I won't say religious, because there IS a difference. "Religious" people killed Jesus. People who have faith try to live their lives as best they can and leave the world better than they were brought into it. Do they always succeed? Of course not. But the whole point is it's something to strive for so you better yourself and have a positive impact on those around you.
As for myself, I'm learning quite a lot about audio engineering just through my work in the church's media ministry. I've had the opportunity to dabble in both live sound and broadcast mixing during our services, discover various techniques for getting the best sound from a given space and group of musicians, and a TON of various functions found in modern audio equipment (the Yamaha PM5D is an easy thing to get into, but not so easy to completely master). On several occasions I've even gotten into a bit of applied psychoacoustics. Sure, you can adjust the gain and volume if someone isn't singing very loudly, but that introduces background noise. Sneak the volume down on their monitor, however, and they sing louder without even realizing it.
Bottom line is, faith and science/technology do NOT have to be mutually exclusive. I'm sure there will be those who disagree with that statement as well as what I'm about to say, but it holds true for me. When working on a difficult technical problem, sometimes I get frustrated and can't figure out what to do next. Does God intervene and show me what I should do next? No. But I do tend to gain enough clarity to realize why a particular approach wasn't working, along with the motivation to try a different approach. And when I read about some unexpected result or novel discovery in any given scientific field, I can't help but wonder what else has been created just waiting for us to discover it. Science and faith are NOT enemies. God gave us scientific minds so that we could learn as much as possible (and that statement will probably irritate some of the more hardcore "religious" types, hehe).
To put it another way, seeing something truly amazing in the world of science (from the depths of space to the incredible variety of life in the ocean) is, I believe, God's way of inspiring us to want to learn as much about what we've discovered as we possibly can. And if we've learned all we can with current technologies, to invent new ones to further the quest for understanding.
...but howabout money? Not necessarily to the users (and CERTAINLY not to shark lawyers), but to a charitable organization? Say $500 per user affected donated, in the user's name, to the charitable organization of their choice. For users who choose not to specify an organization, the amounts are put into a seperate fund, and can be split between the EFF and providing information access in developing nations.
This way Sony still feels the sting of their actions having real consequences, and it opens up the possibility of a lot of different worthy causes getting some much needed funding.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a sign in the airport las weekend. "The backscatter scanner exposes you the same amount of radiation as you receive in two minutes in the airplane". Yeah but think of it this way; standing on a beach on a sunny day would you accept someone telling you that you were going to get a sun blast equal to two minutes in the sun in two seconds? Radiation doesn't always hurt bit it is always harmful to your DNA. There is a reason heath care providers put a limit on the number of X-rays you get in year.
And of course should they try to placate you with such an answer, you can respond loudly with, "So you're trying to assuage my concerns by saying this thing exposes me to SIXTY TIMES more radiation than I would normally get?"
Although I wouldn't recommend it if you have somewhere to be in any sort of hurry...
So if the UN were just a meeting place for diplomacy, that'd be great. An organization where nations can get together and talk shit out. Fine.
However all this world government shit? Ya that is where I have problems. Not only because I don't agree with the idea but because they are so toothless when it comes to shit that actually matters. They want money, troops, etc, and to play at being a government, but then really do a lot of nothing useful (and do shit like Sierra Leon head the human rights council).
So we don't need to get rid of it, but it should be scaled back to just an international forum for diplomacy.
Exactly. The UN completely fails when it has to actually do anything. To paraphrase a post I found on here some years back, "It would seem the UN is unable to put together anything bigger or more complex than a boy scout camping trip without massive corruption, waste, and/or bad blood being created between member nations."
I love how HotHardware went out of their way to use Javascript to prevent you from opening them in pop-up windows. You have to click the image, then copy the URL, then open a tab, then paste the URL. Did they not think that comparing screen shots might be something the reader wants to do??? It would also be a bit easier without 3 flash ads on every single picture. Thank God for flashblock. That is not a site I will be visiting often.
Open image 1, drag to tab bar, open image 2, drag to tab bar, done...
...you don't know how much the legal decisions are based on the rule of law, or based on corruption.
And this is different from here in America how, exactly?
There's a quote by a politician (perhaps a US President) which I can't find exactly, but I can paraphrase it: The best way to expose and destroy an unjust law is by rigorously enforcing it. If anyone knows the exact quote please tell me.
I've always been of the same view. If SOPA passes (I pray it does not), what can I, as an individual, do with it to cause chaos? Could I force Amazon to remove all of my product reviews? Mess with eBay seller feedback? Post copyrighted material in comments on Whitehouse.gov and get the site shut down?
That's a nice thought, and fine in theory. However, it won't work that way in practice. You see, should SOPA become law, it will be enforced on the little guy when some corporation needs to shake someone down for cash or silence criticism. The politicians who actually vote for it will likely be exempt. Sure, you COULD try to call out a supporter when you see them committing willful infringement, but since they voted FOR the measure, everyone will look the other way. Can't have the lobbyists biting the hand that fed them exactly what they wanted, can we?
there simply aren't enough checks and balances.
Oh there's plenty of checks (made out to campaign funds), just no balances. And that's the problem.
Withdrawing support is all fine and good. But companies who don't like SOPA shouldn't just rest at not supporting it. They should be actively against it, and make it clear in public statements, along with why they're against it. Whether they believe in free speech not being infringed (unlikely), don't like that SOPA will break the internet in the long run, or they just say they don't support it because it will cost them money, they need to say so. Any of these reasons are valid, and public awareness would increase.
Nixing support is most likely for the last reason, but this too can show the unaware that SOPA is NOT just about "protecting copyright." It's about incurring real financial costs in order to support the whims of a chosen few. Then it can be further explained that the monetary cost is only the beginning, and that it will be abused to silence dissent in ways that make the DMCA look like a jaywalking fine.
Everyone, not just the techies, needs to be made aware of exactly what SOPA and it's evil twin are, and the threat they represent. If you have non-techie friends, explain it to them in terms they will identify with. Going into all the talk about protocols, blocklists, etc, will probably garner the same reaction it got in the House...i.e. "I don't understand this because I'm not a nerd." But if you show them how it will impact their daily lives, they'll get the picture.
It's a pretty grim picture given that congress doesn't listen to the people they supposedly represent. But if enough of those people start voicing their disagreement with it can still be stopped. That's why the word needs to go out to everyone. Forget Linux on the desktop, make 2012 the year SOPA is buried in a deep-dark hole never to be seen again.
Actually, it wouldn't be slander at all. That line in Spider Man from Jonah Jameson was actually spot on. "Slander is spoken! In print, it's libel!" It's all defamation, but they're still two legally distinct offenses.
You don't need "tools" or "toys" - when I was 5, I tested what this "it's HOT! you'll BURN YOURSELF!" stuff was all about with my index finger on an iron. Lost the fingerprint on the tip of that finger - and yet, I lived.
And sadly enough, it would be a completely different story for a kid today. The mother would scream her lungs out and floor it to the ER in her SUV (endangering tons of people along the way). Once there, she would scream at the charge nurse for having to wait behind a multiple-GSW patient who is bleeding into his lungs. After finally seeing a PA, she would get the same advice most people used to take for granted - put some ointment on it, keep it cool and dry, and make an appointment with the family doctor if it doesn't get better in a couple of days.
Oh yeah, and you better believe she would call for a MASSIVE lawsuit against the manufacturer of the iron because it was "too hot" and her precious little snowflake is now "permanently disfigured."
Instead of the hassle of bringing in TV cameras, they could just route all those CCTV's to the broadcast trucks. I'm sure there's plenty of existing network infrastructure in place for that system anyway!
900 miles in a day... ouch... that's trucker distance... 900 miles / 60 mph = 15 hours... jesus.
And it amazes me how they do it day in and day out. I drove from here to Austin, TX last year in about the same amount of time. Even stopping for a couple hours to meet up with a friend for breakfast (since I left home at 5am), I was fighting the urge to run idiots off the road by the time I passed Waco. I don't see how they deal with that kind of stress and annoyance all the time.
But to keep things on track, this trip would not have been possible with an EV. Even with the supposed 320 mile range of a Tesla S, I would have had to stop several times to recharge, and the trip would have taken closer to three or four days. I'm glad they're working on options to decrease charge time to something in the range of a petrol fill-up, since that's going to hold EV's back as much as anything else will. The technology WON'T be widely available yet, nor will any quick-swap stations. But unless they start working on the technical issues and logistics NOW, it will never happen at all. Every new technology has to go through similar growing pains, and I'm hoping this one survives them and helps us burn less oil and spend less to transport goods and people.
In my own little ideal world, all electricity would be from fusion/wind/hydro/solar (i.e. "clean" energy), all passenger cars/trucks would be electric (with the same range/performance as petrol), and the only reason we would need to burn anything for propulsion would be long-haul freight or air travel. But I'm realistic enough to know that won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe for my children or grandchildren...
This car has range and performance similar to the Leaf and the upcoming Focus, yet will cost less than 1/5 what either of those overpriced toys go for, and also looks better. What's your excuse?
(Sidenote, if I can get a tax credit of up to $7500 from Uncle Sam for purchasing an EV, does that mean I actually MAKE $500 to drive this thing? They'll probably cite the "up to" part and give me a whopping $20 for this, but I can dream, can't I?)
Every time they act like they're adding more privacy controls, along comes yet another feature that makes it that much more difficult to control who sees what. The annoying ticker on the right was bad enough, but now being able to see who's unfriended you at any point? I expect this will start a LOT of drama over "OMFG Y U UNFRIEND ME!??!?!?" type stuff from people who normally wouldn't give a crap. Most likely it will be the "friend-whores" who just collect friends to have a higher number. One drops and they have no idea who it was. But now they'll be able to see who decreased their precious friend count, and start all kinds of crap over it.
teach them kids good, they will need to be prepared to kill people in the next war.. i mean police action.. i mean liberation.. i mean contingency operation.. ... . ..
what would happen if they spent their childhood playing games where you learn stuff or have to puzzle out complicated stories?
Col. Grossman,
You're already relegated to being nothing more than a footnote in history. Your buddy Mr. Thompson has been disgraced and disbarred. Just admit that your "games are evil murder simulators" campaign has failed. Why can't the two of you retire somewhere out in the middle of nowhere and leave the rest of society alone?
Sincerely,
Gamers Everywhere
IP addresses don't opt out of things; people do. There has to be some way of associating a request that they want to track, with an earlier opt-out request. Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
All fine and good, but why should I HAVE to opt out of something like this just to protect my privacy? What makes these marketing troglodytes think they have a right to track my browsing habits by default?
Pretty much all the big players are being sued by somebody.
What else are you going to do with all of those lawyers? Feed them to the sharks?
Can we? Please???
If it does, I guess we've solved the mystery of how to make sure a photo is actually removed from Facebook instead of just removed from your profile and stored away in some archive forever...
Maybe I'm just behind the times, but I honestly don't understand the point of these "cloud services" for things such as music. I have a Dropbox account, but I use that for tossing files to friends without the hassle of running an Apache daemon, setting up an FTP, or choking an email server with large attachments. I don't understand the need to have my entire collection available across every device I might possibly want to use.
But that brings up another issue. If this is anything like iCloud, there's going to be a 5gb or so limit. I don't have a huge amount of music, but it far outstrips that paltry offering. But in reality I don't WANT all my music with me at any given time. My MP3 player is used for running. It's a 4gb model, and every song I could possibly want while working out is already on there. I don't need to synch more. My phone has 12gb of memory built-in, and I stuck a 16gb MicroSDHC card in there as well. Even with tons of apps and videos, there's still enough space for the vast majority of my music collection if I wanted to take it with me.
So what, again, is the point of synching to some cloud under someone else's control, when I can just plug a USB cable in for a few seconds if there's a song I REALLY need to put on either device? And that's saying nothing about how Best Buy will probably butcher it into uselessness just like everything else they've gotten their hands on...
Meaning she wasn't even considerate enough to come in on time for the movie, so to hell with her. And even that would have only gotten one warning, ergo she had to have kept using the phone after being warned once. Additionally, there are signs posted that warn of this policy as well.
Another damn good reason for this policy is safety. As there are staff constantly walking around the theater serving food and drinks (in glass containers, no less) in the darkness, the last thing I would want is for some poor staff member to have their low-light vision impaired and end up tripping with a full tray of glass + food/drink.
I went to Alamo Drafthouse with some friends a couple of weeks ago when I was in town, and there is NO way this woman could have been ignorant of the policy. Before the trailers there are multiple announcements (some quite amusing) that spell out very clearly that texting, talking, or using your bright-as-twenty-suns cellphone in any capacity are NOT tolerated. They also clearly state that you get one and ONLY one warning. After that, you're ass is outta there. But she apparently chose to ignore the multiple warnings, and now she's pissy that they enforced a clearly defined policy? Sucks for her. Maybe next time she'll put the damned phone away.
I knew this policy quite well and I've only ever visited the chain ONCE. Plus I don't even live in the area. This woman has no excuse.
What I MEANT to quote above. Only time I've ever really wished for an edit feature...
Not necessarily. This IS GameStop we're talking about, here. A friend of mine in SF went in to pickup a copy of LA Noire on launch day. The salesdroid rather rudely stated, "We don't have any copies for non-preorders. If you wanted to play this game, then you should have preordered it." At which point he promptly went 5 minutes down the street to the pit of hell known as Best Buy and picked up one of the hundred or so copies on the shelf. He then returned to GameStop to give them a hearty "fuck you".
The lesson here is that a LOT of GameStop managers will ONLY order enough stock to cover preorders. They do this in a misguided attempt to coerce people into preordering future titles so they can artificially inflate the metrics for their store. This is also the same company that likes to sell used copies on launch day, and shove strategy guides down your throat like a Geek Squad goon pitches dubious service plans.
tl;dr - fuck GameStop.
I find it interesting that so many people seem to think science and faith are mutually excluseive. In my church we have medical professionals (doctors, surgeons, a medical examiner, and pharmacists), network engineers, broadcast engineers, etc. All very technically minded people, and all very much connected to their faith. I won't say religious, because there IS a difference. "Religious" people killed Jesus. People who have faith try to live their lives as best they can and leave the world better than they were brought into it. Do they always succeed? Of course not. But the whole point is it's something to strive for so you better yourself and have a positive impact on those around you.
As for myself, I'm learning quite a lot about audio engineering just through my work in the church's media ministry. I've had the opportunity to dabble in both live sound and broadcast mixing during our services, discover various techniques for getting the best sound from a given space and group of musicians, and a TON of various functions found in modern audio equipment (the Yamaha PM5D is an easy thing to get into, but not so easy to completely master). On several occasions I've even gotten into a bit of applied psychoacoustics. Sure, you can adjust the gain and volume if someone isn't singing very loudly, but that introduces background noise. Sneak the volume down on their monitor, however, and they sing louder without even realizing it.
Bottom line is, faith and science/technology do NOT have to be mutually exclusive. I'm sure there will be those who disagree with that statement as well as what I'm about to say, but it holds true for me. When working on a difficult technical problem, sometimes I get frustrated and can't figure out what to do next. Does God intervene and show me what I should do next? No. But I do tend to gain enough clarity to realize why a particular approach wasn't working, along with the motivation to try a different approach. And when I read about some unexpected result or novel discovery in any given scientific field, I can't help but wonder what else has been created just waiting for us to discover it. Science and faith are NOT enemies. God gave us scientific minds so that we could learn as much as possible (and that statement will probably irritate some of the more hardcore "religious" types, hehe).
To put it another way, seeing something truly amazing in the world of science (from the depths of space to the incredible variety of life in the ocean) is, I believe, God's way of inspiring us to want to learn as much about what we've discovered as we possibly can. And if we've learned all we can with current technologies, to invent new ones to further the quest for understanding.
...but howabout money? Not necessarily to the users (and CERTAINLY not to shark lawyers), but to a charitable organization? Say $500 per user affected donated, in the user's name, to the charitable organization of their choice. For users who choose not to specify an organization, the amounts are put into a seperate fund, and can be split between the EFF and providing information access in developing nations.
This way Sony still feels the sting of their actions having real consequences, and it opens up the possibility of a lot of different worthy causes getting some much needed funding.
...but isn't this what Cell Broadcast messaging is for? Why do we need special government mandated chips?