It's not molten rock in the upper mantle. The article itself says the temperature only gets to about 100 C. Considering how long it takes to get down so far, and the remote location (middle of the pacific ocean) I doubt getting energy from a small hole would be very practical.
You seem to be a bit hard-nosed about the distinction between "fact" and "theory". There's not such a hard line between the two.
Calling something a scientific fact makes it sound like there's no way to disprove it ever. It's Truth with a capital T. Calling something a theory makes it sound like you're talking about something extremely uncertain. In reality there isn't such a thing as a fact (at least in Science, maybe there is in Perry Mason). Even newtons laws of gravity is just a theory. It's true within certain parameters, but Einstein later showed that it's not a "fact" (that is, always true).
How well proven is dark matter? I don't really know. But I think your arguments against it aren't terribly valid. The article only said it hasn't yet been detected on earth. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't have stars, supernovas, or black holes on earth either, but yet we still believe they exist.
Re:Predicting the future
on
Simulated Universe
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The uncertainty principle makes this an impossibility. Even if you could somehow simulate everything you could never get the exact initial conditions of even one particle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
All of those features are perhaps nice for certain Enterprise users, but for me and anyone I work with they're mostly useless. I prefer people run a hardware firewall behind a NAT over a software firewall on Windows. People like to screw with their windows machines too much for software firewalls to be much use. No one ever touches the hardware firewall.
The only feature in that list that's even slightly usefull is the terminal services. While that's nice, if you really need remote access to a box, just install PCAnywhere. You can administer/troubleshoot 20+ PCs with PCAnywhere quite nicely.
I believe the difference is that Service Packs are fully regression tested. Applying a service pack has far less risk associated with it than applying a patch. What this is is just a bunch of patches collected together with little regression testing. Think of it as an untested service pack.
It's expensive to support old software. That's really the main reason why companies obsolete old, but popular and functional software. This isn't much different in the linux world. RedHat no longer supports version 7.0. I believe that's actually younger than Windows 2000. The difference of course in the Open Source world is if there's enough interest, some group will step forward and support old versions of a distribution. But I don't think anyone is supporting Redhat 7.0, I believe even the FedoraLegacy group ditched it in favor of Redhat 7.3.
The problem as I see it is that XP offers no compelling reason to upgrade. I tried it for a while, and it had some major problems (cntrl-alt-del didn't always work to bring up the task manager for one thing). Microsoft has basically dropped the ball on new features, so Windows 2000 is still a great OS.
I've run windows 2000 since it came out, and it's by far my favorite version of Windows. I've tried XP and had some significant problems. I went back to 2000 and didn't miss any of XPs features. I work with small businesses and always advise them to use Windows 2000 over anything else. XP basically offers nothing in features over 2000, and tends to have more problems in my experience.
The sad thing is that Microsoft hasn't come out with anything to make anyone really want to upgrade. Windows 95 had so many advantages over 3.1 I can't begin to list them, Windows 98 had USB where windows 95 had very limited USB support, NT4 had great stability, Windows 2000 had all the features of windows 98 plus great stability (and a slew of other things) ME.. well ME was a piece of crap. XP has.. user switching? A playskool like interface?
With Longhorn still in the distant future, and Windows 2000 support starting to dry up, who wants to make a crappy pit stop at XP waiting for Longhorn?
What performance is he measuring? The hardware or the OS?
He's measuring the entire platform. Your comparison sounds like someone racing two cars, and then complaining it's not fair because they haven't tested the engine and transmissions seperately. When I buy a server I care about the end performance, not which OS or hardware is faster. While that information may be interesting to hardware or OS guys, it's not particularly relevant to someone making a decision whether to buy Mac servers. Comparing both with no baseline control for each is about as informative as pulling numbers out of my ass.
No, it's a perfectly valid comparison if you're considering either of those two platforms for a server. The test used the hottest Mac hardware available, so it appears that MacOS X is a big boat anchor when it comes to server performance.
You seem to not understand that there are multiple aspects to the word criminal. Criminals are people that do harm to other people through their law breaking. Most people consider a criminal to be someone who's acted disgracefully and broken the law, not just someone who's broken the law.
Simply breaking the law isn't enough for someone to be considered a "criminal". Have you ever sped? Commited sodomy (oral sex counts)? Smoked marijuana? If so you're a criminal by your definition.
It used to be the Secret Service wasted their time going after people publishing electronic magazines like Craig Neidorf (Phrack), people making a board game with "Hacker" as the name like Steve Jackson Games, or people looking to just break into computers for fun and understanding.
Now they're going after actual criminals that the above people warned us about. I've got to say that's a real improvement. Of course it took actual electronic criminals to make them realize who the real enemy is.
Some may think of it as a "cheap trick", but the reality is that 1) The result is the same
Absolutely false. CPUs aren't like cables holding up a bridge where you can twist two around each other and get double the strength. You can't just take two CPU cores on seperate dies and put them in the same package and expect the same peformance as a single die CPU. First of all there needs to be communication between the two cores. That slows down performance by quite a bit. If you look at the performance differences between the AMD dual core and Intel dual core the performance differences become readily apparant. 2) They went to market first with a working dual-core processor.
If by market you mean a paper release only, and not actually making dual-core P4s available to anyone but a select few. The truth is that Intel announced dual-core CPUs before AMD did, but you can actually get a dual-core AMD chip right now. A quick trip over to pricewatch.com has listings for dual-core opterons, but strangely no dual-core P4s. Are you really suggesting that it makes any real difference who announced dual-core first, but getting ahold of actual product doesn't?
Your comment might have been helpfull if you were actually pointing out a misunderstanding that people were having, or the article being just plain wrong about something. Everyone reading the article knows that we're talking about PCs.
Have any of you expressing surprise and outrage ever shopped in a grocery store? Let's see...
There used to be a grocery store around here that did exactly that. They stopped doing it about a year or two ago probbably because people didn't like it. I think it was more of a hassle to get the stupid card than it was anyone implying the discount card was unfair.
There's also a BIG difference between grocery loyalty cards and online price "customization". The grocery stores tell you upfront how to get the discount price, and the discount price. The online retailers don't tell you the discount price, don't tell you that someone else is getting a discount price, don't tell you how to get the discount price, and don't want to talk about the practice much at all. That adds up to a whole lot of mystery about who's getting the better prices and who's not. That can easily lead to people thinking they're the ones getting taking advantage of (price gouging). Are retailers simply trying to get as much money out of me as they can? Am I being charged more because I "look rich"? Those are the questions that go through peoples minds when they hear differenct prices are being charged to different people. No one likes getting screwed, and that's exactly what it looks like when the online retailers are secretive about this "price customization".
I remember 20 years ago the HUGE butter scare. Scientific test after test came out saying butter caused heart attacks, and to switch to margerin. A few years ago, studies came out saying that margerin is unhealthy, and butter is better?
The big flaw isn't in science, it's in the reporting of science and people's interpretation of the reporting. Did the actual scientific paper recommend people switch to margarine, or was that the suggestion of the media? The media are trying to sell papers, not provide truth and understanding. If people listen to science or their studies, they will be eatting eggs one year, avoiding them like the plauge the next year, and then drinking them raw the next.
No, that's what happens when people listen to the media. Mainstream newspapers, magazines and especially TV news simplify all science down to a headline. "Butter causes heart attacks, switch to margarine". Obviously the actual scientific paper isn't that simple, and real scientific conclusions come from multiple studies and consensus by the people in that field.
I'm not saying science always gives us the right answer right away. Of course it doesn't. But the much larger problem is conveying the information that science gives us. The media does an absolutely horrible job of it, and the public at large blindly follows them.
Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's syndrome), although Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are also thought to have been similarly "different".
Does everyone that's smart and a little strange suddenly have to have Aspergers syndrome? This "disease" (though really more like a collection of widely varying symptoms) has become popular enough that some people just make up diagnosis because it makes Aspergers syndrome more hip. You can't give a diagnosis of Aspergers syndrome to someone that's been dead for 278 years, 74 years, 50 years, or even someone alive today that you've just heard things about.
It's funny to see how everyone here is an expert in business, marketing, general human psychology, and the like. "Charge for this", "put up signs for that", "only allow this"...it's not that easy.
So I guess you are the appointed expert? If you disagree with people, state your case. But you don't need to pull out the "you're not an expert, so you can't express an opinion" line.
The whole concept of "experts" at least at most people see it is a big crock. Maybe you can have an expert in a field like science where there are testable theories and we can eventually get agreement. But who agrees on marketing, psychology, and business? You get me one "expert" that says one thing, and I'll find 5 other people that says the exact opposite. It's just a big dogfight, so let the people fight and don't pull out the "expert" line.
The fact is a complete switch to ipv6 WILL to all practical perposes make tradidional net-scanning worms of this type
While that would be a temporary boon, I suspect worms writers will just quickly adapt and find other ways to spread worms quickly. Scan the local subnet, look at traffic received/sent by the host and send the payload to those subnets, look through ARP tables, etc. There's probbably even more clever ways to find new hosts I'm not even aware of. Security through obscurity only makes life a little harder.
I also have my doubts about the number the original poster used. If there's a much smaller used address space (and people tend to use the same addresses across networks) that potential space to search would be much smaller.
I see nothing in your quote or the tiny amount of text in the linked article that indicates this is nothing more than a correlation study. Did they actually take a random group of senior and somehow get half of them to play board games, and the other half to not play board games and then come back years later and see if there was and difference between the two? (How the hell you'd get the people to either play, or not play board games despite their preference I have no idea).
If not, it seems far more likely that people that have dementia don't want to play board games, instruments, etc because.. well they have dementia. That might make it a LOT harder to concentrate on something like a board game or an instrument.
I thought the same thing, though I wouldn't go so far as "worst 100". Barry Lyndon is perhaps my least favorite Kubrick film, though I've only seen one of the movies he made in the 50s, Killers Kiss.
Why anyone would put Barry Lyndon in a top 100 list is beyond me. But then they put in "classic" movies from the 40s that were really only just mediocre like "Meet Me in St. Louis". There's nothing particularly special about this film. It's enjoyable, but not much beyond that.
Misses (not present): Men in Black I liked the movie.. but top 100 movies of all time? In another 10 years this movie will be forgotten. The Quiet Man (John Wayne) Never saw it. I hate John Wayne and could never get past that to actually watch this movie. The Ring A good horror film, but hardly top 100 material. The Passion of the Christ Religious garbage. The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it) Now I know you're clearly high. This is probbably the most highly overated movie among geeks ever made. It was entertaining, but little else.
Have you ever used an envelope to conceal your communications, or do you let just everyone see what you're writing? Have you ever used https in a transaction? If so I guess you have something to hide as well. The fact that he knew that what he was doing was wrong was supported by the fact that he tried to hide it.
And if you had read the article carefully, you would have noticed that there's no evidence he tried to hide the files. From the article:
The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files or how it would view the use of standard software like OS X's FileVault.
Using your analogy it's more like they found an empty bargain-bin safe at the house, and used that as evidence against him. "The man had a SAFE! Only criminals have safes!". As far as comparing PGP to a "industrial strength safe", well that might be a good comparison.. if all safes were industrial strength and given away very cheap or free.
It defies logic to deny that people who make money selling books will not be harmed if someone else provides free copies of those books.
I don't know about you, but I hate reading anything over a few pages online. Who wants to read an entire book on computer? Not many people I'd imagine. Printed books are far superior technology to the electronic kind. The publishers should sue Google and Google should be required to pay the publishers each time a publication is accessed via Google.
Unless of course Google only provides short 1 or 2 page excert of a copyrighted book. Google then sells "buy this book" links to booksellers. Everyone wins. This seems far more likely than Google making the entire book available online. Obviously that's breaking copyright law.
What counts as a "component"? If I sell a computer with all the screws made in the US, but everything else made somewhere else does each screw count as a component? If so that's an easy one to solve.. 20 screws, 10 other components, 66% "American Made". What if the hard drive has American transitors in it, does that count? How about if all the steel in the screws was "american" steel, but they were produced in China, are they American screws or Chinese screws? How about the Intel processor that was designed by American engineers by an American company, but produces in say Malasia?
The whole idea sounds rather stupid and vague in these modern times where everything has multiple sources. You don't even go into the whole political thing of "buying American" to see how silly the whole thing is.
I'm confused. Isn't what I said a summary of exactly what you just said? In the end, he wasn't approved to use the venues. The post I was replying to was the poster who said the lecture itself wasn't approved, which is wrong. That was the point I was trying to refute, nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not molten rock in the upper mantle. The article itself says the temperature only gets to about 100 C. Considering how long it takes to get down so far, and the remote location (middle of the pacific ocean) I doubt getting energy from a small hole would be very practical.
You seem to be a bit hard-nosed about the distinction between "fact" and "theory". There's not such a hard line between the two.
Calling something a scientific fact makes it sound like there's no way to disprove it ever. It's Truth with a capital T. Calling something a theory makes it sound like you're talking about something extremely uncertain. In reality there isn't such a thing as a fact (at least in Science, maybe there is in Perry Mason). Even newtons laws of gravity is just a theory. It's true within certain parameters, but Einstein later showed that it's not a "fact" (that is, always true).
How well proven is dark matter? I don't really know. But I think your arguments against it aren't terribly valid. The article only said it hasn't yet been detected on earth. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't have stars, supernovas, or black holes on earth either, but yet we still believe they exist.
The uncertainty principle makes this an impossibility. Even if you could somehow simulate everything you could never get the exact initial conditions of even one particle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
All of those features are perhaps nice for certain Enterprise users, but for me and anyone I work with they're mostly useless. I prefer people run a hardware firewall behind a NAT over a software firewall on Windows. People like to screw with their windows machines too much for software firewalls to be much use. No one ever touches the hardware firewall.
The only feature in that list that's even slightly usefull is the terminal services. While that's nice, if you really need remote access to a box, just install PCAnywhere. You can administer/troubleshoot 20+ PCs with PCAnywhere quite nicely.
I believe the difference is that Service Packs are fully regression tested. Applying a service pack has far less risk associated with it than applying a patch. What this is is just a bunch of patches collected together with little regression testing. Think of it as an untested service pack.
why discontinue support for one?
It's expensive to support old software. That's really the main reason why companies obsolete old, but popular and functional software. This isn't much different in the linux world. RedHat no longer supports version 7.0. I believe that's actually younger than Windows 2000. The difference of course in the Open Source world is if there's enough interest, some group will step forward and support old versions of a distribution. But I don't think anyone is supporting Redhat 7.0, I believe even the FedoraLegacy group ditched it in favor of Redhat 7.3.
The problem as I see it is that XP offers no compelling reason to upgrade. I tried it for a while, and it had some major problems (cntrl-alt-del didn't always work to bring up the task manager for one thing). Microsoft has basically dropped the ball on new features, so Windows 2000 is still a great OS.
I've run windows 2000 since it came out, and it's by far my favorite version of Windows. I've tried XP and had some significant problems. I went back to 2000 and didn't miss any of XPs features. I work with small businesses and always advise them to use Windows 2000 over anything else. XP basically offers nothing in features over 2000, and tends to have more problems in my experience.
The sad thing is that Microsoft hasn't come out with anything to make anyone really want to upgrade. Windows 95 had so many advantages over 3.1 I can't begin to list them, Windows 98 had USB where windows 95 had very limited USB support, NT4 had great stability, Windows 2000 had all the features of windows 98 plus great stability (and a slew of other things) ME.. well ME was a piece of crap. XP has.. user switching? A playskool like interface?
With Longhorn still in the distant future, and Windows 2000 support starting to dry up, who wants to make a crappy pit stop at XP waiting for Longhorn?
What performance is he measuring? The hardware or the OS?
He's measuring the entire platform. Your comparison sounds like someone racing two cars, and then complaining it's not fair because they haven't tested the engine and transmissions seperately. When I buy a server I care about the end performance, not which OS or hardware is faster. While that information may be interesting to hardware or OS guys, it's not particularly relevant to someone making a decision whether to buy Mac servers.
Comparing both with no baseline control for each is about as informative as pulling numbers out of my ass.
No, it's a perfectly valid comparison if you're considering either of those two platforms for a server. The test used the hottest Mac hardware available, so it appears that MacOS X is a big boat anchor when it comes to server performance.
You seem to not understand that there are multiple aspects to the word criminal. Criminals are people that do harm to other people through their law breaking. Most people consider a criminal to be someone who's acted disgracefully and broken the law, not just someone who's broken the law.
Simply breaking the law isn't enough for someone to be considered a "criminal". Have you ever sped? Commited sodomy (oral sex counts)? Smoked marijuana? If so you're a criminal by your definition.
It used to be the Secret Service wasted their time going after people publishing electronic magazines like Craig Neidorf (Phrack), people making a board game with "Hacker" as the name like Steve Jackson Games, or people looking to just break into computers for fun and understanding.
Now they're going after actual criminals that the above people warned us about. I've got to say that's a real improvement. Of course it took actual electronic criminals to make them realize who the real enemy is.
Some may think of it as a "cheap trick", but the reality is that
1) The result is the same
Absolutely false. CPUs aren't like cables holding up a bridge where you can twist two around each other and get double the strength. You can't just take two CPU cores on seperate dies and put them in the same package and expect the same peformance as a single die CPU. First of all there needs to be communication between the two cores. That slows down performance by quite a bit. If you look at the performance differences between the AMD dual core and Intel dual core the performance differences become readily apparant.
2) They went to market first with a working dual-core processor.
If by market you mean a paper release only, and not actually making dual-core P4s available to anyone but a select few. The truth is that Intel announced dual-core CPUs before AMD did, but you can actually get a dual-core AMD chip right now. A quick trip over to pricewatch.com has listings for dual-core opterons, but strangely no dual-core P4s. Are you really suggesting that it makes any real difference who announced dual-core first, but getting ahold of actual product doesn't?
Your comment might have been helpfull if you were actually pointing out a misunderstanding that people were having, or the article being just plain wrong about something. Everyone reading the article knows that we're talking about PCs.
Have any of you expressing surprise and outrage ever shopped in a grocery store? Let's see...
There used to be a grocery store around here that did exactly that. They stopped doing it about a year or two ago probbably because people didn't like it. I think it was more of a hassle to get the stupid card than it was anyone implying the discount card was unfair.
There's also a BIG difference between grocery loyalty cards and online price "customization". The grocery stores tell you upfront how to get the discount price, and the discount price. The online retailers don't tell you the discount price, don't tell you that someone else is getting a discount price, don't tell you how to get the discount price, and don't want to talk about the practice much at all. That adds up to a whole lot of mystery about who's getting the better prices and who's not. That can easily lead to people thinking they're the ones getting taking advantage of (price gouging). Are retailers simply trying to get as much money out of me as they can? Am I being charged more because I "look rich"? Those are the questions that go through peoples minds when they hear differenct prices are being charged to different people. No one likes getting screwed, and that's exactly what it looks like when the online retailers are secretive about this "price customization".
I remember 20 years ago the HUGE butter scare. Scientific test after test came out saying butter caused heart attacks, and to switch to margerin. A few years ago, studies came out saying that margerin is unhealthy, and butter is better?
The big flaw isn't in science, it's in the reporting of science and people's interpretation of the reporting. Did the actual scientific paper recommend people switch to margarine, or was that the suggestion of the media? The media are trying to sell papers, not provide truth and understanding.
If people listen to science or their studies, they will be eatting eggs one year, avoiding them like the plauge the next year, and then drinking them raw the next.
No, that's what happens when people listen to the media. Mainstream newspapers, magazines and especially TV news simplify all science down to a headline. "Butter causes heart attacks, switch to margarine". Obviously the actual scientific paper isn't that simple, and real scientific conclusions come from multiple studies and consensus by the people in that field.
I'm not saying science always gives us the right answer right away. Of course it doesn't. But the much larger problem is conveying the information that science gives us. The media does an absolutely horrible job of it, and the public at large blindly follows them.
Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's syndrome), although Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are also thought to have been similarly "different".
Does everyone that's smart and a little strange suddenly have to have Aspergers syndrome? This "disease" (though really more like a collection of widely varying symptoms) has become popular enough that some people just make up diagnosis because it makes Aspergers syndrome more hip. You can't give a diagnosis of Aspergers syndrome to someone that's been dead for 278 years, 74 years, 50 years, or even someone alive today that you've just heard things about.
It's funny to see how everyone here is an expert in business, marketing, general human psychology, and the like. "Charge for this", "put up signs for that", "only allow this"...it's not that easy.
So I guess you are the appointed expert? If you disagree with people, state your case. But you don't need to pull out the "you're not an expert, so you can't express an opinion" line.
The whole concept of "experts" at least at most people see it is a big crock. Maybe you can have an expert in a field like science where there are testable theories and we can eventually get agreement. But who agrees on marketing, psychology, and business? You get me one "expert" that says one thing, and I'll find 5 other people that says the exact opposite. It's just a big dogfight, so let the people fight and don't pull out the "expert" line.
Looking like you're a cheap bastard in front of a stranger?
The fact is a complete switch to ipv6 WILL to all practical perposes make tradidional net-scanning worms of this type
While that would be a temporary boon, I suspect worms writers will just quickly adapt and find other ways to spread worms quickly. Scan the local subnet, look at traffic received/sent by the host and send the payload to those subnets, look through ARP tables, etc. There's probbably even more clever ways to find new hosts I'm not even aware of. Security through obscurity only makes life a little harder.
I also have my doubts about the number the original poster used. If there's a much smaller used address space (and people tend to use the same addresses across networks) that potential space to search would be much smaller.
I see nothing in your quote or the tiny amount of text in the linked article that indicates this is nothing more than a correlation study. Did they actually take a random group of senior and somehow get half of them to play board games, and the other half to not play board games and then come back years later and see if there was and difference between the two? (How the hell you'd get the people to either play, or not play board games despite their preference I have no idea).
If not, it seems far more likely that people that have dementia don't want to play board games, instruments, etc because.. well they have dementia. That might make it a LOT harder to concentrate on something like a board game or an instrument.
I thought the same thing, though I wouldn't go so far as "worst 100". Barry Lyndon is perhaps my least favorite Kubrick film, though I've only seen one of the movies he made in the 50s, Killers Kiss.
Why anyone would put Barry Lyndon in a top 100 list is beyond me. But then they put in "classic" movies from the 40s that were really only just mediocre like "Meet Me in St. Louis". There's nothing particularly special about this film. It's enjoyable, but not much beyond that.
Misses (not present):
Men in Black
I liked the movie.. but top 100 movies of all time? In another 10 years this movie will be forgotten.
The Quiet Man (John Wayne)
Never saw it. I hate John Wayne and could never get past that to actually watch this movie.
The Ring
A good horror film, but hardly top 100 material.
The Passion of the Christ
Religious garbage.
The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it)
Now I know you're clearly high. This is probbably the most highly overated movie among geeks ever made. It was entertaining, but little else.
The fact that he knew that what he was doing was wrong was supported by the fact that he tried to hide it.
And if you had read the article carefully, you would have noticed that there's no evidence he tried to hide the files. From the article:
Using your analogy it's more like they found an empty bargain-bin safe at the house, and used that as evidence against him. "The man had a SAFE! Only criminals have safes!". As far as comparing PGP to a "industrial strength safe", well that might be a good comparison.. if all safes were industrial strength and given away very cheap or free.
It defies logic to deny that people who make money selling books will not be harmed if someone else provides free copies of those books.
I don't know about you, but I hate reading anything over a few pages online. Who wants to read an entire book on computer? Not many people I'd imagine. Printed books are far superior technology to the electronic kind.
The publishers should sue Google and Google should be required to pay the publishers each time a publication is accessed via Google.
Unless of course Google only provides short 1 or 2 page excert of a copyrighted book. Google then sells "buy this book" links to booksellers. Everyone wins. This seems far more likely than Google making the entire book available online. Obviously that's breaking copyright law.
What counts as a "component"? If I sell a computer with all the screws made in the US, but everything else made somewhere else does each screw count as a component? If so that's an easy one to solve.. 20 screws, 10 other components, 66% "American Made". What if the hard drive has American transitors in it, does that count? How about if all the steel in the screws was "american" steel, but they were produced in China, are they American screws or Chinese screws? How about the Intel processor that was designed by American engineers by an American company, but produces in say Malasia?
The whole idea sounds rather stupid and vague in these modern times where everything has multiple sources. You don't even go into the whole political thing of "buying American" to see how silly the whole thing is.
You're wrong there.
I'm confused. Isn't what I said a summary of exactly what you just said? In the end, he wasn't approved to use the venues. The post I was replying to was the poster who said the lecture itself wasn't approved, which is wrong. That was the point I was trying to refute, nothing else.