What are you talking about? Sci-Fi with integalactic travel almost never (never in my experience, but I'm sure there are some) has ships that go faster than light by just accelerating conventionally. They usually have some explanation for how they get around relativity (wormholes, shifting to diminsions with different rules etc).
It's rarely good science, but almost all Sci-Fi authors and fans do know about it.
or admit their's is a theory just as likely or unlikely as ours.
Maybe becuase theirs is a theory, a proper hypothesis backed up by observations. Yours is a an unprovable conjecture.
Maybe becuause theirs is arrived at by the scientific process, which means it can change as new evidence comes along, not based on the myths of a desert nomads thousands of years ago.
To use the old cliche it isn't a bug it is a feature:)
ASP.NET is supposed to detect the browser, figure out what it supports and then send HTML/CSS/Javascript it can handle. Its all very well saying it should just send standard compliant code, but no browser is completely standard compliant. So your ASP.NET page may not work properly on anything. I think most developers are pragmatic, and want code that works.
If you can't stand the web controls having a layer of abstraction then you can still hand craft every single bit of HTML that comes out like you could with ASP (and PHP and other dynamic web pages). Like any abstraction layer you trade some control for productivity.
Now the validation JavaScript in 1.1 is pretty poor. No reason not to send something standards compliant in that case. If you look around on the net there are updated validation controls you can download (some free some not) that will send out better code. Change your machine.config file to treat FireFox as uplevel and away you go.
It isn't a.net problem, just the implimentation of the standard validation controls. The 2.0 controls are indeed supposed to fix the problem.
It depends if they never make them, or make them but don't keep them. In the later case they may be recoverable, and the police will need the machine to do this.
It isn't like the police are going around seizing stuff for businesses that don't keep logs to hassle them.
Its simply that new phones are better received in Asia, and Europe, then the US. Americans are more reluctant to adopt the new technologies, and more likely to stick with an existing phone.
In the past Motorola has had trouble shifting phones when the took new tech to the state. Having learnt the lesson they now sell them first in more responsive markets like the other phone companies.
This guy is not only complete missing any connection with the outside world,
You did read the bit where he blames a whole load of people invovled in security in different ways? He finishes up say the people actually breaking into systems deserve the most, but there is plenty to spread around.
He is quite aware of the "outside world".
there are thousands of people working in the (IT) security industry, making a living.
Successful open source projects are built from the beginning to be extended, to incorporate functionality that was not imagined from the beginning, and to be well integrated and share data with other applications.
This is true of any well designed project though. While you can fork an Open Source project, if it was not written with with these things in mind you will have a nightmare time trying to put them in later.
While it has advantages, what you are talking about here doesn't seem to have anything to do with open source but good design. People in charge of open source projects can make bad design decisions and the ability of users to change the code won't really help after that.
Open source does have the advantage people can keep working on it without worrying about making money in a way most propriety software companies can't afford to do. To some extent MS has this too, they are prepared to lose a lot of money on things if they think it will make more for them down the line (or just consolidate their hold on markets and so take the hit and give it away free).
Open Source still has its advantages, the main one being that as long as people are interested in a project you just can't kill (except maybe with legal action). I don't think it has the advantages you seem to be claiming though.
Windows 2000 does work well and is pretty damn stable.
Linux may be free, but in a business environment it may well be expensive to impliment. It depends what they want to use it for, on what hardware with what apps, what support and so on.
While counter to Slashdot group think the post may actually be completely true.
I rememeber reading that Gotham was New York at night time, while Metropolis was New York during the day. Also that Metropolis was based partially based on some Canadian city the Superman creators were familair with (Vancouver? can't remeber now).
In the DC universe New York and Chicago actually exist anyway, as well as Gotham and Metropolis.
Whatever, it certainly is more complex than saying just DC City X is fictionalsed Real City Y. In your attempt to look superior you just come across as being ignorant.
In the Batman comics he is portrayed more as a vigilante, most of his enemies are just people, albeit crazy ones. The way out tech, magic and other DC world wackiness is dialled right down. It is much more dark and gritty.
In things like JLA and Superman Batman he is much more the superhero, dealing with aliens, magic, time travel, super villains with superpowers and the like. Sure he doesn't have superpowers, but neither does Green Arrow, or the original Black Canary. There are quite a few non-powered heroes (and villains) in DC.
I'm not sure I agree with you hero assessment either, the whole "cool bad ass" thing is very 90s with all the antiheroes and is getting (to me) pretty cliched now. Partly I'm just sick of Wolverine who marvel feels compelled to put in everything these days.
Bollocks. In the comics at least some versions of his costume are body armour. No Man's Land springs to mind as an example of him getting shot and the body armour stopping it.
As it is a comic they draw the costume as cloth (unless it is one of his special ones) but that doesn't change the fact it is protective.
Oh yeah, these days they often train actors in martial arts if they need them for the film. In Batman Begins he certainly is a marital arts expert, in one scene he goes through a whole bunch of fighting styles.
In fact they play up the whole ninja trainning thing, using fear, stealth and misdirection very heavily in the movie. He just has a protective suit as well because sometimes all that stuff doesn't work and you are going to get hit.
This seems to be something a lot of people miss. Just becuase you don't have 'realistic' science doesn't mean you are just doing "harmless entertainment". You can have a thoughtful comentary on the human condition, enaging characters and thought provoking stories without it.
Asimov certianly didn't stick to real physics. By his own admssion the robots in his works have positronic brains only becuase he thought it sounded more futuristic than electronic. Hardly good physics.
As for Firefly, it really is the exception, most TV and Movie SciFi is full of aliens and and rayguns. Nothing wrong with something being a bit different, and one show does not a trend make.
As for the point of science fiction... I'm not at all sure there is one, single point of it. Lots of SciFi is making commentary on aspects of modern life, of just trying to be plain entertaining.
This makes zero sense to me, we are going to lock people up in jail and pay for their incarceration for looking at something.
Because there are something things as a society we feel people shouldn't be looking at, because the subject is entitled to some privacy and protection. If I had the right equipment, it would be OK to go around looking through people's clothes because I am only looking?
I feel like it is so difficult a position to defend, yet if we want free speech, free expression of ideas, then we have to draw a line when it comes to throwing people in jail, to those crimes that harm someone or something.
I can look at people being sexually victimised? What about their rights? Aren't they being harmed by having their privacy invaded? Isn't it humiliating and demeaning for them for people to get their kicks by seeing pictures of them raped or molested?
Now they don't know about each individual person seeing the pictures, but does that make it OK? If some took pictures of you being raped, would it be OK for people to download them because you didn't know about it?
It seems to me that hunting down the website owners, and those who committed the violent act is much more effective than spending money on joe blow because one morning at 2am after drinking all night he went on the web and found the wrong website.
Seems me good to go after both the people who make it, and the people who make the demand for it.
I would hate to see what society would do to Newton if he was alive today. There is a guy who 100% would look at anything and everything, and probably not be able to tell the difference of right and wrong
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. You think Newton would be persecuted today because we don't like people looking at kiddy porn?
The difference is people didn't commit crimes so other could look at the photos. When the purpose of the crime is largely to produce the photos, there is a good argument for cracking down on people trying to get hold of them to stop the crime in the first place.
Now we need to be careful with pictures on a computer, there are several ways they could get there accidently. People could reasonably end up with a few perfectly innocently.
they arent criminals (except by law), they are persons with _mental disabilities_! And as such they need counseling to assist them in seeing why they're wrong instead of just sending them to prison.
Except by law? What other way does someone become a criminal except by breaking the law?
As for mental disabilities, that doesn't get you off the hook. If you really cannot tell right from wrong then you can plead insanity, but someone who can tell right from wrong and can control their actions doesn't get off jail becuase of mental illness for any crime. I'm sure plenty of criminals feel disconnected from their vitcims.
I'm tired of seeing sex offenders (so called "perverts") being stuck in prison and then released back into society
Well I agree here, the solution seems to be not to release them.
Otherwise even characters like Atom or Green Lantern wouldn't be superheros, after all their equipment is just an "artificial enhancement".
How about Steel, Rocket Red or STRIPE? I guess guys in the robot suits don't count either.
What about aliens? Superman and Martian Manhunter don't have enhancements to their DNA, they just have certain powers as the results of being aliens.
Or how about magicians? Characters like Dr Fate or Zatana are very powerful, but have no special DNA.
DC is full of non-powered superheroes like Batman, Nightwing, Huntress, Green Arrow or Wildcat. Not to mention all the humans who only have power becuase of science or magic. Marvel has loads of Mutants who would fit yout (wrong) definition, but has its share of others too (Hawkeye, Iron Man, Dr Strange).
Then the point of the exercise is to help the Creative Commons people, not the webcomics creators? Because in terms of helping the webcomics the parent seems right, they manage crossovers and fan art just fine right now under current law.
Society requires lots of people do lots of things they don't actually enjoy to function. To get people to do those things they are paid money. As they want first food and shelter and later things like entertainment they do things they maynot do otherwise for the money.
Sociery wouldn't be better if they didn't. How many people would clean up trash for the love it? Or do a hundred other unpleasant but vital jobs?
Also, if you find something you love, wouldn't you want to be able to make it your job? So you can spend more time doing it?
I definately remember reading stuff on the BBC site about how in the begining they at least got some funding from the education departement by including stuff that was considered eductaional.
I think at one point they got funding from light entertainment too.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Sci-Fi with integalactic travel almost never (never in my experience, but I'm sure there are some) has ships that go faster than light by just accelerating conventionally. They usually have some explanation for how they get around relativity (wormholes, shifting to diminsions with different rules etc).
It's rarely good science, but almost all Sci-Fi authors and fans do know about it.
or admit their's is a theory just as likely or unlikely as ours.
Maybe becuase theirs is a theory, a proper hypothesis backed up by observations. Yours is a an unprovable conjecture.
Maybe becuause theirs is arrived at by the scientific process, which means it can change as new evidence comes along, not based on the myths of a desert nomads thousands of years ago.
To use the old cliche it isn't a bug it is a feature :)
ASP.NET is supposed to detect the browser, figure out what it supports and then send HTML/CSS/Javascript it can handle. Its all very well saying it should just send standard compliant code, but no browser is completely standard compliant. So your ASP.NET page may not work properly on anything. I think most developers are pragmatic, and want code that works.
If you can't stand the web controls having a layer of abstraction then you can still hand craft every single bit of HTML that comes out like you could with ASP (and PHP and other dynamic web pages). Like any abstraction layer you trade some control for productivity.
Now the validation JavaScript in 1.1 is pretty poor. No reason not to send something standards compliant in that case. If you look around on the net there are updated validation controls you can download (some free some not) that will send out better code. Change your machine.config file to treat FireFox as uplevel and away you go.
It isn't a .net problem, just the implimentation of the standard validation controls. The 2.0 controls are indeed supposed to fix the problem.
It depends if they never make them, or make them but don't keep them. In the later case they may be recoverable, and the police will need the machine to do this.
It isn't like the police are going around seizing stuff for businesses that don't keep logs to hassle them.
Its simply that new phones are better received in Asia, and Europe, then the US. Americans are more reluctant to adopt the new technologies, and more likely to stick with an existing phone.
In the past Motorola has had trouble shifting phones when the took new tech to the state. Having learnt the lesson they now sell them first in more responsive markets like the other phone companies.
I though it was 616 simply becuase that is what they have founded in the earliest version of Revelations that has been found.
So it doesn't matter about the significance of the number 6, or repeating things three times, 616 was what the text actually said.
Microsoft certainly can drop any mail they want.
That doesn't make any of the problems this will cause go away.
You mean like all those other people he blames in the article, before he blames the hackers?
I don't know where to begin on this one.
You could read the article.
This guy is not only complete missing any connection with the outside world,
You did read the bit where he blames a whole load of people invovled in security in different ways? He finishes up say the people actually breaking into systems deserve the most, but there is plenty to spread around.
He is quite aware of the "outside world".
there are thousands of people working in the (IT) security industry, making a living.
Broken Window Fallacy
Successful open source projects are built from the beginning to be extended, to incorporate functionality that was not imagined from the beginning, and to be well integrated and share data with other applications.
This is true of any well designed project though. While you can fork an Open Source project, if it was not written with with these things in mind you will have a nightmare time trying to put them in later.
While it has advantages, what you are talking about here doesn't seem to have anything to do with open source but good design. People in charge of open source projects can make bad design decisions and the ability of users to change the code won't really help after that.
Open source does have the advantage people can keep working on it without worrying about making money in a way most propriety software companies can't afford to do. To some extent MS has this too, they are prepared to lose a lot of money on things if they think it will make more for them down the line (or just consolidate their hold on markets and so take the hit and give it away free).
Open Source still has its advantages, the main one being that as long as people are interested in a project you just can't kill (except maybe with legal action). I don't think it has the advantages you seem to be claiming though.
Windows 2000 does work well and is pretty damn stable.
Linux may be free, but in a business environment it may well be expensive to impliment. It depends what they want to use it for, on what hardware with what apps, what support and so on.
While counter to Slashdot group think the post may actually be completely true.
Everything dies, that is just entropy. Things that aren't big and powerful die too.
Comparing the Roman Empire to a monoploy and MS is just silly though.
I rememeber reading that Gotham was New York at night time, while Metropolis was New York during the day. Also that Metropolis was based partially based on some Canadian city the Superman creators were familair with (Vancouver? can't remeber now).
In the DC universe New York and Chicago actually exist anyway, as well as Gotham and Metropolis.
Whatever, it certainly is more complex than saying just DC City X is fictionalsed Real City Y. In your attempt to look superior you just come across as being ignorant.
In the Batman comics he is portrayed more as a vigilante, most of his enemies are just people, albeit crazy ones. The way out tech, magic and other DC world wackiness is dialled right down. It is much more dark and gritty.
In things like JLA and Superman Batman he is much more the superhero, dealing with aliens, magic, time travel, super villains with superpowers and the like. Sure he doesn't have superpowers, but neither does Green Arrow, or the original Black Canary. There are quite a few non-powered heroes (and villains) in DC.
I'm not sure I agree with you hero assessment either, the whole "cool bad ass" thing is very 90s with all the antiheroes and is getting (to me) pretty cliched now. Partly I'm just sick of Wolverine who marvel feels compelled to put in everything these days.
The real Batman doesn't have, want or need armor.
Bollocks. In the comics at least some versions of his costume are body armour. No Man's Land springs to mind as an example of him getting shot and the body armour stopping it.
As it is a comic they draw the costume as cloth (unless it is one of his special ones) but that doesn't change the fact it is protective.
Oh yeah, these days they often train actors in martial arts if they need them for the film. In Batman Begins he certainly is a marital arts expert, in one scene he goes through a whole bunch of fighting styles.
In fact they play up the whole ninja trainning thing, using fear, stealth and misdirection very heavily in the movie. He just has a protective suit as well because sometimes all that stuff doesn't work and you are going to get hit.
This seems to be something a lot of people miss. Just becuase you don't have 'realistic' science doesn't mean you are just doing "harmless entertainment". You can have a thoughtful comentary on the human condition, enaging characters and thought provoking stories without it.
Asimov certianly didn't stick to real physics. By his own admssion the robots in his works have positronic brains only becuase he thought it sounded more futuristic than electronic. Hardly good physics.
As for Firefly, it really is the exception, most TV and Movie SciFi is full of aliens and and rayguns. Nothing wrong with something being a bit different, and one show does not a trend make.
As for the point of science fiction... I'm not at all sure there is one, single point of it. Lots of SciFi is making commentary on aspects of modern life, of just trying to be plain entertaining.
This makes zero sense to me, we are going to lock people up in jail and pay for their incarceration for looking at something.
Because there are something things as a society we feel people shouldn't be looking at, because the subject is entitled to some privacy and protection. If I had the right equipment, it would be OK to go around looking through people's clothes because I am only looking?
I feel like it is so difficult a position to defend, yet if we want free speech, free expression of ideas, then we have to draw a line when it comes to throwing people in jail, to those crimes that harm someone or something.
I can look at people being sexually victimised? What about their rights? Aren't they being harmed by having their privacy invaded? Isn't it humiliating and demeaning for them for people to get their kicks by seeing pictures of them raped or molested?
Now they don't know about each individual person seeing the pictures, but does that make it OK? If some took pictures of you being raped, would it be OK for people to download them because you didn't know about it?
It seems to me that hunting down the website owners, and those who committed the violent act is much more effective than spending money on joe blow because one morning at 2am after drinking all night he went on the web and found the wrong website.
Seems me good to go after both the people who make it, and the people who make the demand for it.
I would hate to see what society would do to Newton if he was alive today. There is a guy who 100% would look at anything and everything, and probably not be able to tell the difference of right and wrong
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. You think Newton would be persecuted today because we don't like people looking at kiddy porn?
The difference is people didn't commit crimes so other could look at the photos. When the purpose of the crime is largely to produce the photos, there is a good argument for cracking down on people trying to get hold of them to stop the crime in the first place.
Now we need to be careful with pictures on a computer, there are several ways they could get there accidently. People could reasonably end up with a few perfectly innocently.
they arent criminals (except by law), they are persons with _mental disabilities_! And as such they need counseling to assist them in seeing why they're wrong instead of just sending them to prison.
Except by law? What other way does someone become a criminal except by breaking the law?
As for mental disabilities, that doesn't get you off the hook. If you really cannot tell right from wrong then you can plead insanity, but someone who can tell right from wrong and can control their actions doesn't get off jail becuase of mental illness for any crime. I'm sure plenty of criminals feel disconnected from their vitcims.
I'm tired of seeing sex offenders (so called "perverts") being stuck in prison and then released back into society
Well I agree here, the solution seems to be not to release them.
This is about Trademarks, not copyright. You copyright a creative work, not a name.
It's quite OK to have a film called something and a web browser with the same name. They aren't in the same field, so that is allowed.
Fortunately your definition is wrong.
Otherwise even characters like Atom or Green Lantern wouldn't be superheros, after all their equipment is just an "artificial enhancement".
How about Steel, Rocket Red or STRIPE? I guess guys in the robot suits don't count either.
What about aliens? Superman and Martian Manhunter don't have enhancements to their DNA, they just have certain powers as the results of being aliens.
Or how about magicians? Characters like Dr Fate or Zatana are very powerful, but have no special DNA.
DC is full of non-powered superheroes like Batman, Nightwing, Huntress, Green Arrow or Wildcat. Not to mention all the humans who only have power becuase of science or magic. Marvel has loads of Mutants who would fit yout (wrong) definition, but has its share of others too (Hawkeye, Iron Man, Dr Strange).
Then the point of the exercise is to help the Creative Commons people, not the webcomics creators? Because in terms of helping the webcomics the parent seems right, they manage crossovers and fan art just fine right now under current law.
Society requires lots of people do lots of things they don't actually enjoy to function. To get people to do those things they are paid money. As they want first food and shelter and later things like entertainment they do things they maynot do otherwise for the money.
Sociery wouldn't be better if they didn't. How many people would clean up trash for the love it? Or do a hundred other unpleasant but vital jobs?
Also, if you find something you love, wouldn't you want to be able to make it your job? So you can spend more time doing it?
I definately remember reading stuff on the BBC site about how in the begining they at least got some funding from the education departement by including stuff that was considered eductaional.
I think at one point they got funding from light entertainment too.