If you really want an amazing one to start your IMAX experience with, try the recently running "Space Station 3D" one. Not only does it have all the coolness of IMAX (big sound, crisp large images) but it has 3D and Space as well.
I almost cried when they showed a shuttle liftoff from within the shuttle window. That was one of the most absolutely powerful piece of film I've ever seen. It's probably the closest almost everyone in the theater will ever get to experiencing the real thing too.
Hey, David. Help me out here, if you could. Because I have a Sanyo SCP-5150 (SprintPCS) which I *think* is 2.5G. When I link it to my laptop, I get about a 14.4K connection and I read something that called it a 1xRTT network. Where does all that fit in with the rest of your article and research? Any ideas?
Between the lines: Nowhere in this letter, do I, Melissa Hart, member of the IP Subcommittee, actually take a stand for or against the DMCRA. I will wait until the last possible moment to vote for it and hope that it is swept under the carpet when you are not looking./waves hand/ This is not the bill you are looking for. PS - Did I mention I'm a member of the IP Subcommittee.
Remember, paper and phone calls make more of a difference than emails!
The voice of a person should be the voice of a person regardless of the medium. An e-mail should carry as equal a weight as a written letter of equal caliber. If politicians truly give more weight and consideration to a voicemail or written fax or mailed letter, then I think it's clearly obvious why they would be more obligated to sign a DMCA-like bill into law.
When you choose someone to have kids with, each kid gets one of 2 alleles from you and one of 2 alleles from the other parent. Add in the possiblity that there are cross-overs (places where your 2 alleles swapped info) and other mutations to create even more possibilities....each gene gets this treatment. For a whole person...this is much more variety than say picking a specific gene sequence which confers AIDS-resistance or height (if such a thing is possible). Modern engineering allows us to put or remove a specific sequence in an individual. Selective breeding still leaves a lot up to chance.
What took hundreds of years (like all breeds of dog coming from a single Asian wolf) could be done in a matter of months.
Charles DeLisi was a co-organizer and was present throughout the entire conference. He is one of the scientists responsible for starting the public initiative to sequence the human genome.
Charles Cantor is a biologist whose company (Sequenom) is currently cataloging every findable SNP (the things that make each of us different) and correlating the ones that directly correlate to disease likelihoods.
Lynn Margulis (while listed as a Geoscientist) presented a good amount of information on how genomes have come together in the past to the betterment of all species involved (example: chlorophyl-"expressing" slugs).
George Church was a late replacement (and is not listed on the abstracts) for Leroy Hood. He is a biologist at Harvard who works on evolution and modeling of DNA/RNA structures and systems.
The largest attempt of this conference was to get as broad an array of thinkers so that all different types of POV were available. I like your idea for evolutionists...but what was primarily examined is how we're at a turning point where historical relevance is almost nil. If we want to evolve rapidly...we'll have that ability soon (soon being in the next 50-500 years). If we want to go slower, we'll have to decide that as we learn more. The advantages and disadvantages need to be hammered out and while I think an evolutionist would be interesting to help somewhat...in some ways, they won't be much help at all.
While some of you may consider this view to be off-the-wall and not in accordance with "science" others in the field see it as a reasonable approach to take. No one has ever said we *won't* examine the unknown in any of the articles or lectures that I've ever been to that propose we limit certain areas of our research.
This reasoning isn't wholy unfounded either. Imagine if you will, the inventor of Kevlar strapping a bulletproof vest to his chest without adequate knowledge of its strength, telling his assistant to fire at point-blank range....and dying. My guess is instead they used a straw dummy and analyzed the problems that arose when the bullet penetrated it the first few times. We need that proverbial dummy in a lot of the aspects of biotechnology we're currently working on.
Imagine a virus that is capable of adapting in such a way as to avoid the human immune system in order to make germline changes so your children are not prone to an inheritable disease that you and your spouse would have passed on. Now imagine that it accidentally recombines with a flu viral genome you also had working your way through your body at the time of injection and propogates as an unknown disease agent. Not so implausible, given the latest news of the day.
Researchers in the 1970's instituted a moratorium on work with recombinant DNA until other methods and work had been done to better understand the implications of what we were working with at the time. This is no different. Just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you necessarily should. There was an interesting talk by Dr. George Annas (a BioLaw professor at Boston University) at a recent conference entitled "The Future of Human Nature". Wired will be putting out an article on it. I'll try and get it submitted here on/. but in the meantime, if you're interested, keep your eyes open for it.
In Dr. Annas' talk, he describes the need for a similar moratorium for germline meddling and what he describes as "species altering methods". Now, he was looking at 50-200 years in the future, but the idea that we might want to figure out how best to modulate our ability to develop new and interesting things with our realization that we're not always sure the outcome is still valid.
The closer we come to altering our own species, the worse the "oops" factor becomes. It's not crazy, it's an attempt at foresight...since hindsight could be far more costly with the types of things we are dealing with.
Just having an account can get you spam these days. Even at a university...especially at a university. Like any good system, my school's mail/student server is organized by year and/or alphabetized.
If any user changes up a directory...does an ls -1p > spamlist.txt and then mails said spamlist.txt to their friendly neighborhood spammer who pays them 20$...then all of those users just got added to somebody's hit parade, even if they never submitted their address to a public or private outlet.
I know this, because my email address is a bit ambiguous. One could email me at fake@university.edu or fake@xxx.university.edu and it would arrive in my mailbox. I have *NEVER* used this email address in any forum other than work-related issues and have *NEVER* used the "xxx" portion of the email when I have submitted it (in interest of brevity).
I currently procmail filter about a dozen different spammers (each sending different revisionary mails of each of their products) and invariably the address used is fake@xxx.university.edu (NOT the one I have ever used). Clearly someone determined what my account was named and then determined the mail server to be xxx.university.edu and put the two together. It's easy enough if you have an account on the server to simply list the home directories into a file and submit.
fake@xxx.university.edu is not listed on any google-indexed site or usenet article which furthers my belief that this came from within. Also, some spammers send the mails to about 15-20 university accounts at a time (they don't always hide the headers correctly and I get a cc list of about a dozen other users on my university's student server...ALL using xxx.university.edu).
These inside jobs are easy, do not negatively affect the committed party (unless the school is logging every ls command), and probably earn you enough money to buy a six-pack. A few beers for the inconvenience of your fellow students...great job, jerky.
If the RIAA monkeys didn't do something so outrageous as to get their website linked to/.'s front page every 3 days, maybe it might stand a chance at remaining online more than a fifth of a fortnight at a time...
In some of the articles that I've read, Mr. Sontag specifically stated that none of the code you believe was stolen from Project Monterey has shown up in any of IBM's developed code. The only "evidence" of foul play is that IBM's code you claim comes from Unix System V/AIX was developed too quickly to have been anything but a derivative of your intellectual property.
Obviously, the best way to demonstrate that this is the case is to prove that IBM was not working on this code prior to having joined into Project Monterey. In other words, if they began working on this prior to gaining access to your IP, then it is conceivable that they found an independant solution and the timing was just coincidental.
Do you have any way of combating this or is your only evidence of foul play the coincidence of timing?
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want an amazing one to start your IMAX experience with, try the recently running "Space Station 3D" one. Not only does it have all the coolness of IMAX (big sound, crisp large images) but it has 3D and Space as well.
I almost cried when they showed a shuttle liftoff from within the shuttle window. That was one of the most absolutely powerful piece of film I've ever seen. It's probably the closest almost everyone in the theater will ever get to experiencing the real thing too.
Since just about every adult in the countries in which they do businesss celebrates birthdays and weddings
.00000000000000035 Libraries of Congress to get these statistics.
25% of women over the age of 30 don't "celebrate" their birthday.
50% of all weddings end in divorce...ergo, the weddings are no longer celebrated.
I looked through
Jeez... it took all of a minute searching through the forum (linked in the story) to find it.
Me too!
Hey, David. Help me out here, if you could. Because I have a Sanyo SCP-5150 (SprintPCS) which I *think* is 2.5G. When I link it to my laptop, I get about a 14.4K connection and I read something that called it a 1xRTT network. Where does all that fit in with the rest of your article and research? Any ideas?
If "firebird" is taken, then why don't they just call the browser Phoenix?
Oh...wait...
But then we'd all have browsers that say "NIE!"....and there'd be the shrubbery....
Mirror of my response to the first dupe.
BTW, CN even recognized that he duped the article last time! Geez, is Memento running this website or what?
Between the lines: Nowhere in this letter, do I, Melissa Hart, member of the IP Subcommittee, actually take a stand for or against the DMCRA. I will wait until the last possible moment to vote for it and hope that it is swept under the carpet when you are not looking. /waves hand/ This is not the bill you are looking for. PS - Did I mention I'm a member of the IP Subcommittee.
Remember, paper and phone calls make more of a difference than emails!
The voice of a person should be the voice of a person regardless of the medium. An e-mail should carry as equal a weight as a written letter of equal caliber. If politicians truly give more weight and consideration to a voicemail or written fax or mailed letter, then I think it's clearly obvious why they would be more obligated to sign a DMCA-like bill into law.
Stuff that doesn't matter.
btw, fp!
Interesting idea! I've never seen a 404 error on a GPS before.
Yes, yes, but did you see anything about the Red Sox??
"This could be the season" --It's not a mantra...it's written on the birth certificates.
That, sir, is an insult to The Onion. The Onion *knowingly* makes stuff up.
The Weekly World News wouldn't know the truth if you mailed it to them in white-powdered, inhalable form.
You're the one who posted his site here, Anonymous Coward!
Here's the biggest difference:
When you choose someone to have kids with, each kid gets one of 2 alleles from you and one of 2 alleles from the other parent. Add in the possiblity that there are cross-overs (places where your 2 alleles swapped info) and other mutations to create even more possibilities....each gene gets this treatment. For a whole person...this is much more variety than say picking a specific gene sequence which confers AIDS-resistance or height (if such a thing is possible). Modern engineering allows us to put or remove a specific sequence in an individual. Selective breeding still leaves a lot up to chance.
What took hundreds of years (like all breeds of dog coming from a single Asian wolf) could be done in a matter of months.
Charles DeLisi was a co-organizer and was present throughout the entire conference. He is one of the scientists responsible for starting the public initiative to sequence the human genome.
Charles Cantor is a biologist whose company (Sequenom) is currently cataloging every findable SNP (the things that make each of us different) and correlating the ones that directly correlate to disease likelihoods.
Lynn Margulis (while listed as a Geoscientist) presented a good amount of information on how genomes have come together in the past to the betterment of all species involved (example: chlorophyl-"expressing" slugs).
George Church was a late replacement (and is not listed on the abstracts) for Leroy Hood. He is a biologist at Harvard who works on evolution and modeling of DNA/RNA structures and systems.
The largest attempt of this conference was to get as broad an array of thinkers so that all different types of POV were available. I like your idea for evolutionists...but what was primarily examined is how we're at a turning point where historical relevance is almost nil. If we want to evolve rapidly...we'll have that ability soon (soon being in the next 50-500 years). If we want to go slower, we'll have to decide that as we learn more. The advantages and disadvantages need to be hammered out and while I think an evolutionist would be interesting to help somewhat...in some ways, they won't be much help at all.
Forget about programming!!!! They're going to kick our asses in Duke Nukem Forever!
Which obviously begs the question: Which will come first: third arms....or Duke Nukem Forever...?
While some of you may consider this view to be off-the-wall and not in accordance with "science" others in the field see it as a reasonable approach to take. No one has ever said we *won't* examine the unknown in any of the articles or lectures that I've ever been to that propose we limit certain areas of our research.
This reasoning isn't wholy unfounded either. Imagine if you will, the inventor of Kevlar strapping a bulletproof vest to his chest without adequate knowledge of its strength, telling his assistant to fire at point-blank range....and dying. My guess is instead they used a straw dummy and analyzed the problems that arose when the bullet penetrated it the first few times. We need that proverbial dummy in a lot of the aspects of biotechnology we're currently working on.
Imagine a virus that is capable of adapting in such a way as to avoid the human immune system in order to make germline changes so your children are not prone to an inheritable disease that you and your spouse would have passed on. Now imagine that it accidentally recombines with a flu viral genome you also had working your way through your body at the time of injection and propogates as an unknown disease agent. Not so implausible, given the latest news of the day.
Researchers in the 1970's instituted a moratorium on work with recombinant DNA until other methods and work had been done to better understand the implications of what we were working with at the time. This is no different. Just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you necessarily should. There was an interesting talk by Dr. George Annas (a BioLaw professor at Boston University) at a recent conference entitled "The Future of Human Nature". Wired will be putting out an article on it. I'll try and get it submitted here on
In Dr. Annas' talk, he describes the need for a similar moratorium for germline meddling and what he describes as "species altering methods". Now, he was looking at 50-200 years in the future, but the idea that we might want to figure out how best to modulate our ability to develop new and interesting things with our realization that we're not always sure the outcome is still valid.
The closer we come to altering our own species, the worse the "oops" factor becomes. It's not crazy, it's an attempt at foresight...since hindsight could be far more costly with the types of things we are dealing with.
Hello, I just purchased a box of Lucky Charms and inside was a small water toy from the new motion picture "Finding Nemo" by Pixar/Disney.
What phreaking/hacking adventures should I expect this toy to take me on?
Thank you.
Just having an account can get you spam these days. Even at a university...especially at a university. Like any good system, my school's mail/student server is organized by year and/or alphabetized.
If any user changes up a directory...does an ls -1p > spamlist.txt and then mails said spamlist.txt to their friendly neighborhood spammer who pays them 20$...then all of those users just got added to somebody's hit parade, even if they never submitted their address to a public or private outlet.
I know this, because my email address is a bit ambiguous. One could email me at fake@university.edu or fake@xxx.university.edu and it would arrive in my mailbox. I have *NEVER* used this email address in any forum other than work-related issues and have *NEVER* used the "xxx" portion of the email when I have submitted it (in interest of brevity).
I currently procmail filter about a dozen different spammers (each sending different revisionary mails of each of their products) and invariably the address used is fake@xxx.university.edu (NOT the one I have ever used). Clearly someone determined what my account was named and then determined the mail server to be xxx.university.edu and put the two together. It's easy enough if you have an account on the server to simply list the home directories into a file and submit.
fake@xxx.university.edu is not listed on any google-indexed site or usenet article which furthers my belief that this came from within. Also, some spammers send the mails to about 15-20 university accounts at a time (they don't always hide the headers correctly and I get a cc list of about a dozen other users on my university's student server...ALL using xxx.university.edu).
These inside jobs are easy, do not negatively affect the committed party (unless the school is logging every ls command), and probably earn you enough money to buy a six-pack. A few beers for the inconvenience of your fellow students...great job, jerky.
Enter ["Blind Thrust"] comment here.
I mean...really...who thought that up?
Give it to me straight! I can take it! What is that in Libraries of Congress!?!
If the RIAA monkeys didn't do something so outrageous as to get their website linked to /.'s front page every 3 days, maybe it might stand a chance at remaining online more than a fifth of a fortnight at a time...
In some of the articles that I've read, Mr. Sontag specifically stated that none of the code you believe was stolen from Project Monterey has shown up in any of IBM's developed code. The only "evidence" of foul play is that IBM's code you claim comes from Unix System V/AIX was developed too quickly to have been anything but a derivative of your intellectual property.
Obviously, the best way to demonstrate that this is the case is to prove that IBM was not working on this code prior to having joined into Project Monterey. In other words, if they began working on this prior to gaining access to your IP, then it is conceivable that they found an independant solution and the timing was just coincidental.
Do you have any way of combating this or is your only evidence of foul play the coincidence of timing?
Dead or Alive figured this out in the 80s.