As far as I know no discs have used this for copy protection yet, but it was part of Sony's marketing strategy to claim that BD+ was an extra layer of security. I saw people on doom9 claiming that it doesn't really add anything they can't get around, but since it hasn't been implemented yet, it hasn't been broken yet. Which means that sony can argue with the other studios that they have stronger copy protection than HD-DVD.
the kid was arrested for the disturbance he caused - not for simply writing the article.
What disturbance did he cause? Getting a teacher worried about your mental health isn't a disturbance. At most, they should have gotten him to talk to a counselor so they could determine he's state of mind. Telling the teacher that he would come back the next day with guns could incite a disturbance, writing a fictional essay that makes some people uncomfortable isn't.
We can't lower the bar of disorderly conduct that low. There needs to be an actual disturbance, not some people sitting around a table reading on essay going, "whoa, this is kid is messed up." If that qualifies, I'm sure I can find something you wrote somewhere that "disturbs" me and get you arrested.
Equally, one retains the right to own a gun - but shoot someone with it and you are liable for that action.
That is an excellent analogy, and it proves that you're wrong. You can't be liable for exercising your right. Otherwise, it's obviously not a right. You will never be liable for the act of owning that gun, only for the act of murder, an act you could have done with knives, rope, blunt objects, your car, your bare hands. You don't have the right to commit murder.
Similarly, speech is a right. You can't possibly be liable for anything you say. If you actually do cause a disturbance, by the good old example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example, you're liable for causing the disturbance not for yelling "Fire!". You could have caused the panic in other ways. You could have a raised a fake gun in front of everyone. You'd be arrested under the same charge of "disorderly conduct".
You can't arrest someone for exercising their rights. That's what a "right" means. You can arrest someone for using their rights as tools to do things they're not allowed to do, and that's not what this kid did.
Wouldn't it be much smarter if they wrote a little system to prepare those torrents automatically, say, every week, and include much larger fraction of the articles...And right now I really needed the localized version, to distribute to a set of computers without connection in a local school. Bummers.
Well, this requires a bit more work on your part, but you can always get the database or static html dumps.
Damn, I hope a whole bunch of people don't just start downloading wikipedia in its entirety just for the hell of it now...
I'm not the guy who replied to your original question, but I also own a PS3 and am pretty happy with it. Not as a console, mind you...
My roommate bought an hdtv and even though I used to one of the people who claimed standard def dvd's were "good enough" that changed quickly when I started watching high definition stuff. I also have a huge dvd collection, so I figured I'd start buying high definition discs from now on, since there is such a huge difference. Plus, high definition HBO is all well and good, but you get the same movies over and over again for a long time period, so it doesn't really compare to just having a huge netflix blu-ray queue.
Yeah, an xbox-360 + hd-dvd drive would do just as well. However, if you buy the hd drive, the price is comparable to the ps3. And my roommate's tv won't do 1080p over component, only over hdmi. So the ps3 suits that purpose better in our case.
As a result I own a ps3 and watch lots of blu-ray movies. I don't own a single ps3 game. I haven't even tried to see if I could rent a ps3 game. I played some of my old ps1 and ps2 games mostly just to see if they work. Can't really recommend it as a videogame console, at least not yet, but it is the cheapest blu-ray player you can get, so if you want to get one of those, I'm happy with mine.
Kasparov fully understands he is playing from a weak position (he said so on BBC Radio last week).
Weak position? Are you kidding? He has fame and money. So "Other Russia" is banned from appearing on TV, huh? Kasparov getting arrested, even if for an extremely short time, gets them much more exposure than they could have possibly gotten on TV.
You think people would give the story more than a passing glance if random russian guy had been arrested during a protest? There'd be 5 minutes about it on the 11:00 news, and you wouldn't hear about it again. And the random guy would probably not have been released so soon. But Gary Kasparov arrested for voicing his political views? This isn't going away.
In this analogy, the viewer as party C can strip search party B including the memory contents and body parts. Also, party C can intercept anything party B can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch.
Enter "Trusted Computing" where the hardware prevents you from looking at the memory contents and encrypted digital transfers between devices so that when you intercept the stuff party B can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch, it'll also be encrypted.
I'm aware not everyone is running 64bit vista with trusted computing devices, and that HDCP is broken, but it doesn't change the fact that eventually everyone will HAVE to be running trusted computing devices with operating systems that prevent you from looking at a memory dump if they want to watch a movie on their computer. It also doesn't mean that they can't come up with something without the flaws of HDCP to fix the device communication issue.
Ultimately, anything you can see and hear can be recorded, I agree. But perfect digital copies will be a thing of the past if we let the companies keep improving DRM.
Encryption works because parties A and B exchange data that is encrypted with a key that party C does not have. In the case of DRM, you have the encrypted data and you have the keys that you need to decrypt and view the data. You are in essence parties B and C.
I've heard that a lot and it does make sense to me that it would be a fundamental flaw if it was true. Unfortunately it's not. You're not both parties B and C. Your media player is party B, and it's responsible for showing (but not giving you a copy of) the unencrypted content to party C.
In terms of standard encryption, that's like you sending an encrypted file to me, with the understanding that Joe is in the room with me and will also see it on my monitor. I don't have to give the encryption key to show Joe what you sent me. I use my key, display the contents on my monitor, Joe sees it. He can take a picture, film it or whatever, but he can't get a perfect digital copy unless I allow him to get one.
Unfortunately, I do think we're getting close to unbreakable DRM. You can and will always be able to set up a camcorder on your living room and record the unencrypted content the player is showing you. Unfortunately, I think getting perfect digital copies will be a thing of the past until we have legislation to specifically protect our rights.
You, on the other hand, seem to be utterly ignorant of the political enviroment in the US in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor. Sentiment to intervene in Europe was already growing - as was US involvement in Europe. (US neutrality was a sham by 1939.)
I'm no history buff, but I'm not as ignorant as you think. The United States politically supported Europe, but the first truly significant US involvement in Europe was the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. It was before Pearl Harbor and as such it was also highly controversial. After all, public sentiment favored non-intervention at the time, or as wikipedia puts it, "the overwhelming desire of the American people to stay out of this second European war." Not surprisingly, public opinion changed overnight with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Twice in recent years (one still in living memory) we went over and save them from their own incompetence, even though it was not directly in our self interest to do so. (Though it was in accord with our principles.)
Whoa, wait a minute. Principles? The United States remained neutral in World War II until it got attacked by Japan. Ever heard of Pearl Harbor?
We helped out in Europe because it was not in our best interests to let Germany take it over after the Axis Powers attacked us.
Guilty as charged. However, I played the part of one years ago;)
They're far more likely to believe anything the teacher tells them than adults are...Most kids eat this up.
No doubt. I especially thank you for using the qualifier "most". What is it that the others have that makes them question what they're told? How do we instill that in the majority?
Either way, my point was that they should have been receiving conflicting information. The teacher wasn't their only source. They had other influences which supposedly would tell them different things. Given conflicting information, there's no reason they should believe the guy they spend 50 minutes with every day over the people with whom they spend the rest of the day with. They will question him. Or question the other information they have. They'll talk to their parents, they'll talk to other teachers. That's probably how people came to find out that the teacher was trying to brainwash them in first place.
That's also why brainwashing techniques involve breaking all contact the person being brainwashed has with other sources. That's why cults have camps and stuff.
You'd be extremely hard pressed to find elementary students in *any* country that do not do this so don't tell me this is a problem of lack of critical thinking:)
I wasn't insulting or separating Canada by any means. I do think teaching children to think is something that is universally lacking. From my own experiences, it appears to me that school is designed to be a place where students should believe that teachers are always right and shouldn't question what they're told. What I am implying is that the solution to that problem isn't to limit the amount of information people get, good or bad. It's to teach children that no source of information is infallible. It's to teach them that people, even adults and teachers, can be wrong. And that they can willfully lie, if it will suit their purposes. Children can understand that. How young do they have to be before they themselves start lying about little things in order to get what they want, or to avoid getting in trouble?
Actually, when I was TAing an university class, I asked another graduate student who had been TA of the class before me about an idea I had to tell the students to perform an experiment in a different way. The conversation went something like this:
"Don't do it."
"Why?"
"It might not work."
"So what?"
"If something you tell them to do doesn't work, they'll lose trust in you. They'll start thinking that you can be wrong, and start questioning everything you tell them."
It should be noted that this was the other student's own thoughts, and not university policy or anything. However, I think that line of thought to maintain authority is somewhat common, and I think it leads to more impressionable people, even beyond the elementary school level.
The teacher shouldn't have just been fired and disbarred but rather put in jail for at least ten years.
No, no he shouldn't. That teacher demonstrated that he is not qualified to teach. He should be fired, and nobody else should hire him. That's where it should stop.
They interviewed his students ten years after the incident and the vast majority of them said the only reason he got into trouble was because "The Jews control the media".
If true, that indicates a much deeper problem than one teacher spewing bs. They weren't locked with the guy for months, were they? These kids have other teachers, they have parents, they have the culture around them in the form of tv and music. No one teacher has that much influence over his students. The brainwashing must have been reinforced at another level.
It is comparable to posting propeganda on YouTube versus posting it on a cryptic site most people won't run across. I don't care about the latter.
If I see hate propaganda on YouTube, I'm not suddenly going to listen to it. Sounds like you wouldn't either. The solution isn't to prohibit speech (any speech). It's to teach people to become resistant to propaganda like you and I. You want people to be have the ability for critical thought, instead of simply being told what's right by you (we need to prohibit these types of speech) or by hate-mongering teachers (jews control media). No one should be told what to do, they should have access to all information, unhindered, and make their own decisions.
By suffer dearly, he most likely meant that he hopes he'd get sued and lose, so as to set a precedent that companies can't do that. I don't think he means the man should suffer physical pain, or go to jail over it.
Wait, I read on Slashdot only a few days ago that some DoD Warez guy had been caught and was going to jail
Eh...most of the outrage was due to the fact that he was being extradited to the United States for crimes he didn't commit while physically in the United States. You don't think that's messed up?
he'd just broken the law over and over again with full knowledge of what he was doing.
Which law he was breaking over and over again is a pretty important fact to consider when dealing out punishment. It's not like he was out murdering people or robbing banks. The punishment should fit the crime, and many people think copyright infringement should be a strictly civil matter.
Doubly amazing because I so often see people here defending the right to use weapons against people caught breaking and entering.
There are people on both ends of the spectrum on that issue. Personally, I don't own a weapon or intend to own one, but I do think that those who want to own and use one for self-defense (or sport) should be allowed to. However, let me emphasize self-defense. If the guy breaks into your house unarmed and you shoot him as he's running away after he sees you have a gun, you should be on trial for murder. In fact, you should be convicted of murder. If on the other hand, the man is armed and advancing on you...well, you can't ask a man to give up his life.
It would be one thing if she was going after people going fast or driving like idiots, but she goes after everyone and usually uses her "gut."
And just what's wrong with that? Did you know there are more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? Now, don't go looking for confirmation about this in a book. Look it up in your gut. Or possibly wikipedia in a few minutes after I make a few quick changes.
Sounds like Stephen Colbert would really love your neighbor.
Note to the humor-impaired: No, I'm not really going to deface wikipedia. I really like it and I don't want to ruin it for everyone.
Umm, seedlessness isn't a genetic modification. It's the result of intentionally selecting and breeding grape plants that produce grapes with less seeds than the average grape.
That was my point. What many of the people replying don't get is that selective breeding is genetic manipulation. What you're talking about is the same thing with a new technological twist, and there's no reason why you should be afraid of it simply because we're better at it.
Genetic Modification is inserting (or deleting) pieces from the genome (DNA) of a certain whatever.
Ok, no argument with your definition. In the past, that was done through selective breeding. Today we have more efficient methods to do the same thing quicker for more dramatic results. The end result is still the same. You get a breed with qualities that you want.
Introducing pieces of new genetic material is certainly different from what you're talking about.
In what way? When you manipulate "pre-existing genetic information", you can do that because different plants of the same species have different qualities. They have different qualities because of random mutations and gene crossover combinations. Instead of waiting for random mutations, we add designed mutations to the mix. Usually purposefully damaging a gene that is responsible for undesired qualities. It's the same thing but now we have technology, so it's dangerous!
I don't dismiss the fact that it's possible to end up with something that causes ill effects through genetic manipulation, but treat those problems in a case-by-case basis. My problem with the grandparent was his "you have to be stupid to eat GM foods" tirade. That's a ridiculous attitude with no merit whatsoever. Mostly we just end up with better foods because we added features we want and removed features we don't.
Food is not a scarcity...How will GM foods fix something that is not broken in the first place? You have to be stupid to willingly to eat GM foods.
What the hell? What gave you the idea that we genetically modify crops in order to fix some sort of scarcity? They're genetically modified to create crops that have increased resistance to the elements (too much heat, too much cold, not enough water, too much water). So that farmers can have more of their product survive until sale, and make more money.
I eat GM foods because I like my seedless grapes. Wouldn't eat them otherwise. And because I know genetic modification isn't some black magic that's going to wipe out humanity. We've been doing selective breeding of plants and animals for a very long time and there's nothing unusual or unnatural about it.
Parsecs are a measure of distance (equal to 3.26 light years IIRC), not a measurement of time.
He did that on purpose. He was making fun of Han's comment in ANH about just how fast the Falcon is:
Han: "You've never heard of the Millenium Falcon?" Obi-Wan: "No, should I have?" Han: "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs."
I'm not surprised they changed the script version. The one that Data spoke was a lot more rhythmic. It also had the benefits of containing a string of repeated numbers which he was able to stutter in an android-like fashion.
ME (in Picard's voice speaking at a breakneck speed):
Four, one, three, three, six...
I'm about to give you a gift. I'm about to prove to you that there are people out there who live far sadder lives than you do. When I read your post, the first thing I noticed was that the numbers were incorrect. The code is actually (and this is from memory):
Huh, Nero too. I had problems with nero during beta2 and rc-1 that sort of disappeared with rc-2. I haven't tried RTM though, the problems may all be back. That's MS for you, I guess.
That's either a problem with your particular computer or installation or the actual release of Vista has gotten worse. I've ran TortoiseSVN in Vista RC2 with no problems. Heck, I was even able to use the 64-bit build and it was fine.
That said, I ran into a huge amount of problems getting programs to run under Beta2
Then you, like this guy (and so many others), sadly miss the point of "being green".
No, I think he gets it exactly. And that's why we're not "green". He was concerned about costs. You added additional constraints. Sure, they're not monetary costs, but you're paying the cost of not being able to power your full suite of modern electrical conveniences.
conservation means making a real sacrifice in your lives for the greater good
If that makes you feel good, that's great. Keep on sacrificing. I want to be able to power my 4 computers, I want to leave my tv's on stand-by mode so they don't take forever to turn on, etc. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anything in exchange of some nebulous minimization of my footprint upon this planet. However, if I can recover my costs, or pay a little bit extra in exchange for not having to deal with power outtages, I'm ok with the solar solution, which just so happens to also be environmentally friendly.
These well-to-do yuppies invariably pat themselves on the back for installing huge solar/wind arrays, so they can heat/cool their huge houses, power a full suite of modern electrical conveniences, and live "normal" lives while thinking they've actually made a difference. I argue that houses that large, with all the materials included in their construction, negate *any* good the lifetime of alternative energy produced will provide to the global system.
You're not looking at it the right way. Given the fact that these guys will live on their huge houses and power a full suite of modern electrical conveniences anyway is it better or worse for the environment that they're doing it off the solar/wind arrays instead of off the grid? If the construction / maintenance of the alternative power system itself is environmentally worse, then you have a point, otherwise they're doing the environment a favor, even though it's not cost effective for them.
but the "real" Trekkies I know all prefer DS9 to anything else...
I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't mean your example generalizes to "real" trekkies out there that you don't know. I for one, prefer TNG and know some other "real" trekkies who feel the same way.
Heck, I didn't even watch DS9 when it first aired. I tried to watch it, but gave up after about half of the first season. Later, a friend convinced me to watch his DVD's and swore to me that it would get good starting in the fourth season, and it did, but how in the hell anyone hung around until the fourth season to find this out baffles me. The first three seasons of DS9 are horrible, horrible crap, with a few good episodes here and there.
That being said, I do like DS9 now that I've had a chance to watch the later seasons. I still don't think it's as good as TNG, but I can see why some people would prefer it.
Dialogue and narration heavy videogames
on
Star Trek Legacy Review
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Given the dialogue and narration-heavy storytelling that Star Trek uses, it is possible that the Trek universe just isn't a good fit for videogames?
That's not the problem. As the submitter mentioned himself, although most Trek games are horrible, there were some winners, such as A Final Unity. It might, however, restrict it to some genres. You take the Star Trek universe, and make a game where you just take ships back and forth and shoot at each other, and you're eliminating 90% of what makes trekkies like Trek. I can say the same thing about making a shooter out of it, which is why I for one didn't like Elite Force.
The problem is that no one seems to like adventure games anymore. Why can't we have more games like Judgment Rites and Final Unity? Star Trek episodes, although they do contain some action which should not be ignored, are mostly about solving puzzles and making choices that influence the outcome of some event. That's what gamers do in adventure games, and that's why every trek gamer remembers A Final Unity as being so great.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know no discs have used this for copy protection yet, but it was part of Sony's marketing strategy to claim that BD+ was an extra layer of security. I saw people on doom9 claiming that it doesn't really add anything they can't get around, but since it hasn't been implemented yet, it hasn't been broken yet. Which means that sony can argue with the other studios that they have stronger copy protection than HD-DVD.
What disturbance did he cause? Getting a teacher worried about your mental health isn't a disturbance. At most, they should have gotten him to talk to a counselor so they could determine he's state of mind. Telling the teacher that he would come back the next day with guns could incite a disturbance, writing a fictional essay that makes some people uncomfortable isn't.
We can't lower the bar of disorderly conduct that low. There needs to be an actual disturbance, not some people sitting around a table reading on essay going, "whoa, this is kid is messed up." If that qualifies, I'm sure I can find something you wrote somewhere that "disturbs" me and get you arrested.
That is an excellent analogy, and it proves that you're wrong. You can't be liable for exercising your right. Otherwise, it's obviously not a right. You will never be liable for the act of owning that gun, only for the act of murder, an act you could have done with knives, rope, blunt objects, your car, your bare hands. You don't have the right to commit murder.
Similarly, speech is a right. You can't possibly be liable for anything you say. If you actually do cause a disturbance, by the good old example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example, you're liable for causing the disturbance not for yelling "Fire!". You could have caused the panic in other ways. You could have a raised a fake gun in front of everyone. You'd be arrested under the same charge of "disorderly conduct".
You can't arrest someone for exercising their rights. That's what a "right" means. You can arrest someone for using their rights as tools to do things they're not allowed to do, and that's not what this kid did.
Well, this requires a bit more work on your part, but you can always get the database or static html dumps.
Damn, I hope a whole bunch of people don't just start downloading wikipedia in its entirety just for the hell of it now...
I'm not the guy who replied to your original question, but I also own a PS3 and am pretty happy with it. Not as a console, mind you...
My roommate bought an hdtv and even though I used to one of the people who claimed standard def dvd's were "good enough" that changed quickly when I started watching high definition stuff. I also have a huge dvd collection, so I figured I'd start buying high definition discs from now on, since there is such a huge difference. Plus, high definition HBO is all well and good, but you get the same movies over and over again for a long time period, so it doesn't really compare to just having a huge netflix blu-ray queue.
Yeah, an xbox-360 + hd-dvd drive would do just as well. However, if you buy the hd drive, the price is comparable to the ps3. And my roommate's tv won't do 1080p over component, only over hdmi. So the ps3 suits that purpose better in our case.
As a result I own a ps3 and watch lots of blu-ray movies. I don't own a single ps3 game. I haven't even tried to see if I could rent a ps3 game. I played some of my old ps1 and ps2 games mostly just to see if they work. Can't really recommend it as a videogame console, at least not yet, but it is the cheapest blu-ray player you can get, so if you want to get one of those, I'm happy with mine.
Weak position? Are you kidding? He has fame and money. So "Other Russia" is banned from appearing on TV, huh? Kasparov getting arrested, even if for an extremely short time, gets them much more exposure than they could have possibly gotten on TV.
You think people would give the story more than a passing glance if random russian guy had been arrested during a protest? There'd be 5 minutes about it on the 11:00 news, and you wouldn't hear about it again. And the random guy would probably not have been released so soon. But Gary Kasparov arrested for voicing his political views? This isn't going away.
Enter "Trusted Computing" where the hardware prevents you from looking at the memory contents and encrypted digital transfers between devices so that when you intercept the stuff party B can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch, it'll also be encrypted.
I'm aware not everyone is running 64bit vista with trusted computing devices, and that HDCP is broken, but it doesn't change the fact that eventually everyone will HAVE to be running trusted computing devices with operating systems that prevent you from looking at a memory dump if they want to watch a movie on their computer. It also doesn't mean that they can't come up with something without the flaws of HDCP to fix the device communication issue.
Ultimately, anything you can see and hear can be recorded, I agree. But perfect digital copies will be a thing of the past if we let the companies keep improving DRM.
I've heard that a lot and it does make sense to me that it would be a fundamental flaw if it was true. Unfortunately it's not. You're not both parties B and C. Your media player is party B, and it's responsible for showing (but not giving you a copy of) the unencrypted content to party C.
In terms of standard encryption, that's like you sending an encrypted file to me, with the understanding that Joe is in the room with me and will also see it on my monitor. I don't have to give the encryption key to show Joe what you sent me. I use my key, display the contents on my monitor, Joe sees it. He can take a picture, film it or whatever, but he can't get a perfect digital copy unless I allow him to get one.
Unfortunately, I do think we're getting close to unbreakable DRM. You can and will always be able to set up a camcorder on your living room and record the unencrypted content the player is showing you. Unfortunately, I think getting perfect digital copies will be a thing of the past until we have legislation to specifically protect our rights.
I'm no history buff, but I'm not as ignorant as you think. The United States politically supported Europe, but the first truly significant US involvement in Europe was the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. It was before Pearl Harbor and as such it was also highly controversial. After all, public sentiment favored non-intervention at the time, or as wikipedia puts it, "the overwhelming desire of the American people to stay out of this second European war." Not surprisingly, public opinion changed overnight with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Whoa, wait a minute. Principles? The United States remained neutral in World War II until it got attacked by Japan. Ever heard of Pearl Harbor?
We helped out in Europe because it was not in our best interests to let Germany take it over after the Axis Powers attacked us.
Guilty as charged. However, I played the part of one years ago ;)
They're far more likely to believe anything the teacher tells them than adults are...Most kids eat this up.No doubt. I especially thank you for using the qualifier "most". What is it that the others have that makes them question what they're told? How do we instill that in the majority?
Either way, my point was that they should have been receiving conflicting information. The teacher wasn't their only source. They had other influences which supposedly would tell them different things. Given conflicting information, there's no reason they should believe the guy they spend 50 minutes with every day over the people with whom they spend the rest of the day with. They will question him. Or question the other information they have. They'll talk to their parents, they'll talk to other teachers. That's probably how people came to find out that the teacher was trying to brainwash them in first place.
That's also why brainwashing techniques involve breaking all contact the person being brainwashed has with other sources. That's why cults have camps and stuff.
You'd be extremely hard pressed to find elementary students in *any* country that do not do this so don't tell me this is a problem of lack of critical thinkingI wasn't insulting or separating Canada by any means. I do think teaching children to think is something that is universally lacking. From my own experiences, it appears to me that school is designed to be a place where students should believe that teachers are always right and shouldn't question what they're told. What I am implying is that the solution to that problem isn't to limit the amount of information people get, good or bad. It's to teach children that no source of information is infallible. It's to teach them that people, even adults and teachers, can be wrong. And that they can willfully lie, if it will suit their purposes. Children can understand that. How young do they have to be before they themselves start lying about little things in order to get what they want, or to avoid getting in trouble?
Actually, when I was TAing an university class, I asked another graduate student who had been TA of the class before me about an idea I had to tell the students to perform an experiment in a different way. The conversation went something like this:
"Don't do it."
"Why?"
"It might not work."
"So what?"
"If something you tell them to do doesn't work, they'll lose trust in you. They'll start thinking that you can be wrong, and start questioning everything you tell them."
It should be noted that this was the other student's own thoughts, and not university policy or anything. However, I think that line of thought to maintain authority is somewhat common, and I think it leads to more impressionable people, even beyond the elementary school level.
No, no he shouldn't. That teacher demonstrated that he is not qualified to teach. He should be fired, and nobody else should hire him. That's where it should stop.
They interviewed his students ten years after the incident and the vast majority of them said the only reason he got into trouble was because "The Jews control the media".If true, that indicates a much deeper problem than one teacher spewing bs. They weren't locked with the guy for months, were they? These kids have other teachers, they have parents, they have the culture around them in the form of tv and music. No one teacher has that much influence over his students. The brainwashing must have been reinforced at another level.
It is comparable to posting propeganda on YouTube versus posting it on a cryptic site most people won't run across. I don't care about the latter.If I see hate propaganda on YouTube, I'm not suddenly going to listen to it. Sounds like you wouldn't either. The solution isn't to prohibit speech (any speech). It's to teach people to become resistant to propaganda like you and I. You want people to be have the ability for critical thought, instead of simply being told what's right by you (we need to prohibit these types of speech) or by hate-mongering teachers (jews control media). No one should be told what to do, they should have access to all information, unhindered, and make their own decisions.
By suffer dearly, he most likely meant that he hopes he'd get sued and lose, so as to set a precedent that companies can't do that. I don't think he means the man should suffer physical pain, or go to jail over it.
Wait, I read on Slashdot only a few days ago that some DoD Warez guy had been caught and was going to jailEh...most of the outrage was due to the fact that he was being extradited to the United States for crimes he didn't commit while physically in the United States. You don't think that's messed up?
he'd just broken the law over and over again with full knowledge of what he was doing.Which law he was breaking over and over again is a pretty important fact to consider when dealing out punishment. It's not like he was out murdering people or robbing banks. The punishment should fit the crime, and many people think copyright infringement should be a strictly civil matter.
Doubly amazing because I so often see people here defending the right to use weapons against people caught breaking and entering.There are people on both ends of the spectrum on that issue. Personally, I don't own a weapon or intend to own one, but I do think that those who want to own and use one for self-defense (or sport) should be allowed to. However, let me emphasize self-defense. If the guy breaks into your house unarmed and you shoot him as he's running away after he sees you have a gun, you should be on trial for murder. In fact, you should be convicted of murder. If on the other hand, the man is armed and advancing on you...well, you can't ask a man to give up his life.
And just what's wrong with that? Did you know there are more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? Now, don't go looking for confirmation about this in a book. Look it up in your gut. Or possibly wikipedia in a few minutes after I make a few quick changes.
Sounds like Stephen Colbert would really love your neighbor.
Note to the humor-impaired: No, I'm not really going to deface wikipedia. I really like it and I don't want to ruin it for everyone.
That was my point. What many of the people replying don't get is that selective breeding is genetic manipulation. What you're talking about is the same thing with a new technological twist, and there's no reason why you should be afraid of it simply because we're better at it.
Genetic Modification is inserting (or deleting) pieces from the genome (DNA) of a certain whatever.Ok, no argument with your definition. In the past, that was done through selective breeding. Today we have more efficient methods to do the same thing quicker for more dramatic results. The end result is still the same. You get a breed with qualities that you want.
Introducing pieces of new genetic material is certainly different from what you're talking about.In what way? When you manipulate "pre-existing genetic information", you can do that because different plants of the same species have different qualities. They have different qualities because of random mutations and gene crossover combinations. Instead of waiting for random mutations, we add designed mutations to the mix. Usually purposefully damaging a gene that is responsible for undesired qualities. It's the same thing but now we have technology, so it's dangerous!
I don't dismiss the fact that it's possible to end up with something that causes ill effects through genetic manipulation, but treat those problems in a case-by-case basis. My problem with the grandparent was his "you have to be stupid to eat GM foods" tirade. That's a ridiculous attitude with no merit whatsoever. Mostly we just end up with better foods because we added features we want and removed features we don't.
What the hell? What gave you the idea that we genetically modify crops in order to fix some sort of scarcity? They're genetically modified to create crops that have increased resistance to the elements (too much heat, too much cold, not enough water, too much water). So that farmers can have more of their product survive until sale, and make more money.
I eat GM foods because I like my seedless grapes. Wouldn't eat them otherwise. And because I know genetic modification isn't some black magic that's going to wipe out humanity. We've been doing selective breeding of plants and animals for a very long time and there's nothing unusual or unnatural about it.
He did that on purpose. He was making fun of Han's comment in ANH about just how fast the Falcon is:
Han: "You've never heard of the Millenium Falcon?"
Obi-Wan: "No, should I have?"
Han: "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs."
Ah, interesting. I certainly enjoyed the joke :)
I'm not surprised they changed the script version. The one that Data spoke was a lot more rhythmic. It also had the benefits of containing a string of repeated numbers which he was able to stutter in an android-like fashion.
I'm about to give you a gift. I'm about to prove to you that there are people out there who live far sadder lives than you do. When I read your post, the first thing I noticed was that the numbers were incorrect. The code is actually (and this is from memory):
173467321476-Charlie-32789777643-Tango-732-Victo r-73117888732476789764376-Lock
Yes. For reasons that we don't need to go into right now, I actually have that memorized.
I'm still waiting for the end of spam and passwords.
Huh, Nero too. I had problems with nero during beta2 and rc-1 that sort of disappeared with rc-2. I haven't tried RTM though, the problems may all be back. That's MS for you, I guess.
That said, I ran into a huge amount of problems getting programs to run under Beta2
No, I think he gets it exactly. And that's why we're not "green". He was concerned about costs. You added additional constraints. Sure, they're not monetary costs, but you're paying the cost of not being able to power your full suite of modern electrical conveniences.
conservation means making a real sacrifice in your lives for the greater goodIf that makes you feel good, that's great. Keep on sacrificing. I want to be able to power my 4 computers, I want to leave my tv's on stand-by mode so they don't take forever to turn on, etc. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anything in exchange of some nebulous minimization of my footprint upon this planet. However, if I can recover my costs, or pay a little bit extra in exchange for not having to deal with power outtages, I'm ok with the solar solution, which just so happens to also be environmentally friendly.
These well-to-do yuppies invariably pat themselves on the back for installing huge solar/wind arrays, so they can heat/cool their huge houses, power a full suite of modern electrical conveniences, and live "normal" lives while thinking they've actually made a difference. I argue that houses that large, with all the materials included in their construction, negate *any* good the lifetime of alternative energy produced will provide to the global system.You're not looking at it the right way. Given the fact that these guys will live on their huge houses and power a full suite of modern electrical conveniences anyway is it better or worse for the environment that they're doing it off the solar/wind arrays instead of off the grid? If the construction / maintenance of the alternative power system itself is environmentally worse, then you have a point, otherwise they're doing the environment a favor, even though it's not cost effective for them.
I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't mean your example generalizes to "real" trekkies out there that you don't know. I for one, prefer TNG and know some other "real" trekkies who feel the same way.
Heck, I didn't even watch DS9 when it first aired. I tried to watch it, but gave up after about half of the first season. Later, a friend convinced me to watch his DVD's and swore to me that it would get good starting in the fourth season, and it did, but how in the hell anyone hung around until the fourth season to find this out baffles me. The first three seasons of DS9 are horrible, horrible crap, with a few good episodes here and there.
That being said, I do like DS9 now that I've had a chance to watch the later seasons. I still don't think it's as good as TNG, but I can see why some people would prefer it.
That's not the problem. As the submitter mentioned himself, although most Trek games are horrible, there were some winners, such as A Final Unity. It might, however, restrict it to some genres. You take the Star Trek universe, and make a game where you just take ships back and forth and shoot at each other, and you're eliminating 90% of what makes trekkies like Trek. I can say the same thing about making a shooter out of it, which is why I for one didn't like Elite Force.
The problem is that no one seems to like adventure games anymore. Why can't we have more games like Judgment Rites and Final Unity? Star Trek episodes, although they do contain some action which should not be ignored, are mostly about solving puzzles and making choices that influence the outcome of some event. That's what gamers do in adventure games, and that's why every trek gamer remembers A Final Unity as being so great.