While this comment is likely to get buried in the avalanche that preceeded it, I feel that it's necesary to point a few things out.
Most glaringly, the press release doesn't have any mention of Warner Bros. MGM doesn't hold the film rights to The Hobbit; Warner Bros. does, after purchasing them from the Saul Zaentz Corporation. The only thing that the press release mentions is that legal difficulties over The Lord of the Rings have been resolved, none of which involved the labyrinth of licensing issues around Tolkien's other works. Warner Bros. has been blocking the idea of letting the rights go ever since The Fellowship of the Ring turned out to be a hit. I see no indication that this has changed.
Second, although TheOneRing.net has a pretty good track record, they've been wrong before. Several years ago, they trumpeted the release of a "trailer" for The Hobbit, and later had to correct themselves when it turned out to be a fan-created work. Yes, TORn links to MGM's official media release page, but the only other link is to The Hobbit Blog. The blog seems to be officially sponsored by New Line, but the only link to it is in the sign-up page (for New Line's privacy policy), and the only link from New Line to the blog is in the press release, which is also posted on New Line's site. There aren't a lot of branches on this particular "family tree".
Next, there's Christoper Tolkien's long-standing disdain for any and all film adaptations of J.R.R.'s work. There wasn't much that he could do about The Hobbit and LotR, because his father sold the film rights to Zaentz himself. However, Christopher takes his position as his father's literary executor very seriously, and the chances that he will give the nod to use of any of his father's notes for a film that fills in the gap between The Hobbit and LotR are minute to the point of nonexistance.
I doubt that this is an elaborate hoax. I could see hacking one film studio site, but not two. However, I would be much more sanguine about the project if there were a linked article from an industry publication such as Variety, and preferably one that went into detail about how the legal wrangles with Warner Bros. and Zaentz were resolved.
...but what all of the images depict is a stunning display of hope for the human race as a whole.
As someone who grew up surrounded by photographs of nebulae and NASA mission patches, it grieves me that space exploration has become such a low priority. Most people in the US not only see it as unimportant, they can't even understand why it was important in the first place. Yes, the Cold War was a mighty spur in the direction of outer space, but NASA's budget was being whittled away long before the Berlin Wall came down. There were plans for fully re-usable spacecraft (one that was far different and more cost-effective than the current shuttle), manned orbital stations, and a moon base before the first manned lunar lander even got off of the ground. Now? We're lucky to see a few shuttle launches per year.
I've never given up on the vision that these images depict, but I've become sadly resigned to the fact that it will most likely be our great-grandchildren that see it happen, rather than our kids, grandkids, or ourselves. And it seems to me that more people ought to be upset about that.
On the off chance that you weren't, let me gently correct you. School sports unite only the portion of the student body that cares about such things to begin with. For everyone else (and it has been my observation that most of the student body falls into the category of "everyone else"), school sports exist only to give bragging rights to a small percentage of students. Team members are given leeway in the form of extra time to turn in homework assignments, make-up days for tests, and other privileges not extended to their peers. Teachers are not exempt from the academic coddling of varsity sports players, either, since they have to put up with the administrative decisions that benefit the teams. School athletes who have a penchant for bullying are given slaps on the wrist for their behavior, if that, since penalizing them might hurt the team. A regular student who chooses to fight back faces suspension, if not expulsion.
When I went to high school, one of my fellow students was tagged for the US Olympic Team, in fencing. She carried a 3.7 GPA, and was applying to several good universities. Her achievments got zero notice by the administration, because they were too busy cooing over a basketball player with a GPA of 1.5, and bending over backwards to try and get one of the state colleges to make an exception in the admission policy for him; all because he made All-State.
Please note that I do not equate team sports with physical activity. There are plenty of things that keep a person active that don't involve being on a sports team. I've also observed that the high school team athletes are the ones who seem to be the most likely to become sedentary as they get older; so I really don't see how having played football as a teenager does anything for the 36-year-old couch potato.
After reading TFA, it seems to me that most of the Amish families who have agreed to participate in the study are probably the same ones who are the early adopters for the new technologies that are approved for use within the community. I think that the researchers are going to have more of a problem getting volunteers among the more conservative Old Order and Swartzentruber, because they are the subgroups that have the most bias against dealings with "English".
Sadly, these are the same people who would probably see the most benefit from the genetic studies.
People attack Amish and, to a lesser extent, Mennonites all of the time. There aren't many solid statistics, though, because much of the crime committed by "English" goes unreported. Not only is it seen as a violation of their religion, which requires pacifism, it brings in outsiders. Even "English" who live their entire lives near Amish communities -- Lancaster County, PA being the most notable example -- don't entirely understand their "Plain" neighbors.
In a larger view, it becomes understandble: a bully's favorite target is always the person that he knows won't fight back.
"...can anyone fill me in on why they like this show?"
Good writing. Not just witty, pithy one-liners, although they abound. Real conversations occur within the context of the storyline, many of which are thought-provoking.
Good characterization. One of Joss Whedon's talents is the ability to create characters who you could see yourself sitting down and having a drink with. Or playing checkers, or whatever. Whedon doesn't deal in cyphers or archetypes, although some are recognizable. His characters are people with strengths, weaknesses, flaws, personality quirks and phobias. They have histories which you may never know in full, just like the people that you meet every day. The "good guys" don't always get along with one another, and the "bad guys" aren't always unsympathetic. Yes, the metastories aren't "real-life" situations. (Civil war in a spacefaring society? A blonde, perky cheerleader, instead of being messily killed in the first reel, gets to kick monster butt? Inconceivable!) The characters within those stories, though, come across in realistic ways. There are very, very few two-dimensional portrayals in any of Whedon's worlds.
Obviously, I'm a fan; not only of Firefly, but all of Joss' work. That being said, it took me a bit to warm up to Firefly, because of the way that Fox handled the series. I found it to be well worth the effort, though. All I can say is, give it a chance. If it's not to your liking, you've spent a bit of time that you could've put toward something else. Like reading Slashdot.;) You might, though, find yourself enjoying something that you wouldn't have otherwise encountered.
And just accept the fact that attractive women want attractive men. That's biology for you. Sorry. If your personality can overcome that, good for you, but most of us are programmed by God, Darwin, whoever, to chase the most physically attractive of the opposite sex. The so-called geek success stories here are successes because they have lots of cash, which frankly, goes a long long way toward attracting women.
Not entirely true. Yes, some women insist on a standard of "only hotties need apply", but please bear in mind that women have different standards of what they consider physically attractive. Personally, I don't have much interest in the Tom Cruise / Brad Pitt type; even when they manage to be down-to-earth emotionally, they're what I refer to as "beige wallpaper". It's versatile, goes with anything; you can dress it up or take it down to the bare minimum, but when you come right down to it, it's still beige wallpaper. Bland and boring. Give me a few quirks and a face with some character to look at, instead.
You might be correct in the general sense, but it is still a generalization.:)
Is it at all possible to knock off with the whole "geeks / nerds never get any" commentary? [/mini-rant]
Now that that's out of the way, I can make a more rational response.
Women are attracted to intelligence and stability? As a femmegeek, I've known this for ages. What irks me about most of the comments is the reversion to early adolescence that marks these discussions. Using the experiences of high school as a benchmark for your entire life seems a really bass-ackwards thing to do. Almost nobody is, as a teenager, self-confident enough to choose a dating partner without regard to what your "friends" might say. And yes; women can be horribly self-absorbed and shallow. Even women who self-identify as "nerdy". Guess what, though: men can too, and in some ways, they can be even worse about it. I have, sadly, dated male geeks who wanted me around because having an attractive female on their arm supposedly raised their status, somehow. Never mind that I was at least as intelligent as they were; they wanted a trophy, and nothing more. However, I've stuck with the high-IQ set, instead of lowering my standards, because I am attracted to intelligence. I think that many, many other women out there are as well, but given the still-prevalent expectation that "girls aren't..." (good at math, interested in science, fill in your stereotype of choice), most women are more than a little reluctant to admit it. The 50s-era maternal admonition of "boys don't like girls who are too smart" still echoes today.
Luckily, I never bought into it. So I sit here, posting on Slashdot, an intelligent, fit, good-looking geek woman, who isn't ashamed to admit the fact. And I think that I speak for a number of my fellow geekettes, gentlemen, when I say that smart is sexy. If you want to engage my hormones, engage my brain first. I'm not going to make hot sweaty snugglebunnies with anyone with whom I can't have a good conversation.
The going rate for models for life drawing classes is between $10 and $15 per hour, at least in Denver. Private rates are about $20 per hour. YMMV, depending on city. Models for photography can command upwards of $200 per hour.
Of course, everyone I know who models even part-time professionally has a boilerplate contract, signed by the photographer, detailing how the images may be used, and stipulating the penalties for violation of the contract. There have been several instances in which professional photography models found out that their photographs had popped up on porn sites; the models filed suits against both the photographer and the website in question. (Sorry that I can't provide a citation; I couldn't find the ones I was looking for on Google.)
None of which is really germaine to this case, of course.;)
According to the articles, Ms. Barnes tried to have the profiles removed over the course of three months, and that does seem a little excessive. However, I have had problems with Yahoo (and a third-party information provider, who they seem to be no longer using) when I had to have an incorrect business listing removed from their directory. I understand her frustration, having experienced something similar, but mine is hardly worth a 7-figure price tag.
OTOH, I didn't have strange men showing up at my workplace, expecting nookie. In her case, not only her privacy was compromised, so was her personal safety. Her business probably experienced severe disruption from these incidents as well, and it woudn't surprise me if her employers had threatened to fire her over these incidents. Had one of the men turned violent, there might be a coroner's report instead of a lawsuit. In this case, I think that a figure of $3 million, while possibly excessive, is probably justified.
(The articles don't mention whether or not her ex was named in the suit, though, and he probably should be. Maybe Yahoo will turn around and hit him with one as well.)
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, and I'm all for anything that takes a chunk out of DeBeers' market stranglehold. Mostly, I work in colored stones because I like them better; when I create a design using a diamond of any size, I like to use stones from the Argyle Mine of northwestern Australia. They're less expensive, civil war-free, DeBeers-free -- and they come in lots of pretty colors like pink and apricot.
Even high quality Russian CZs aren't the best diamond substitute out there. They're the best-known because of 30 years' worth of aggressive marketing. Synthetic moissanite is harder, has more fire, and runs about $500 per carat. The only "problem" is a faint greenish tinge, which is natural to the stone, but the company making them has steadily tweaked the growth process to make them as white as is possible.
I have absolutely no problems with using lab-created stones in my designs. My customers like them too, because of the techno-geek factor. There was a similar kerfluffle in the 70s with high-quality lab-grown rubies; the FTC finally ruled that manufacturers were required to use "cultured" or "lab-created" or similar language when they were sold. I think that, eventually, a similar compromise will be reached with cultured diamond. This doesn't mean that DeBeers won't go down kicking and screaming, but I do think that they will eventually lose.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "fractional".
The "first sale" prices charged for diamonds are pretty rigidly controlled. Think of it this way: when you buy a new car from the dealership, you pay the MSRP, or close to it. When you buy a used car, you will pay less than that, but the car might still carry a 5 digit price tag. It's the same sort of thing with diamonds; since the initial price tends to be high, so does the resale price. Pawn shops, for instance, will pay pennies for diamond jewelry, based on the scrap price of the gold, and resell it for less than retail, but far more than they paid. Secondhand stones are out there, depending on the size and quality that you want. Anything over a quarter carat is going to be hard to find at a low price, because that's where you get into desirable sizes for solitaires. Ebay is dicey, simply because of the size of the venue; you really have to dig to find bargains. Some independant jewelers -- the gentleman to whom I apprenticed was one -- will take trade-ins against the price of a larger or more highly graded diamond. There are lots of reasons that it's hard to find secondhand stones; the relative difficulty really depends on what you're looking for.
"Cheap" diamond jewelry is out there, too. 10 karat gold and I3 (at best) stones. Wally World usually carries a bunch of it.;) That being said, I picked up a.27 ct F-SI1 solitaire for $100 off of an online auction several years ago, but I took a real chance because there wasn't a photo.
As for moissanite? I love it! It has a higher refractive index than diamond, and when properly cut, throws back amazing fire and color. It has about the same hardness as sapphire and ruby; and at about $500 per carat, it's far more affordable than a diamond of similar quality.
There will always be people who just insist on a mined diamond. I'm not one of them, though.
The gal who runs the local lapidary and metalsmith's supply shop is a retired bench jeweler (read: someone who makes it, instead of just selling it), and she has a gorgeous blue-tinted green diamond ring that I admire every time she wears it. It's also one of the rare, naturally irradiated ones, and I love the subtlety of color that it displays.
And agreed; I'd love to see lab-grown greens become available. All of the color, none of the guilt, and a +5 tech-geek bonus score.
Yes, I'm keeping a very close eye on developments in the field. I'm one of the rare designer / jewelers who has no qualms whatsoever with using lab-created stones, just as long as the customer knows exactly what they're getting. (And may I take a moment to say here that the jeweler who screamed at your fiance is an idiot. You don't berate someone for knowing what they want.)
I haven't seen any synthetic blues yet, but I know that's one of the colors that's being developed, because of the potential uses in optical filters. I'm pretty sure that they'll be available in the next 5 years or so. And when they do, I'm getting one for myself.
Unsurprisingly enough, DeBeers is already trying to have non-mined diamonds declared "not diamonds". None of the colored stones that are grown in the lab have ever faced this kind of legal and semantic challenge, probably because there's no Colored Stone Cartel (TM) governing their pricing and availability.
Generally speaking, lab-grown crystals of any material used as a gemstone -- most notably the corundum group (sapphires and rubies) -- will have fewer imperfections than mined stones. Both the growth process and the "ingredients" are controlled. There are some trade-offs, though: most lab rubies tend to look pinkish and glassy in comparison to mined rubies, because the growth process is so fast. Lab-grown emeralds usually have too much of a blue tint, and that gives them away. When the only use is in jewelry, appearance is the overriding consideration.
However, that's not the case here. Most lab-created corundum, for instance, isn't used in the jewelry trade. Since it was first "grown" in the late 1800s, various industrial and commercial applications have accounted for most of the production. One example is the "glass" plate over the laser in the grocery barcode scanner: actually made from colorless "sapphire" because it is both harder and tougher than glass. The same goes for lab-created diamonds, which can be used in all kinds of ways. A quick Google search on technological applications turns up a whole mess of hits, and you can see for yourself what one of the manufacturers has to say about potential uses.
As the title implies, the value of any color of fancy color diamond depends upon the intensity and vividness of the color.
The yellow diamonds that are being referred to in this context are not the fancy and sought-after "canary" variety; they're diamonds with certain impurities in the carbon that give them a yellowish or brownish tint, instead of the clear "white" that is deemed so valuable.
Here's a page with a photo about halfway down that will give you an idea. Another page from the same site shows the various grades of colorless-ness.
A true fancy diamond of any color doesn't fall under these grading systems, obviously. The difference in intensity between the muted yellow-brown of a 'Z' color and a true canary-yellow is like the difference between a glowstick and a krypton-bulb flashlight. See here for some examples of blue, canary, pink, and peach diamonds. (No greens, though; and they're my favorite.)
Wow, I am simply amazed at the collection of Geek History 101 on display. (The copy of R.U.R is enough to make me want to smash the piggy bank.) All of this stuff is, apparently, one person's collected library on the origins of cyberspace. (See here for further information.)
...Which brings me to the annoyance factor. This collection is going to be scattered to the four winds. Looking at some of the pre-auction estimates, no one person, and very few institutions, will have the scratch that it would take to keep the collection together. Taken seperately, each of these items has a historical context, but taken together, they chart the idealistic, scientific, and technological foundations of the Internet.
Auctioning the library off in such a piecemeal fashion just seems wrong, IMNSHO.
Most "heartthrobs" are, in fact, older than the demographic of the teen magazine that they're displayed in. Johnny Depp? Or, more recently, Orlando Bloom? Same deal.
Still, he wasn't all that bad looking in those photos. Nerdy, sure, but then we already knew that about him.
Lordy, lordy, though; what unhappy changes time hath wrough.
to refuse to get addicted to The Sims. (I've got a good friend who's trying to get me hooked.) I refuse to have a virtual replica of me that lives better than I do. Coffee that fulfills all my needs? Don't I just wish!
I'll stick to Wolfenstein. And Conquest. Subjugating the globe; now that's control!;)
Unfortunately, there are a couple of different things going on, here. First is the judge's inability to see the poverbial forest for the trees. Second is the ability to prove the merits of the case.
The CAN-SPAM Act is one of the most useless pieces of tripe ever to be bulldozed through Congress, and the reason for this is the list of qualifiers that was written in. The "standard of deception" is one of these items. To actually convict someone under this provision in CAN-SPAM, the spammer would have to send out an e-mail promising "Free Screensavers of Puppies, Kitties, and Unicorns!" that actually redirects to the "Girls fscking Giant Horse C*cks eXXXtravaganza!" website. In saying that the charges did not meet the standard, Judge Hellerstein was factually correct.
Smathers did not decieve the AOL members whose information was sold, nor the spammers who purchased it. The AOL members were not told "Oh, don't worry; I wouldn't _think_ of selling your information for to a bunch of sleazebags," and I'm sure that the spammers were under no illusions about the legality of the addresses they purchased. However, what he did commit was fraud. He defrauded the AOL users, and the company, and fraud is most certainly a prosecutable offense. Trying him under the CAN-SPAM statute seems like a really poor legal strategy.
Personally, I'd love to see the existing laws used more forcefully. And I wouldn't go after the spammers, but after the people who hire them. There are already statutes governing things like mortgage banking, mail fraud, practicing medicine without a license, dispending medications without a license... and very few of the existing laws are used to prosecute the companies that give spammers their raison d' etre. Go after the source, and the flood will ebb.
"What are their hopes of finding new jobs?"
on
Massive Layoffs At AOL
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Given the knowledge, or rather the lack of knowledge, shown by most AOL techs, I'd say that their prospects don't look good. Any company that wants their employees to do, you know, real tech support instead of parroting a script** (and then trying to sell you something) won't touch them with a 3.5-meter-pole.
**Yes, I have dealt with them. No, I won't provide details. It was too traumatic.;)
I really hope that they can get the production cost issues conquered. (Has a farmed source been considered, I wonder? Not all fungi are so accomodating - truffles being a classic example - but it would make the supply problems easier to handle if it's possible.)
As someone who knows several people with latex sensitivities varying in intensity from rashes to anaphylactic shock, I applaud any attempts to find an alternative material. (Heck, I even develop contact dermatitis if I wear latex gloves for extended periods.) This is one area in which I think that people would pay at least a little extra for a safer product.
Slashdot Mirror
While this comment is likely to get buried in the avalanche that preceeded it, I feel that it's necesary to point a few things out.
Most glaringly, the press release doesn't have any mention of Warner Bros. MGM doesn't hold the film rights to The Hobbit; Warner Bros. does, after purchasing them from the Saul Zaentz Corporation. The only thing that the press release mentions is that legal difficulties over The Lord of the Rings have been resolved, none of which involved the labyrinth of licensing issues around Tolkien's other works. Warner Bros. has been blocking the idea of letting the rights go ever since The Fellowship of the Ring turned out to be a hit. I see no indication that this has changed.
Second, although TheOneRing.net has a pretty good track record, they've been wrong before. Several years ago, they trumpeted the release of a "trailer" for The Hobbit, and later had to correct themselves when it turned out to be a fan-created work. Yes, TORn links to MGM's official media release page, but the only other link is to The Hobbit Blog. The blog seems to be officially sponsored by New Line, but the only link to it is in the sign-up page (for New Line's privacy policy), and the only link from New Line to the blog is in the press release, which is also posted on New Line's site. There aren't a lot of branches on this particular "family tree".
Next, there's Christoper Tolkien's long-standing disdain for any and all film adaptations of J.R.R.'s work. There wasn't much that he could do about The Hobbit and LotR, because his father sold the film rights to Zaentz himself. However, Christopher takes his position as his father's literary executor very seriously, and the chances that he will give the nod to use of any of his father's notes for a film that fills in the gap between The Hobbit and LotR are minute to the point of nonexistance.
I doubt that this is an elaborate hoax. I could see hacking one film studio site, but not two. However, I would be much more sanguine about the project if there were a linked article from an industry publication such as Variety, and preferably one that went into detail about how the legal wrangles with Warner Bros. and Zaentz were resolved.
...but what all of the images depict is a stunning display of hope for the human race as a whole.
As someone who grew up surrounded by photographs of nebulae and NASA mission patches, it grieves me that space exploration has become such a low priority. Most people in the US not only see it as unimportant, they can't even understand why it was important in the first place. Yes, the Cold War was a mighty spur in the direction of outer space, but NASA's budget was being whittled away long before the Berlin Wall came down. There were plans for fully re-usable spacecraft (one that was far different and more cost-effective than the current shuttle), manned orbital stations, and a moon base before the first manned lunar lander even got off of the ground. Now? We're lucky to see a few shuttle launches per year.
I've never given up on the vision that these images depict, but I've become sadly resigned to the fact that it will most likely be our great-grandchildren that see it happen, rather than our kids, grandkids, or ourselves. And it seems to me that more people ought to be upset about that.
On the off chance that you weren't, let me gently correct you. School sports unite only the portion of the student body that cares about such things to begin with. For everyone else (and it has been my observation that most of the student body falls into the category of "everyone else"), school sports exist only to give bragging rights to a small percentage of students. Team members are given leeway in the form of extra time to turn in homework assignments, make-up days for tests, and other privileges not extended to their peers. Teachers are not exempt from the academic coddling of varsity sports players, either, since they have to put up with the administrative decisions that benefit the teams. School athletes who have a penchant for bullying are given slaps on the wrist for their behavior, if that, since penalizing them might hurt the team. A regular student who chooses to fight back faces suspension, if not expulsion.
When I went to high school, one of my fellow students was tagged for the US Olympic Team, in fencing. She carried a 3.7 GPA, and was applying to several good universities. Her achievments got zero notice by the administration, because they were too busy cooing over a basketball player with a GPA of 1.5, and bending over backwards to try and get one of the state colleges to make an exception in the admission policy for him; all because he made All-State.
Please note that I do not equate team sports with physical activity. There are plenty of things that keep a person active that don't involve being on a sports team. I've also observed that the high school team athletes are the ones who seem to be the most likely to become sedentary as they get older; so I really don't see how having played football as a teenager does anything for the 36-year-old couch potato.
Sadly, these are the same people who would probably see the most benefit from the genetic studies.
In a larger view, it becomes understandble: a bully's favorite target is always the person that he knows won't fight back.
- Good characterization. One of Joss Whedon's talents is the ability to create characters who you could see yourself sitting down and having a drink with. Or playing checkers, or whatever. Whedon doesn't deal in cyphers or archetypes, although some are recognizable. His characters are people with strengths, weaknesses, flaws, personality quirks and phobias. They have histories which you may never know in full, just like the people that you meet every day. The "good guys" don't always get along with one another, and the "bad guys" aren't always unsympathetic. Yes, the metastories aren't "real-life" situations. (Civil war in a spacefaring society? A blonde, perky cheerleader, instead of being messily killed in the first reel, gets to kick monster butt? Inconceivable!) The characters within those stories, though, come across in realistic ways. There are very, very few two-dimensional portrayals in any of Whedon's worlds.
Obviously, I'm a fan; not only of Firefly, but all of Joss' work. That being said, it took me a bit to warm up to Firefly, because of the way that Fox handled the series. I found it to be well worth the effort, though. All I can say is, give it a chance. If it's not to your liking, you've spent a bit of time that you could've put toward something else. Like reading Slashdot.- And just accept the fact that attractive women want attractive men. That's biology for you. Sorry. If your personality can overcome that, good for you, but most of us are programmed by God, Darwin, whoever, to chase the most physically attractive of the opposite sex. The so-called geek success stories here are successes because they have lots of cash, which frankly, goes a long long way toward attracting women.
Not entirely true. Yes, some women insist on a standard of "only hotties need apply", but please bear in mind that women have different standards of what they consider physically attractive. Personally, I don't have much interest in the Tom Cruise / Brad Pitt type; even when they manage to be down-to-earth emotionally, they're what I refer to as "beige wallpaper". It's versatile, goes with anything; you can dress it up or take it down to the bare minimum, but when you come right down to it, it's still beige wallpaper. Bland and boring. Give me a few quirks and a face with some character to look at, instead.You might be correct in the general sense, but it is still a generalization. :)
Now that that's out of the way, I can make a more rational response.
Women are attracted to intelligence and stability? As a femmegeek, I've known this for ages. What irks me about most of the comments is the reversion to early adolescence that marks these discussions. Using the experiences of high school as a benchmark for your entire life seems a really bass-ackwards thing to do. Almost nobody is, as a teenager, self-confident enough to choose a dating partner without regard to what your "friends" might say. And yes; women can be horribly self-absorbed and shallow. Even women who self-identify as "nerdy". Guess what, though: men can too, and in some ways, they can be even worse about it. I have, sadly, dated male geeks who wanted me around because having an attractive female on their arm supposedly raised their status, somehow. Never mind that I was at least as intelligent as they were; they wanted a trophy, and nothing more. However, I've stuck with the high-IQ set, instead of lowering my standards, because I am attracted to intelligence. I think that many, many other women out there are as well, but given the still-prevalent expectation that "girls aren't..." (good at math, interested in science, fill in your stereotype of choice), most women are more than a little reluctant to admit it. The 50s-era maternal admonition of "boys don't like girls who are too smart" still echoes today.
Luckily, I never bought into it. So I sit here, posting on Slashdot, an intelligent, fit, good-looking geek woman, who isn't ashamed to admit the fact. And I think that I speak for a number of my fellow geekettes, gentlemen, when I say that smart is sexy. If you want to engage my hormones, engage my brain first. I'm not going to make hot sweaty snugglebunnies with anyone with whom I can't have a good conversation.
Of course, everyone I know who models even part-time professionally has a boilerplate contract, signed by the photographer, detailing how the images may be used, and stipulating the penalties for violation of the contract. There have been several instances in which professional photography models found out that their photographs had popped up on porn sites; the models filed suits against both the photographer and the website in question. (Sorry that I can't provide a citation; I couldn't find the ones I was looking for on Google.)
None of which is really germaine to this case, of course. ;)
OTOH, I didn't have strange men showing up at my workplace, expecting nookie. In her case, not only her privacy was compromised, so was her personal safety. Her business probably experienced severe disruption from these incidents as well, and it woudn't surprise me if her employers had threatened to fire her over these incidents. Had one of the men turned violent, there might be a coroner's report instead of a lawsuit. In this case, I think that a figure of $3 million, while possibly excessive, is probably justified.
(The articles don't mention whether or not her ex was named in the suit, though, and he probably should be. Maybe Yahoo will turn around and hit him with one as well.)
Even high quality Russian CZs aren't the best diamond substitute out there. They're the best-known because of 30 years' worth of aggressive marketing. Synthetic moissanite is harder, has more fire, and runs about $500 per carat. The only "problem" is a faint greenish tinge, which is natural to the stone, but the company making them has steadily tweaked the growth process to make them as white as is possible.
I have absolutely no problems with using lab-created stones in my designs. My customers like them too, because of the techno-geek factor. There was a similar kerfluffle in the 70s with high-quality lab-grown rubies; the FTC finally ruled that manufacturers were required to use "cultured" or "lab-created" or similar language when they were sold. I think that, eventually, a similar compromise will be reached with cultured diamond. This doesn't mean that DeBeers won't go down kicking and screaming, but I do think that they will eventually lose.
The "first sale" prices charged for diamonds are pretty rigidly controlled. Think of it this way: when you buy a new car from the dealership, you pay the MSRP, or close to it. When you buy a used car, you will pay less than that, but the car might still carry a 5 digit price tag. It's the same sort of thing with diamonds; since the initial price tends to be high, so does the resale price. Pawn shops, for instance, will pay pennies for diamond jewelry, based on the scrap price of the gold, and resell it for less than retail, but far more than they paid. Secondhand stones are out there, depending on the size and quality that you want. Anything over a quarter carat is going to be hard to find at a low price, because that's where you get into desirable sizes for solitaires. Ebay is dicey, simply because of the size of the venue; you really have to dig to find bargains. Some independant jewelers -- the gentleman to whom I apprenticed was one -- will take trade-ins against the price of a larger or more highly graded diamond. There are lots of reasons that it's hard to find secondhand stones; the relative difficulty really depends on what you're looking for.
"Cheap" diamond jewelry is out there, too. 10 karat gold and I3 (at best) stones. Wally World usually carries a bunch of it. ;) That being said, I picked up a .27 ct F-SI1 solitaire for $100 off of an online auction several years ago, but I took a real chance because there wasn't a photo.
As for moissanite? I love it! It has a higher refractive index than diamond, and when properly cut, throws back amazing fire and color. It has about the same hardness as sapphire and ruby; and at about $500 per carat, it's far more affordable than a diamond of similar quality.
There will always be people who just insist on a mined diamond. I'm not one of them, though.
And agreed; I'd love to see lab-grown greens become available. All of the color, none of the guilt, and a +5 tech-geek bonus score.
I haven't seen any synthetic blues yet, but I know that's one of the colors that's being developed, because of the potential uses in optical filters. I'm pretty sure that they'll be available in the next 5 years or so. And when they do, I'm getting one for myself.
Generally speaking, lab-grown crystals of any material used as a gemstone -- most notably the corundum group (sapphires and rubies) -- will have fewer imperfections than mined stones. Both the growth process and the "ingredients" are controlled. There are some trade-offs, though: most lab rubies tend to look pinkish and glassy in comparison to mined rubies, because the growth process is so fast. Lab-grown emeralds usually have too much of a blue tint, and that gives them away. When the only use is in jewelry, appearance is the overriding consideration.
However, that's not the case here. Most lab-created corundum, for instance, isn't used in the jewelry trade. Since it was first "grown" in the late 1800s, various industrial and commercial applications have accounted for most of the production. One example is the "glass" plate over the laser in the grocery barcode scanner: actually made from colorless "sapphire" because it is both harder and tougher than glass. The same goes for lab-created diamonds, which can be used in all kinds of ways. A quick Google search on technological applications turns up a whole mess of hits, and you can see for yourself what one of the manufacturers has to say about potential uses.
The yellow diamonds that are being referred to in this context are not the fancy and sought-after "canary" variety; they're diamonds with certain impurities in the carbon that give them a yellowish or brownish tint, instead of the clear "white" that is deemed so valuable.
Here's a page with a photo about halfway down that will give you an idea. Another page from the same site shows the various grades of colorless-ness.
A true fancy diamond of any color doesn't fall under these grading systems, obviously. The difference in intensity between the muted yellow-brown of a 'Z' color and a true canary-yellow is like the difference between a glowstick and a krypton-bulb flashlight. See here for some examples of blue, canary, pink, and peach diamonds. (No greens, though; and they're my favorite.)
And for the record: Yes, I Am A Jeweler.
If I had mod points right now, you'd get them on a silver platter. This is one the funniest thing I've read all day.
Christie's site always runs more slowly than molasses in a North Dakota winter.
...Which brings me to the annoyance factor. This collection is going to be scattered to the four winds. Looking at some of the pre-auction estimates, no one person, and very few institutions, will have the scratch that it would take to keep the collection together. Taken seperately, each of these items has a historical context, but taken together, they chart the idealistic, scientific, and technological foundations of the Internet.
Auctioning the library off in such a piecemeal fashion just seems wrong, IMNSHO.
Still, he wasn't all that bad looking in those photos. Nerdy, sure, but then we already knew that about him.
Lordy, lordy, though; what unhappy changes time hath wrough.
I'll stick to Wolfenstein. And Conquest. Subjugating the globe; now that's control! ;)
Now, all I want to know is: when can I order one for myself? Not that I have any earthly use for such a device, but it's just too damn cool!
Unfortunately, there are a couple of different things going on, here. First is the judge's inability to see the poverbial forest for the trees. Second is the ability to prove the merits of the case.
The CAN-SPAM Act is one of the most useless pieces of tripe ever to be bulldozed through Congress, and the reason for this is the list of qualifiers that was written in. The "standard of deception" is one of these items. To actually convict someone under this provision in CAN-SPAM, the spammer would have to send out an e-mail promising "Free Screensavers of Puppies, Kitties, and Unicorns!" that actually redirects to the "Girls fscking Giant Horse C*cks eXXXtravaganza!" website. In saying that the charges did not meet the standard, Judge Hellerstein was factually correct.
Smathers did not decieve the AOL members whose information was sold, nor the spammers who purchased it. The AOL members were not told "Oh, don't worry; I wouldn't _think_ of selling your information for to a bunch of sleazebags," and I'm sure that the spammers were under no illusions about the legality of the addresses they purchased. However, what he did commit was fraud. He defrauded the AOL users, and the company, and fraud is most certainly a prosecutable offense. Trying him under the CAN-SPAM statute seems like a really poor legal strategy.
Personally, I'd love to see the existing laws used more forcefully. And I wouldn't go after the spammers, but after the people who hire them. There are already statutes governing things like mortgage banking, mail fraud, practicing medicine without a license, dispending medications without a license... and very few of the existing laws are used to prosecute the companies that give spammers their raison d' etre. Go after the source, and the flood will ebb.
**Yes, I have dealt with them. No, I won't provide details. It was too traumatic. ;)
As someone who knows several people with latex sensitivities varying in intensity from rashes to anaphylactic shock, I applaud any attempts to find an alternative material. (Heck, I even develop contact dermatitis if I wear latex gloves for extended periods.) This is one area in which I think that people would pay at least a little extra for a safer product.