Symantec seems to have the same opinion - note how they say in the article to use a very specific version of Ghost? Obviously, the bug has been patched.
Actually, depending on where the cable is separated, not much of it may come crashing down. After all, it is held upright by centrifugal forces.
So, if someone cuts the cable near the ground, it will simply float away. If it gets cut at 300 km, well, then it's just 300 km of cable going down. Not that big a deal either. The by far longer part will remain in orbit.
Yeah, and of course the CIA, being the honest and independent source of information that it is, would tell you that this "democratic tradition" is a bit shaky right now...
Apollo wasn't as expensive as you might think. According to this NASA page, total funding for the Apollo program was less than 20 billion dollars (which would equal about 100 billion of today's dollars).
In contrast to that, last year's US GDP was about USD 10 trillion. It's just a matter of will - the state's administration doesn't really have an interest in space exploration.
...who will remain 0wn3d by IE until Something Really Great comes with Mozilla.
Like what, instant sex? If enhanced security, enhanced usability, enhanced functionality and enhanced extensibility really don't outweigh the exhausting and complicated process of downloading and double-clicking one installer, well, I guess then the "unwashed masses" don't deserve a better browser than MSIE.
I just feel sorry for the web-design crowd who have to put up with all the "competing and instrumentalized browser" shit.
Why the heck is everyone picking on the Final Fantasy Movie? I think it's great, and I'm usually a discerning person when it comes to movies.
Okay, some of the characters were a little cliché, but few enough movies are not guilty of that. And sure, it's not as if that type of story had never been done before, but that doesn't make it a bad story. I think it was wonderfully reminiscent of FF7.
However, what's most important: Final Fantasy had atmosphere. Lots of it. For me, it's one of those movies that grabs you by the collar and pulls you in - deep - to not let you go until the ending credits have long rolled past. And for me, that's a sure sign that you've seen a great movie. And despite the slightly clumsy animation and facial expressions, I was able to sympathize with the characters - they sure were real enough for me.
It's a damn shame that Square Pictures didn't start producing sequels - they were just getting good at doing what they were doing. Subsequent movies could have been produced at a fraction of the cost of FF, with all the hardware, software and researched knowledge already in place.
It will be years until computer animation of that quality level will hit the big screen again.
On the other hand, none of the Pixar flicks have really convinced me. Annoying characters, stupid slapstick comedy and bland "recipe" storys. It may be ok for kids, but I just can't stand the saccharine commercial ubercuteness, the cookie-cutter characters and the omnipresent political correctness in those features.
Some of the competition's productions were good, though: Antz was far superior to its Pixar counterpart, and Shrek would have to be a strong competitor for the "best cgi movie to date".
Let's hope that the genre flourishes, and that Square Pictures is revived some day...
but if the guy isn't there, it's ok to make that kind of joke?
If he's not there, no one's feelings get hurt. The other recipient's emotional states may benefit due to the aforementioned cathartic effect. If the joker has no personal moral problems with telling the joke, why deny him the pleasure of it?
Technically, the error in "Wir fahren mit die Bahn!" in in casus, not in genus, which the above post was about. You're right though, it does cause pain to the ears.
Besides, who else gets to define a language if not the majority of the speakers? I really dislike the widespread dumbing-down of the language, but that doesn't make me right.
Funny that you should mention this. I've always thought that "Megapixel" is a rather useless and redundant marketing term, the sort of technobabble we don't really need. Why don't they simply say what maximum resolution this camera's CCD is really capable of (640*480? 1600*1200 pixels?) instead of throwing some megapixel number? Before you start shooting photos, you'll want to look up the resolution anyway, so why add in another step of confusion?
Sorry, but IMHO that's a silly and dangerous idea. For example, look at number theory and cryptology. I'm pretty sure that you can't easily sketch the concepts of the RSA algorithm on a paper napkin, but would you really discard the idea as "too complex and not worth explaining"?
If we said "ah no, that's too complex - let's not pursue that idea" at the slightest obstacle, I'm sure that we wouldn't have consumer electronics, advanced medical treatments or publicly available long-range transportation, just to name a few.
Slashdot Mirror
Symantec seems to have the same opinion - note how they say in the article to use a very specific version of Ghost? Obviously, the bug has been patched.
Actually, depending on where the cable is separated, not much of it may come crashing down. After all, it is held upright by centrifugal forces.
So, if someone cuts the cable near the ground, it will simply float away. If it gets cut at 300 km, well, then it's just 300 km of cable going down. Not that big a deal either. The by far longer part will remain in orbit.
Yeah, and of course the CIA, being the honest and independent source of information that it is, would tell you that this "democratic tradition" is a bit shaky right now...
Apollo wasn't as expensive as you might think. According to this NASA page, total funding for the Apollo program was less than 20 billion dollars (which would equal about 100 billion of today's dollars).
In contrast to that, last year's US GDP was about USD 10 trillion. It's just a matter of will - the state's administration doesn't really have an interest in space exploration.
I just feel sorry for the web-design crowd who have to put up with all the "competing and instrumentalized browser" shit.
Why the heck is everyone picking on the Final Fantasy Movie? I think it's great, and I'm usually a discerning person when it comes to movies.
Okay, some of the characters were a little cliché, but few enough movies are not guilty of that. And sure, it's not as if that type of story had never been done before, but that doesn't make it a bad story. I think it was wonderfully reminiscent of FF7.
However, what's most important: Final Fantasy had atmosphere. Lots of it. For me, it's one of those movies that grabs you by the collar and pulls you in - deep - to not let you go until the ending credits have long rolled past. And for me, that's a sure sign that you've seen a great movie. And despite the slightly clumsy animation and facial expressions, I was able to sympathize with the characters - they sure were real enough for me.
It's a damn shame that Square Pictures didn't start producing sequels - they were just getting good at doing what they were doing. Subsequent movies could have been produced at a fraction of the cost of FF, with all the hardware, software and researched knowledge already in place.
It will be years until computer animation of that quality level will hit the big screen again.
On the other hand, none of the Pixar flicks have really convinced me. Annoying characters, stupid slapstick comedy and bland "recipe" storys. It may be ok for kids, but I just can't stand the saccharine commercial ubercuteness, the cookie-cutter characters and the omnipresent political correctness in those features.
Some of the competition's productions were good, though: Antz was far superior to its Pixar counterpart, and Shrek would have to be a strong competitor for the "best cgi movie to date".
Let's hope that the genre flourishes, and that Square Pictures is revived some day...
Technically, the error in "Wir fahren mit die Bahn!" in in casus, not in genus, which the above post was about. You're right though, it does cause pain to the ears.
Besides, who else gets to define a language if not the majority of the speakers? I really dislike the widespread dumbing-down of the language, but that doesn't make me right.
You mean more than the english where "the" stands for anything? :)
Sorry, but IMHO that's a silly and dangerous idea. For example, look at number theory and cryptology. I'm pretty sure that you can't easily sketch the concepts of the RSA algorithm on a paper napkin, but would you really discard the idea as "too complex and not worth explaining"?
If we said "ah no, that's too complex - let's not pursue that idea" at the slightest obstacle, I'm sure that we wouldn't have consumer electronics, advanced medical treatments or publicly available long-range transportation, just to name a few.
Actually, as a native german speaker, I can testify that the grammatical gender of "Megabyte" is neutral, hence "dasmegabyte" is perfectly correct.
I'm not exactly sure what the Duden (the authority on german syntax) says about it, but at least the vast majority of speakers use it this way.
"Hell, for all I know, you could engineer them so that males could only survive in very salty water, and females in fresh."
Oh my... the poor creatures will start to get interested in technology and start posting at Slashdot...