"I don't like carrying around a large number of cards, money and papers," Hayasaki from Tokushima University told Optics.org. "I think that a key application will be personal authentication. Data stored in a fingernail can be used with biometrics, such as fingerprint authentication and intravenous authentication of the finger."
I'd rather a determined thief just took my wallet off of me to get my cards, money and papers.
I don't think many slashdotters really realise the significance of Wien, and so the importance of this move. I don't blame them, Wien is part of the German speaking world, and so the local importance of the city and its habits is really only appreciated by German speakers like myself and not the general readership. Let me just say - this is very significant indeed.
Historically, Wien has always been to the german speaking world what Carthage was to the Greeks - the centre of learning and the export of culture and ideas. Although its importance waned somewhat in the early 20th century, the Cold War and events since has cemented its position as the premier exporter of German business innovation.
So, instead of reading Wien in the summary above, in a few years you can read it as "Germany and Austria". My bet is, such is the influence of Wien, that a successful Linuks experiment will "trickle down" into emulation by a whole host of cities throughout the german speaking world. Linus deserves a pat on the back for his bargaining prowess.
I support basic research and modelling, but this seems all too artificial to have any useful predictive benefits. It's like trying to draw Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi" with only a green crayon, it might look something like what you're trying to simulate, but in all essential aspects it's completely and obviously fake. If they lack the computing power, why aren't they waiting a few years when they can afford to improve upon their resolution, produce something useful?
Sorry, but this reminds me all too much of other unhelpful models that are done "just because we can" rather than because it has some sort of utility, for example early climate change models which were incredibly unhelpful in the long term by making people rightly sceptical, when doomsday predictions didn't materialise. The fact is, this generates pretty pictures, maybe a nice paper in some backwater of journal land, and not much else beyond froth. It shouldn't really be called science, like someone making a work of art out of say, pictures of cells, isn't considered science.
Inevitably, I will be modded down for having a negative view.
Is ESR the fat one with the beard, or the moustachied one with the flute? I wish submitters would remind us in write up - I'm thinking brackets after the name "ESR (moustache / flute)" would help remind us each time. To many TLAs in Open Sauce.
..that the reason is I'm skeptical is just because, well, people are skeptical about it. I thought I was skeptical because I read HardOCP's writeup about what they'll have to do to even break even, and it didn't seem in the least bit likely to me.
I don't know why you geeks have such a downer on Microsoft for writing buggy software. If it didn't, do you have any idea about how many of you would be out of a job? The capitalisation that flows from Microsofts inability to write good operating systems is immeasurable. If it worked first time - would there be any engineers?
It's sort of analogous to cruise liners. Used to be, because ships weren't terribly well made, a clipper had a huge crew of dirty, scurvey suffering swabbers. Nowadays, you have one captain and a big computer. Currently, IT graduates, computer consultants and systems administraters are that huge crew of disease ridden reprobates, serving on the creaking, rotten, old fashioned Microsoft vessel. And all you want is to be out of a job?
I fully appreciate Tom DeLays comments, space exploitation has been on the back burner for too long. In these uncertain times, we would sleep a lot better in our beds if we knew there was a second chance out there somewhere, a genuine, self supporting colony that could reseed the earth in case of unavoidable disaster.
Who better to found this colony than our own elected leaders? As events on september the eleventh showed, no-one is immune to terrorism on our domestic soil, and it would be far better to place our venerated leaders beyond the range of any conventional retaliation. We could always then be sure of leadership from orbit, no matter what happens. By protecting them, we protect ourselves.
And should, despite their best efforts, some cataclysm overtake us all down below, what gentle knights are better suited to repopulate our world than our saintly leaders? Congress, the judiciary, the President are all exceptional individuals who have risen to the top to command a nation of untold millions through sheer talent and moral determination. Repopulation by such giants could only in fact improve the lot of humanities descendents.
Yes, invest in NASA. Yes, load them all on a rocket. Yes, by all means let them lead from above, unseen and unvisited. Let noone say we were too afraid to take the sensible step.
We shall miss them, our leaders, available as they currently are to any stranger in need of a chat or shoulder to cry on, discussion of current policy or challenger of their POV. All that will be lost. No more will I saunter into Cheney's office, will he welcome me with a smile, and gladly spend hours discussing Middle Eastern politics. By this sacrifice, we insure our future.
I look forward with tears in my eyes to the day when they leave this planet. The correct funding of NASA will bring this day closer yet than we can dream.
The article was a poor write up by someone who was probably interviewed over the phone. "Neutrofiles" are probably meant to be Neutrophils, the white blood cells that are part of the innate immune system. It sounds like the scientists used some sort of external growth media to select successful immune cells and reinjected them into the patient? Not sure about the therapy, the article contains no detail.
It reminds me of some random journalists who wrote an article about loch (lake) biology for the Guardian once who did a telephone interview, and embarrassingly wrote "fighter plankton" throughout the article instead of phytoplankton.
You searched for a bunch of words appearing in the text on a page, expecting that page to come up straight away.
Moreover, you searched for a phrase contaminated by other search engines search pages. Altavista has obviously had human intervention to remove these from the consideration of the results, Google hasn't. I could equally find terms where Altavista was corrupted and Google wasn't - WTF does that prove?
Finally, you have to think about what google is interpreting what you want from your search. You wanted a web page containing those words. To get that, google has a mechanism whereby you can search for those words in that context. The way you entered the search terms was phrased as a request for information on "history chocolate romance sharing", as google redacts unnecessary words from your search terms. Google is a contextual search, it searches for pages about the history of chocolate. Does the cadburys page contain a great deal of useful information on the history of chocolate? If so, it will appear higher. It is ranked not by keyword, but by the most useful webpage in the search that google guesses you want. So cadbury's despite possessing all your keywords, might not cut the mustard. So is not ranked at the top.
The difference is not in the ability of google to find the page you want and rank it accordingly. The difference stems from your inadequate understanding of search engines. Google may, or may not be inferior to Altavista. I'd rather fuck a puppy than bother to find out. Your hamfisted attempt to show that it was was pointless and misleading.
And for gods sake, if you're already using google to search, you don't want google appearing when you type in search and click "I'm Feeling Lucky" - its no use at all. I'm not surprised google redacts itself from the search query - I'm surprised it's in there at all.
Big vendors may well presnt themselves as an open source "portal", saying "OK - you want open source; this is our IBM open source product..." but this is only slightly harmful now. I still believe the future development of open source is in the hands of individuals who are relatively uninfluenced by big business interests, focussing instead on the technology, and just making a better product. Plus, the open source community has this ingrained ethic about doing it yourself - the ability to fork at any time on a principled issue acts as a sort of safety valve.
I guess an analogy is two fish swimming in a stream - at the moment the shark of big business is swimming alongside the remora of open source in the same direction, but should things change, both will take their gained advantages from the arrangement and swim away in different directions once more.
However corporations package it, the community is strong to its principles and will not be subverted for capitalism. Contrary to what Villasante says, the open source community does not need to actively work to achieve social change - by its very nature any success it will accrue will do that job for it.
You need quote marks (") if you're searching for a particular phrase. Add the quote marks and your webpage is ranked....#1. Learn to use Google, kthnx.
In contrast to you, yes YOU, the reader, I checked out the site and looked at a few of the articles (about 5). In short - it's alright really. 2 said interesting things, 2 said uninteresting things in a reasonably clear and grammatically sound way, and 1 rapidly showed itself unworthy of further reading, spending the first 3 paragraphs talking about the length between the last update and this one.
But the fact that this is "the best" just shows the poor quality of the usual games blog.
I imagine plants must be incredibly difficult to "declare extinct", after all - how would you show for sure that none are present in a country the size of America? Whilst plants may seem to be local to a specific area because of their preference for a certain type of soil, pH or shade, it doesn't follow that, because the ones you know about are dead, then the plant is extinct. It's too easy to rush to judgement, especially when environmentalists have an interest in declaring loudly how many species are threatened or are already extinct. After reading "A State Of Fear" recently, and whilst I haven't fallen for all of Crichtons selective misrepresentations, I suspect their motivations a bit more than I used to.
As most users of this website must be aware, the original Star Wars was
an influential worldwide film whose impact still resonates now, almost
30 years later. Unfortunately, some of the themes in the original Star
Wars series have, in my opinion, contributed to the mindset of
International terrorism, the cancer we see worldwide today.
That's a controversial statement, so here's some proof. First of all, the side we are supposed to sympathise with were the rebels.
Yes, a group of paramilitaries and other non-combatants who were
fighting against a classical army structure providing order throughout
the galaxy, the Empire. Here's the crux: the rebels never fought the empire in a conventional sense - they knew they would lose. So they went for "soft targets". Does any of this sound familiar??
Let's look at this. The Terrorists/Rebels were repressed by a powerful
enemy. Deprived of the means to fight back conventionallly, the
Terrorists/Rebels were forced into guerilla tactics - concealment,
ambush, and brainwashing (of the innocent small bears). It is the
latter action I find most repugnant, morally. The rebels bribed the
small bears first with food, then by masquerading as a deity figure
encouraged them to attack a local outpost of the Empire. Now, there was
no evidence the Empire had been anything other than a benevolent
overlord to those bears. They were used shamelessly by the so-called
good guys, and no-one raised an eyebrow.
It was the movie "Clerks" which first brought this to my attention. In
it, a character made the remark that the partially constructed so
called "Death-star" must have been full of innocent tradesmen who had
been contracted to work on the military project, their wives, their
children, their favorite grandparents. The deaths of these innocent
civilians was papered over in the film as nothing more than an
impressive explosion. The butcher himself, Skywalker, was portrayed as
some sort of hero.
I have heard some argue that the rebels actions were justified by the
Empires act in blowing up Aldebaran, Leia's home planet. Firstly I
would beg you to remember that history is written by the victors. Did
this peace loving planet Aldebaran even exist, or was it mere PsyOps?
Did the "Deathstar" (actual name: FreedomLoveMoon) destroy anything
larger than an asteroid? We can't tell - the filmmaker takes a biased
treatment of the story from the outset, and the rebels conveniently
destroyed the evidence. No attempt is made to give the Empire the right
to reply to the allegations.
My final point (I have many more but space is limited) is to look at
Skywalkers conversion to the rebel cause. Does anyone else see
something disturbing in the following description?: He goes out to the
DESERT where he meets a religious extremist leader (Kenobi) who fills
his head with ridiculous tales, ARMS and TRAINS him and then sets him
on a veritable SUICIDE MISSION??? Who can honestly justify this?? PULL
THIS FILTH OFF THE SHELVES.
You may never have seen the original movies in this light. But it has
been present in your subconscious, and the cultural subconsciousness of
your elected leaders. Every time they had an opportunity to make a
serious impact into terrorism, it was there, whispering treacherous
thoughts of platitude. The dangerous mindset is so subtle it eluded
notice, but influenced every decision. George Lucas should be hauled in
front of Congress, and then executed. The current global terrorism
emergency can
be traced back to the moral relativism championed by the Star Wars
franchise. He made a quick buck, we got global insecurity. Bastard.
Everyone, it seems, wants a free lunch. To be online and yet use Firefox extensions or third partytoolbars to block advertising content is to be a true parasite in the digital world. Would you go up to a young mother breastfeeding in a playpark and shunt the young one aside to get some valuable free nutrients at others expense? It is a metaphor for exactly how you are using the Internet.
Here are the facts. Serving pages costs money. Creating content costs money. People are utterly untrustworthy when it comes to free donation of cash, even for a resource they might use everyday. The reason why you enjoy the Internet free at the point of use (ignoring the initial outlay for equipment) ie. page serving, is because ADVERTISERS PAY GOOD MONEY TO SUPPORT IT. How would you like paying for everything you look at? I suspect you wouldn't like that in the least.
Your philosophy of ad blocking is morally barren. You are hitching a free ride from the companies you deride so much. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and when the behaviour rot you are incubating spreads to the general populace, when you have to start paying a flat fee per page because of your previous selfishness, not even then will you look back at your behaviour and repent, I suspect even then you will pule like a newborn divested of its favourite toy.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE GOLDEN AGE, AND YOU ARE TEARING IT DOWN WITH YOUR SELFISHNESS.
I bought a Dreamcast once, even though I did what you suggested, because everyone was calling it "poor", "unappealing", "dreadful", "doomed", "woeful" or "horrible".
I applaud the ideas behind setting up these journals, but until scientists really want to be published in them, when their impact factor increases, they won't be successful or well respected within the scientific community. For now, they're going to struggle against the perception that they are a poor quality sort of plan b that you turn to when your paper isn't accepted by more prestigious journals. (Impact factor is a complicated mathematical measurement used by science employers to measure how well their emplyees are doing. It works a bit like Googles page rank the overall score depends on how many other people cite your work in the references at the end of theirs. Obviously, the greater the visibility of the journal, the more people read and the more likely they are to cite it.) Ironically, if journals like PloS are to be a success they really need other scientists reading them, rather than the public.
It's not racism to make fun of someone who thinks they can write documents in a language they aren't fluent in without getting someone fluent (native, preferably) in that language to proofread them.
But is it racist to assume from the off that the documentation from a particular country will be inferior and poorly translated, or that there exists no-one who can adequately create proper documentation in the whole country? I don't have a problem with painting with a broad brush where a company has built up a poor reputation, but when it applies to a whole country of individuals based on nothing more than their appearance or ancestry, that is clearly racism.
If it had been expressed as "LOL, Chinks can't write good engrish!!", as is the basic fact the poster is trying to suggest, you would have no problem declaring it as racist. So how can the basic thesis NOT be racist, merely with a nice and seemingly humorous expression papering over the sentiment??
Anon, grandparent was replicating the same tired old racist meme of "they don't even speak good english" that has been prevalent ever since "all your base" became part of geek folklore.
Why not add in a few "so solly cholly!'s" and "flied lice" comments? After all, they are referring to genuine language problems when ordering goods from the east, too.
Jesus, when will you realise that the popular meme of "engrish" on products has nothing to do with low intelligence, lazy translators or inferior education, understanding and prounciation, and more to do with the fact that english words and phrases are used as style icons rather than rigid grammatical meanings as we use them everyday. Just like a few pictograms are thrown together completely nonsensically on Western products, english words are added to things in the far East as an exotic touch for fashions. It might blow your tiny racist mind to realise it, but there are millions of highly educated and talented guys from "the east" out there, probably better educated and fluent in more languages than you are, writing docs that you completely overlook to focus on only those that conform to your own prejudice. I won't apologise for calling that racist and shame on the mods and shame on Slashdot for promoting your racist post to greater visibility.
letting us define exactly where genetic lineages have gone over evolution
Which is yet another black eye for the Intelligent Design folks. More demonstration of the point that genetic lineages change in describable ways over time, and all organisms currently sampled fit nicely into our overall genetic tree just show what a shallow and unsatisfactory fairytale "Intelligent" design really is.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't like carrying around a large number of cards, money and papers," Hayasaki from Tokushima University told Optics.org. "I think that a key application will be personal authentication. Data stored in a fingernail can be used with biometrics, such as fingerprint authentication and intravenous authentication of the finger."
I'd rather a determined thief just took my wallet off of me to get my cards, money and papers.
Bloated compared to what, exactly?
The article begs the question.
In short - emergent behaviour.
I don't think many slashdotters really realise the significance of Wien, and so the importance of this move. I don't blame them, Wien is part of the German speaking world, and so the local importance of the city and its habits is really only appreciated by German speakers like myself and not the general readership. Let me just say - this is very significant indeed.
Historically, Wien has always been to the german speaking world what Carthage was to the Greeks - the centre of learning and the export of culture and ideas. Although its importance waned somewhat in the early 20th century, the Cold War and events since has cemented its position as the premier exporter of German business innovation.
So, instead of reading Wien in the summary above, in a few years you can read it as "Germany and Austria". My bet is, such is the influence of Wien, that a successful Linuks experiment will "trickle down" into emulation by a whole host of cities throughout the german speaking world. Linus deserves a pat on the back for his bargaining prowess.
I support basic research and modelling, but this seems all too artificial to have any useful predictive benefits. It's like trying to draw Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi" with only a green crayon, it might look something like what you're trying to simulate, but in all essential aspects it's completely and obviously fake. If they lack the computing power, why aren't they waiting a few years when they can afford to improve upon their resolution, produce something useful?
Sorry, but this reminds me all too much of other unhelpful models that are done "just because we can" rather than because it has some sort of utility, for example early climate change models which were incredibly unhelpful in the long term by making people rightly sceptical, when doomsday predictions didn't materialise. The fact is, this generates pretty pictures, maybe a nice paper in some backwater of journal land, and not much else beyond froth. It shouldn't really be called science, like someone making a work of art out of say, pictures of cells, isn't considered science.
Inevitably, I will be modded down for having a negative view.
Is ESR the fat one with the beard, or the moustachied one with the flute? I wish submitters would remind us in write up - I'm thinking brackets after the name "ESR (moustache / flute)" would help remind us each time. To many TLAs in Open Sauce.
..that the reason is I'm skeptical is just because, well, people are skeptical about it. I thought I was skeptical because I read HardOCP's writeup about what they'll have to do to even break even, and it didn't seem in the least bit likely to me.
because it's your job?
I don't know why you geeks have such a downer on Microsoft for writing buggy software. If it didn't, do you have any idea about how many of you would be out of a job? The capitalisation that flows from Microsofts inability to write good operating systems is immeasurable. If it worked first time - would there be any engineers?
It's sort of analogous to cruise liners. Used to be, because ships weren't terribly well made, a clipper had a huge crew of dirty, scurvey suffering swabbers. Nowadays, you have one captain and a big computer. Currently, IT graduates, computer consultants and systems administraters are that huge crew of disease ridden reprobates, serving on the creaking, rotten, old fashioned Microsoft vessel. And all you want is to be out of a job?
Where's the logic in that??
I fully appreciate Tom DeLays comments, space exploitation has been on the back burner for too long. In these uncertain times, we would sleep a lot better in our beds if we knew there was a second chance out there somewhere, a genuine, self supporting colony that could reseed the earth in case of unavoidable disaster.
Who better to found this colony than our own elected leaders? As events on september the eleventh showed, no-one is immune to terrorism on our domestic soil, and it would be far better to place our venerated leaders beyond the range of any conventional retaliation. We could always then be sure of leadership from orbit, no matter what happens. By protecting them, we protect ourselves.
And should, despite their best efforts, some cataclysm overtake us all down below, what gentle knights are better suited to repopulate our world than our saintly leaders? Congress, the judiciary, the President are all exceptional individuals who have risen to the top to command a nation of untold millions through sheer talent and moral determination. Repopulation by such giants could only in fact improve the lot of humanities descendents.
Yes, invest in NASA. Yes, load them all on a rocket. Yes, by all means let them lead from above, unseen and unvisited. Let noone say we were too afraid to take the sensible step.
We shall miss them, our leaders, available as they currently are to any stranger in need of a chat or shoulder to cry on, discussion of current policy or challenger of their POV. All that will be lost. No more will I saunter into Cheney's office, will he welcome me with a smile, and gladly spend hours discussing Middle Eastern politics. By this sacrifice, we insure our future.
I look forward with tears in my eyes to the day when they leave this planet. The correct funding of NASA will bring this day closer yet than we can dream.
The article was a poor write up by someone who was probably interviewed over the phone. "Neutrofiles" are probably meant to be Neutrophils, the white blood cells that are part of the innate immune system. It sounds like the scientists used some sort of external growth media to select successful immune cells and reinjected them into the patient? Not sure about the therapy, the article contains no detail.
It reminds me of some random journalists who wrote an article about loch (lake) biology for the Guardian once who did a telephone interview, and embarrassingly wrote "fighter plankton" throughout the article instead of phytoplankton.
You searched for a bunch of words appearing in the text on a page, expecting that page to come up straight away.
Moreover, you searched for a phrase contaminated by other search engines search pages. Altavista has obviously had human intervention to remove these from the consideration of the results, Google hasn't. I could equally find terms where Altavista was corrupted and Google wasn't - WTF does that prove?
Finally, you have to think about what google is interpreting what you want from your search. You wanted a web page containing those words. To get that, google has a mechanism whereby you can search for those words in that context. The way you entered the search terms was phrased as a request for information on "history chocolate romance sharing", as google redacts unnecessary words from your search terms. Google is a contextual search, it searches for pages about the history of chocolate. Does the cadburys page contain a great deal of useful information on the history of chocolate? If so, it will appear higher. It is ranked not by keyword, but by the most useful webpage in the search that google guesses you want. So cadbury's despite possessing all your keywords, might not cut the mustard. So is not ranked at the top.
The difference is not in the ability of google to find the page you want and rank it accordingly. The difference stems from your inadequate understanding of search engines. Google may, or may not be inferior to Altavista. I'd rather fuck a puppy than bother to find out. Your hamfisted attempt to show that it was was pointless and misleading.
And for gods sake, if you're already using google to search, you don't want google appearing when you type in search and click "I'm Feeling Lucky" - its no use at all. I'm not surprised google redacts itself from the search query - I'm surprised it's in there at all.
Big vendors may well presnt themselves as an open source "portal", saying "OK - you want open source; this is our IBM open source product..." but this is only slightly harmful now. I still believe the future development of open source is in the hands of individuals who are relatively uninfluenced by big business interests, focussing instead on the technology, and just making a better product. Plus, the open source community has this ingrained ethic about doing it yourself - the ability to fork at any time on a principled issue acts as a sort of safety valve.
I guess an analogy is two fish swimming in a stream - at the moment the shark of big business is swimming alongside the remora of open source in the same direction, but should things change, both will take their gained advantages from the arrangement and swim away in different directions once more.
However corporations package it, the community is strong to its principles and will not be subverted for capitalism. Contrary to what Villasante says, the open source community does not need to actively work to achieve social change - by its very nature any success it will accrue will do that job for it.
You need quote marks (") if you're searching for a particular phrase. Add the quote marks and your webpage is ranked....#1. Learn to use Google, kthnx.
In contrast to you, yes YOU, the reader, I checked out the site and looked at a few of the articles (about 5). In short - it's alright really. 2 said interesting things, 2 said uninteresting things in a reasonably clear and grammatically sound way, and 1 rapidly showed itself unworthy of further reading, spending the first 3 paragraphs talking about the length between the last update and this one.
But the fact that this is "the best" just shows the poor quality of the usual games blog.
I imagine plants must be incredibly difficult to "declare extinct", after all - how would you show for sure that none are present in a country the size of America? Whilst plants may seem to be local to a specific area because of their preference for a certain type of soil, pH or shade, it doesn't follow that, because the ones you know about are dead, then the plant is extinct. It's too easy to rush to judgement, especially when environmentalists have an interest in declaring loudly how many species are threatened or are already extinct. After reading "A State Of Fear" recently, and whilst I haven't fallen for all of Crichtons selective misrepresentations, I suspect their motivations a bit more than I used to.
F-E-A-T-U-R-E!
kbpkmnv kbpkm nvkbp kmnvkbpkmnv kbpkmnvkbpk mnvkbpkmn vkbpkmn vkbpkmnvk bpkmnvkb pkmnvkbpkmnv
As most users of this website must be aware, the original Star Wars was an influential worldwide film whose impact still resonates now, almost 30 years later. Unfortunately, some of the themes in the original Star Wars series have, in my opinion, contributed to the mindset of International terrorism, the cancer we see worldwide today.
That's a controversial statement, so here's some proof. First of all, the side we are supposed to sympathise with were the rebels. Yes, a group of paramilitaries and other non-combatants who were fighting against a classical army structure providing order throughout the galaxy, the Empire. Here's the crux: the rebels never fought the empire in a conventional sense - they knew they would lose. So they went for "soft targets". Does any of this sound familiar??
Let's look at this. The Terrorists/Rebels were repressed by a powerful enemy. Deprived of the means to fight back conventionallly, the Terrorists/Rebels were forced into guerilla tactics - concealment, ambush, and brainwashing (of the innocent small bears). It is the latter action I find most repugnant, morally. The rebels bribed the small bears first with food, then by masquerading as a deity figure encouraged them to attack a local outpost of the Empire. Now, there was no evidence the Empire had been anything other than a benevolent overlord to those bears. They were used shamelessly by the so-called good guys, and no-one raised an eyebrow.
It was the movie "Clerks" which first brought this to my attention. In it, a character made the remark that the partially constructed so called "Death-star" must have been full of innocent tradesmen who had been contracted to work on the military project, their wives, their children, their favorite grandparents. The deaths of these innocent civilians was papered over in the film as nothing more than an impressive explosion. The butcher himself, Skywalker, was portrayed as some sort of hero.
I have heard some argue that the rebels actions were justified by the Empires act in blowing up Aldebaran, Leia's home planet. Firstly I would beg you to remember that history is written by the victors. Did this peace loving planet Aldebaran even exist, or was it mere PsyOps? Did the "Deathstar" (actual name: FreedomLoveMoon) destroy anything larger than an asteroid? We can't tell - the filmmaker takes a biased treatment of the story from the outset, and the rebels conveniently destroyed the evidence. No attempt is made to give the Empire the right to reply to the allegations.
My final point (I have many more but space is limited) is to look at Skywalkers conversion to the rebel cause. Does anyone else see something disturbing in the following description?: He goes out to the DESERT where he meets a religious extremist leader (Kenobi) who fills his head with ridiculous tales, ARMS and TRAINS him and then sets him on a veritable SUICIDE MISSION??? Who can honestly justify this?? PULL THIS FILTH OFF THE SHELVES.
You may never have seen the original movies in this light. But it has been present in your subconscious, and the cultural subconsciousness of your elected leaders. Every time they had an opportunity to make a serious impact into terrorism, it was there, whispering treacherous thoughts of platitude. The dangerous mindset is so subtle it eluded notice, but influenced every decision. George Lucas should be hauled in front of Congress, and then executed. The current global terrorism emergency can be traced back to the moral relativism championed by the Star Wars franchise. He made a quick buck, we got global insecurity. Bastard.
Is it true that Annakin Skywalker dies at the end? Someone told me this and it's just ruined the movie for me.
Everyone, it seems, wants a free lunch. To be online and yet use Firefox extensions or third party toolbars to block advertising content is to be a true parasite in the digital world. Would you go up to a young mother breastfeeding in a playpark and shunt the young one aside to get some valuable free nutrients at others expense? It is a metaphor for exactly how you are using the Internet.
Here are the facts. Serving pages costs money. Creating content costs money. People are utterly untrustworthy when it comes to free donation of cash, even for a resource they might use everyday. The reason why you enjoy the Internet free at the point of use (ignoring the initial outlay for equipment) ie. page serving, is because ADVERTISERS PAY GOOD MONEY TO SUPPORT IT. How would you like paying for everything you look at? I suspect you wouldn't like that in the least.
Your philosophy of ad blocking is morally barren. You are hitching a free ride from the companies you deride so much. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and when the behaviour rot you are incubating spreads to the general populace, when you have to start paying a flat fee per page because of your previous selfishness, not even then will you look back at your behaviour and repent, I suspect even then you will pule like a newborn divested of its favourite toy.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE GOLDEN AGE, AND YOU ARE TEARING IT DOWN WITH YOUR SELFISHNESS.
I bought a Dreamcast once, even though I did what you suggested, because everyone was calling it "poor", "unappealing", "dreadful", "doomed", "woeful" or "horrible".
I applaud the ideas behind setting up these journals, but until scientists really want to be published in them, when their impact factor increases, they won't be successful or well respected within the scientific community. For now, they're going to struggle against the perception that they are a poor quality sort of plan b that you turn to when your paper isn't accepted by more prestigious journals. (Impact factor is a complicated mathematical measurement used by science employers to measure how well their emplyees are doing. It works a bit like Googles page rank the overall score depends on how many other people cite your work in the references at the end of theirs. Obviously, the greater the visibility of the journal, the more people read and the more likely they are to cite it.) Ironically, if journals like PloS are to be a success they really need other scientists reading them, rather than the public.
It's not racism to make fun of someone who thinks they can write documents in a language they aren't fluent in without getting someone fluent (native, preferably) in that language to proofread them.
But is it racist to assume from the off that the documentation from a particular country will be inferior and poorly translated, or that there exists no-one who can adequately create proper documentation in the whole country? I don't have a problem with painting with a broad brush where a company has built up a poor reputation, but when it applies to a whole country of individuals based on nothing more than their appearance or ancestry, that is clearly racism.
If it had been expressed as "LOL, Chinks can't write good engrish!!", as is the basic fact the poster is trying to suggest, you would have no problem declaring it as racist. So how can the basic thesis NOT be racist, merely with a nice and seemingly humorous expression papering over the sentiment??
Anon, grandparent was replicating the same tired old racist meme of "they don't even speak good english" that has been prevalent ever since "all your base" became part of geek folklore.
Why not add in a few "so solly cholly!'s" and "flied lice" comments? After all, they are referring to genuine language problems when ordering goods from the east, too.
Jesus, when will you realise that the popular meme of "engrish" on products has nothing to do with low intelligence, lazy translators or inferior education, understanding and prounciation, and more to do with the fact that english words and phrases are used as style icons rather than rigid grammatical meanings as we use them everyday. Just like a few pictograms are thrown together completely nonsensically on Western products, english words are added to things in the far East as an exotic touch for fashions. It might blow your tiny racist mind to realise it, but there are millions of highly educated and talented guys from "the east" out there, probably better educated and fluent in more languages than you are, writing docs that you completely overlook to focus on only those that conform to your own prejudice. I won't apologise for calling that racist and shame on the mods and shame on Slashdot for promoting your racist post to greater visibility.
+5 funnay indeed.
letting us define exactly where genetic lineages have gone over evolution
Which is yet another black eye for the Intelligent Design folks. More demonstration of the point that genetic lineages change in describable ways over time, and all organisms currently sampled fit nicely into our overall genetic tree just show what a shallow and unsatisfactory fairytale "Intelligent" design really is.