I recently spent a considerable sum on a number of games I'd wanted to own for quite a while. I got into an arguement with my girlfriend about the money, and I pointed out to her that 30 pounds worth of game was likely to entertain me for about 30 hours or more, whereas a 10 pound DVD would work for about an hour and a half.
One of the major drawbacks of having games companies behave more like movie film makers is that these games are going to start reducing in play time. Just as films are manufactured to be watchable in an hour and a half, it makes more economic sense for the staff working on a game to cut back when the time to play reaches 20 hours or so, and start working on something else. At the moment, its an artists work with some of these games - the game is finished when the story is finished, never mind financial considerations.
It isn't irrational of the Britons at all. Millions of Americans and others visit Britain just to catch a glimpse of a bunch of toffs in their palace, offsetting the horrendous expense of having them with tourist revenue. Really the whole thing is just a sham - everyone in Britain knows this. The real royal family died in 1943 during a bomb raid and a family of actors were employed to take their place. The actor who plays Charles is simply brilliant. We're all just waiting for the Aussies to finally work it out.
Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.
The first leads down the road to chaos, as every splintered faction appears quite literally from the woodwork, holding their hand out for tax dollars to advertise their presence and garner votes. With the constitution being what it is, this is a dangerous charter for extremists, as a white supremist organisation (for example) would be just as eligible for public funds as a major political party, and one can only assume, would use those funds to push their hateful agenda. I can see Californica, in particular, as the worst hit by this sort of proposal, as it has more than its fair share of cults, drawn by the bright sunlight and fine oranges.
Yet happily another option exists to go back to the glory days of rule by disinterested self-abasing, self sacrificing people like Mother Theresa. Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession. Just a thought.
To take advantage of the exchange rate, you would need to buy two printers, one US for when US cartridges are cheap, and one EU for when EU cartridges are cheap. And you'd have to buy a lot of cartridges to make that economical.
Maybe that's the answer. Everyone stockpile while the dollars down!
Companies support globalisation only when it lines their pockets. Should the consumer suddenly start to benefit, they start these protective methods to restrict the free trade they were so keen to embrace when it meant sending manufacturing facilities to slave worker countries. It isn't any great surprise to be honest. I no longer have any expectations of companies behaving unlike robber barons and highwaymen.
Fox's response to criticism was not to pass the whole incident off as a joke
Yes, it was. Stop lying. I even provided Fox's quote precisely to that effect.
And what was your quote? "The Fox apology read, in part, "The item was based on a reporter's partial script" My emphasis.
Uh, Pudge, by your own words you see the distinction. I thought I made it obvious enough the first time I wrote it. Ok let's try this one more time. MY POINT IS THAT FOX'S RESPONSE TO CRITICISMWAS NOT JUST TO SAY IT WAS JOKE. THERE WERE OTHER PARTS TO IT TOO!!!!11
Next you defensively quote various parts of my further explanation, when I was trying to make the distinction as crystal as possible as if I am accusing you of saying those things. This is an accusation in itself, an implied criticism that I am putting words in your mouth. Let's look at what came out of your mouth earlier: Me: Cameron did it as just "an offhanded joke"!
Pudge: Yes. No clear-thinking person could possibly believe otherwise.
I have lambasted you for passing off the whole incident as just some sort of joke, and that is exactly what you were doing! Go back and read what you have actually written! Again and again I have explained away any supposed "lies" on my part by pointing to the fault in your own interpretation, and even when I do so you ignore the evidence, don't even deal with it or argue it, just staunchly accuse me of lying!!
I find myself in the position of trying to correct your own flawed and illogical posts to enable me to present some sort of response to them, which is amply illustrated with this, did you even go back and reread it, this is basic english comprehension: Me: I think you meant to say "No." at the end of that line.
Pudge: No.
in relation to: Me: you would have no problem with that?
Pudge: If it was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for? Yes. Yes you would have *no problem* with CNN making up a story if it "was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for"? I can't argue with this, you don't even seem to know what you are saying.
Why you think "passing it off as a joke" is the same as "saying only that it was a joke, and not also a mistake" is beyond me.
Maybe it is beyond you, but it seems basic sentence construction is beyond you so we won't worry about that concern. Nice strawman though. To begin with you said the Fox story was a joke that they immediately apologised for. To me that is "passing it off as a joke". Because I believe it is more serious than that. The clue was the fact I said so! Passing it off as a joke is to belittle the event, obviously. And to belittle the event IS to suggest the mistake was a small one and unworthy of consideration.
Al Franken
Who?
You're a proven liar.
I'm not sure what I've done to offend you, other than giving as good as I got. You can repeat that I am a liar until you are blue in the face but if you look back over what has written, and think about what I am trying to say, I am sure you will eventually get the point. Goodbye.
Again, you're lying. The Fox apology read, in part, "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast."
If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, you'll need more than out of context quotes to prove it. My above line is in relation to Fox's excuses for the piece. If you quote it in full, "They didn't try to say it was just a joke, c'mon guys lighten up! like you are." any "lie" is resolved. To make it clear, my point is: Fox's response to criticism was not to pass the whole incident off as a joke, as you are doing. If you still don't get it, they never said "We meant the piece to be a satire, stop complaining". They said: It was a mistake. It was because the reporter was tired. It was a script that found its way onto our site as news. In other words, though they mention the article was written in jest, their response was not just to simply say that! That is the distinction you missed in your joyful rush to brand me a liar again.
As I have made abundantly clear, the only problem I have with your point of view is your attitude that saying something was "just a joke" is an adequate excuse in this case.
"As proven here by your belief that it was posted intentionally, you are far more gullible and less clueless than they are" ?? Needs translation, this makes no sense to me ?? I am more gullible for believing it was a very convenient mistake? I am less clueless, therefore better informed? Did you mean "more clueless"?
Also your line "If it was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for? Yes." does not parse. I think you meant to say "No." at the end of that line.
Anyway, it seems that this discussion is going nowhere.I do not agree with your view of the matter at all.
"Race" has no biologically defined meaning, which is why you won't find it in any proper textbook. At the genetic level, there are no obvious genetic subtypes which define strongly a particular race, or allow someone to predict which "race" a particular genotype is. This is in contrast to gender, where women and men have very obvious and strong genetic differences.
Some races can appear to have a particular identifiable genetic type based on their geographical location. For instance, sickle cell anaemia is caused by a mutation in haemoglobin and is found predominantly in Africa. This is based not on some inherited race trait, but from the fact that the trait confers advantage in malarial areas.
An offhanded joke on a major news site? I see them, but to my mind they're clearly marked. And you have rather sidestepped the issue, Pudge. Does calling it an "offhanded joke" means that its OK? So if for example, some senior news correspondant on CNN for instance made up some quotes by Bush about, say, something ridiculous like God told him to invade Iraq, and ran the story as a news item, you would have no problem with that? And is it coincidental that the portrayal of Kerry exactly ties in with how Bush et al. were trying to smear Kerry at the time as girlish and weak?
I have read the item, yes. And to me, and probably to you, it was laughably obvious. But then, I am not a typical reader of the Fox News website. I suspect the way I and a typical reader would have interpreted the story would be somewhat different, don't you agree? And besides, how is it lying to say the story passes off without any clear indication it is false. Is it under a humour byline? It is marked as a parody? No. You can argue that its inherent ridiculousness marks it out, but I feel you are on shaky ground.
And how did Fox respond to the story breaking? They realised they had stepped over the line, retracted it, apologised and claimed to have reprimanded their reporter. They didn't try to say it was just a joke, c'mon guys lighten up! like you are.
I suppose in a strange way you are insulting the Fox news network. Your expectations of them are so low, you don't even think it's an issue when they fabricate news and give it top billing on their website.
I guess I have to say in the end that either you are deliberately being obtuse, being hopelessly biased, or a lousy journalist. Which is it?
How wonderful! Cameron did it as just "an offhanded joke"! A senior news correspondant passes off a story without any clear indication it is false, but it's just a joke, get over it. Moreover, a story which is specifically designed to reach into middle America and press those levers which will make Kerry out to be laughable, to stereotype him in the eyes of the electorate.
And if they apologise for making up news, then that's OK, you don't even have to punish them! What a wacky world of news we live in nowadays!
Your "default settings" printed characters with the same minute typographical flaws consistent with an actual physical key pressed against paper, i.e. all the "t"s slightly malformed in exactly the same way, and also with letters printed slightly above or below the line rather than perfectly vertically adjusted to the line? I'm sorry, that is just bullshit. All that shows is that "your eye" is not as good as an experts eye.
And please reference your claim "even experienced typographic experts who are Democrats and Kerry supports have analyzed it to death and concluded they were obvious fakes made in Word."
All a Word experiment shows is that a modern word processor can be set up to reproduce almost any style of letter if it has the correct fonts etc. It does not logically illuminate *at all* whether these documents are false or not, or I can prove any typewritten document for the last 50 years is fake because WOW! I can reproduce it in Microsoft Word!!
How about this: some of the documents were an insanely bad forgery. Humorously bad. They were easily recreated in Microsoft Word with the default settings. No settings need to be changed - the default margins, tab-stops, and font all matched up perfectly. Pixel-perfectly.
Read this and this and summarise just HOW exactly that the documents could be created in Microsoft Word is relevant. Also, you are completely wrong about "default settings" as anyone with a cursory knowledge of the debate would know.
CBS's mistake was in insisting the documents were primary sources, when they weren't. It still isn't clear whether the documents are forgeries or genuine, CBS just could not prove they were genuine, nor did they go through appropriate steps to find this out, this is why they are being punished.
Nothing Fox News has done has come anywhere near this
He bought the tracks. He owns the music. Is it OK to make your consumers jump through any arbitrary series of hoops you like, as long as you can eventually circumvent the Apple format issues?
I see this as analogous to Windows Activation, where the customer is treated from the off as a de facto pirate, and forced to go through a laborious process to use software they've already paid for. That's also why I've also supported Playfair with donations. I tried to find a URL for PlayFair, but it's been taken down from sarovar as well due to legal threats.
And you assume it is easy for everyone to just "make a CD". Most users would have great trouble even with this simple task. It isn't at all obvious to Aunt Tillie like my uncle what formats are, how they are different, or even how to solve a problem like that.
I think when Linus retires, then they'll HAVE to get an American in to do the job, because of market forces. I know for a fact that because it is said (by certain Redmond backed PR astrotrufers) that Linucks is run by a "foreign national", the influential in government procurement circles are NOT INTERESTED in Linucks. These are major players and major markets Linucks is missing out on.
We need an American, Wall-Street savvy maintainer. He doesn't even need to be a hugely good coder, after all Linus isn't either.
Linux versus windows in the workplace will not be decided by showing them a spreadsheet of fiddled figures. This test is hardly a good way to test security, its an interesting sideshow, no more.
The message isn't Linux > Windows, it's that not keeping up to date with your patches is dangerous, and Linux is less of a target than Windows at the moment. By the submitters criterion, you would be recommending Apple to your PHB, not Linux, as an unpatched box wasn't even hit with any OS specific exploits!
Another desperately bad spin on an otherwise mildly interesting article.
Re:"Could this be it?" NO.
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
CCR5 strains predominate since they can pass the vaginal/penile mucousal membrane to infect the individual. X4 corecepter using HIV strains are not as good at this. X4 types of HIV become plentiful in the end stage of human HIV infection, when their immune system is near total collapse.
CCR5 knockouts do survive, but it is a signalling molecule the body needs so knocking it out of healthy individuals 1)would not necessarily protect them from HIV and 2)may harm their health in as yet unforeseen ways.
Sweden is in the EU, in the second tier of countries who aren't as closely involved in the process as say Germany or France, but who are signatories to treaties involving EU jurisdiction over nation's laws. at least I think so, please correct me if I'm wrong.
At the moment places like piratesbay in europe are protected, but will this be the case forever? Recent attempts to make europes copyright laws more in line with America's seem to have stalled (with Poland doing the good deed last time I heard about it), but I'm not confident this will be the case forever.
In this case, will EU legislation take precedence over Swedish law, meaning these type of sites will face lawsuits in their own countries?
I could be wrong, but it gets a little less certain.
I imagine the copyright holders will go after the people who index bittorrent seeds, rather than the people involved in the filesharing, for facilitating the crime. If they hit these people, BitTorrent will become less popular as it becomes increasingly difficult to find what you want. It probably won't even matter if this is dubious, legally, just look at the RIAA's actions. A few C&D letters will cool off most people who have neither the money or inclination to fight a protracted court battle.
What about all the poor suckers who bought the expansion with their own hard cash originally? What recompense are they going to get? Is this what MMORPG's are going to do now, release expansions, get a few suckers to give them money, then just release it for free anyway later on?
The sodium borate is being used somewhat like an enzyme, in that it facilitates a reaction but remains ultimately unchanged. It can be reconverted back into sodium borohydrate. So a fuel cell of this type doesn't need any extra sodium borate once created. And thankfully doesn't make any sodium hydroxide, which is a pretty nasty chemical.
Anyway, fuel cells will make cities better places by removing gasoline fumes, but when you consider they have to use conventional power sources ie nuclear/coal/natural gas/oil power to ultimately charge, their environmental credentials don't look so great. Still, it could make a great difference to the pleasantness of city life; I've noticed an afternoon in London gives me black bogies all day.
OK, good points. The two modern creatures I would compare them to are the hyena and the rhinoceros. Rhinoceroses are largely ignored by hyenas, as Ankylosaurus was (probably) largely ignored by T Rex.
OK, the comparison isn't perfect, but its the best I could think of. Hyena's aren't the greatest comparator either; they tend to hunt in packs whereas T Rex was thought to be a solitary hunter, so would certainly kill more prey than scavenge from other killers.
Man, that movie's science sucked. The whole move from DNA to organism, using amphibious DNA allows gender swapping dinosaurs...still, it was entertaining. Perhaps I'm biased because I have it to blame for several sleepless nights, being chased by raptors/T Rex is no fun at all, scavenger or not.
Heh, char limit prevented me from making it like this: Recursion. I was just mucking about. It would be a ironic Googlebomb though, to put another search website in there. (nice site about them here)
Material that is available for legal distribution is just too boring to attract subscribers, at least currently. (Musically that is, so Project Goethenberg aside)
Slashdot Mirror
I recently spent a considerable sum on a number of games I'd wanted to own for quite a while. I got into an arguement with my girlfriend about the money, and I pointed out to her that 30 pounds worth of game was likely to entertain me for about 30 hours or more, whereas a 10 pound DVD would work for about an hour and a half.
One of the major drawbacks of having games companies behave more like movie film makers is that these games are going to start reducing in play time. Just as films are manufactured to be watchable in an hour and a half, it makes more economic sense for the staff working on a game to cut back when the time to play reaches 20 hours or so, and start working on something else. At the moment, its an artists work with some of these games - the game is finished when the story is finished, never mind financial considerations.
It isn't irrational of the Britons at all. Millions of Americans and others visit Britain just to catch a glimpse of a bunch of toffs in their palace, offsetting the horrendous expense of having them with tourist revenue. Really the whole thing is just a sham - everyone in Britain knows this. The real royal family died in 1943 during a bomb raid and a family of actors were employed to take their place. The actor who plays Charles is simply brilliant. We're all just waiting for the Aussies to finally work it out.
Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.
The first leads down the road to chaos, as every splintered faction appears quite literally from the woodwork, holding their hand out for tax dollars to advertise their presence and garner votes. With the constitution being what it is, this is a dangerous charter for extremists, as a white supremist organisation (for example) would be just as eligible for public funds as a major political party, and one can only assume, would use those funds to push their hateful agenda. I can see Californica, in particular, as the worst hit by this sort of proposal, as it has more than its fair share of cults, drawn by the bright sunlight and fine oranges.
Yet happily another option exists to go back to the glory days of rule by disinterested self-abasing, self sacrificing people like Mother Theresa. Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession. Just a thought.
To take advantage of the exchange rate, you would need to buy two printers, one US for when US cartridges are cheap, and one EU for when EU cartridges are cheap. And you'd have to buy a lot of cartridges to make that economical.
Maybe that's the answer. Everyone stockpile while the dollars down!
"The Corporation" by Joel Bakan
"The most powerful class of institution on earth, the corporation, is by any reasonable measure hopelessly and unavoidably demented."
Companies support globalisation only when it lines their pockets. Should the consumer suddenly start to benefit, they start these protective methods to restrict the free trade they were so keen to embrace when it meant sending manufacturing facilities to slave worker countries. It isn't any great surprise to be honest. I no longer have any expectations of companies behaving unlike robber barons and highwaymen.
Fox's response to criticism was not to pass the whole incident off as a joke
Yes, it was. Stop lying. I even provided Fox's quote precisely to that effect.
And what was your quote? "The Fox apology read, in part, "The item was based on a reporter's partial script" My emphasis.
Uh, Pudge, by your own words you see the distinction. I thought I made it obvious enough the first time I wrote it. Ok let's try this one more time. MY POINT IS THAT FOX'S RESPONSE TO CRITICISM WAS NOT JUST TO SAY IT WAS JOKE. THERE WERE OTHER PARTS TO IT TOO!!!!11
Next you defensively quote various parts of my further explanation, when I was trying to make the distinction as crystal as possible as if I am accusing you of saying those things. This is an accusation in itself, an implied criticism that I am putting words in your mouth. Let's look at what came out of your mouth earlier:
Me: Cameron did it as just "an offhanded joke"!
Pudge: Yes. No clear-thinking person could possibly believe otherwise.
I have lambasted you for passing off the whole incident as just some sort of joke, and that is exactly what you were doing! Go back and read what you have actually written! Again and again I have explained away any supposed "lies" on my part by pointing to the fault in your own interpretation, and even when I do so you ignore the evidence, don't even deal with it or argue it, just staunchly accuse me of lying!!
I find myself in the position of trying to correct your own flawed and illogical posts to enable me to present some sort of response to them, which is amply illustrated with this, did you even go back and reread it, this is basic english comprehension:
Me: I think you meant to say "No." at the end of that line.
Pudge: No.
in relation to:
Me: you would have no problem with that?
Pudge: If it was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for? Yes.
Yes you would have *no problem* with CNN making up a story if it "was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for"? I can't argue with this, you don't even seem to know what you are saying.
Why you think "passing it off as a joke" is the same as "saying only that it was a joke, and not also a mistake" is beyond me.
Maybe it is beyond you, but it seems basic sentence construction is beyond you so we won't worry about that concern. Nice strawman though. To begin with you said the Fox story was a joke that they immediately apologised for. To me that is "passing it off as a joke". Because I believe it is more serious than that. The clue was the fact I said so! Passing it off as a joke is to belittle the event, obviously. And to belittle the event IS to suggest the mistake was a small one and unworthy of consideration.
Al Franken
Who?
You're a proven liar.
I'm not sure what I've done to offend you, other than giving as good as I got. You can repeat that I am a liar until you are blue in the face but if you look back over what has written, and think about what I am trying to say, I am sure you will eventually get the point. Goodbye.
They didn't try to say it was just a joke
Again, you're lying. The Fox apology read, in part, "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast."
If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, you'll need more than out of context quotes to prove it. My above line is in relation to Fox's excuses for the piece. If you quote it in full, "They didn't try to say it was just a joke, c'mon guys lighten up! like you are." any "lie" is resolved. To make it clear, my point is: Fox's response to criticism was not to pass the whole incident off as a joke, as you are doing. If you still don't get it, they never said "We meant the piece to be a satire, stop complaining". They said: It was a mistake. It was because the reporter was tired. It was a script that found its way onto our site as news. In other words, though they mention the article was written in jest, their response was not just to simply say that! That is the distinction you missed in your joyful rush to brand me a liar again.
As I have made abundantly clear, the only problem I have with your point of view is your attitude that saying something was "just a joke" is an adequate excuse in this case.
"As proven here by your belief that it was posted intentionally, you are far more gullible and less clueless than they are" ?? Needs translation, this makes no sense to me ?? I am more gullible for believing it was a very convenient mistake? I am less clueless, therefore better informed? Did you mean "more clueless"?
Also your line "If it was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for? Yes." does not parse. I think you meant to say "No." at the end of that line.
Anyway, it seems that this discussion is going nowhere.I do not agree with your view of the matter at all.
"Race" has no biologically defined meaning, which is why you won't find it in any proper textbook. At the genetic level, there are no obvious genetic subtypes which define strongly a particular race, or allow someone to predict which "race" a particular genotype is. This is in contrast to gender, where women and men have very obvious and strong genetic differences.
Some races can appear to have a particular identifiable genetic type based on their geographical location. For instance, sickle cell anaemia is caused by a mutation in haemoglobin and is found predominantly in Africa. This is based not on some inherited race trait, but from the fact that the trait confers advantage in malarial areas.
An offhanded joke on a major news site? I see them, but to my mind they're clearly marked. And you have rather sidestepped the issue, Pudge. Does calling it an "offhanded joke" means that its OK? So if for example, some senior news correspondant on CNN for instance made up some quotes by Bush about, say, something ridiculous like God told him to invade Iraq, and ran the story as a news item, you would have no problem with that? And is it coincidental that the portrayal of Kerry exactly ties in with how Bush et al. were trying to smear Kerry at the time as girlish and weak?
I have read the item, yes. And to me, and probably to you, it was laughably obvious. But then, I am not a typical reader of the Fox News website. I suspect the way I and a typical reader would have interpreted the story would be somewhat different, don't you agree? And besides, how is it lying to say the story passes off without any clear indication it is false. Is it under a humour byline? It is marked as a parody? No. You can argue that its inherent ridiculousness marks it out, but I feel you are on shaky ground.
And how did Fox respond to the story breaking? They realised they had stepped over the line, retracted it, apologised and claimed to have reprimanded their reporter. They didn't try to say it was just a joke, c'mon guys lighten up! like you are.
I suppose in a strange way you are insulting the Fox news network. Your expectations of them are so low, you don't even think it's an issue when they fabricate news and give it top billing on their website.
I guess I have to say in the end that either you are deliberately being obtuse, being hopelessly biased, or a lousy journalist. Which is it?
How wonderful! Cameron did it as just "an offhanded joke"! A senior news correspondant passes off a story without any clear indication it is false, but it's just a joke, get over it. Moreover, a story which is specifically designed to reach into middle America and press those levers which will make Kerry out to be laughable, to stereotype him in the eyes of the electorate.
And if they apologise for making up news, then that's OK, you don't even have to punish them! What a wacky world of news we live in nowadays!
Your "default settings" printed characters with the same minute typographical flaws consistent with an actual physical key pressed against paper, i.e. all the "t"s slightly malformed in exactly the same way, and also with letters printed slightly above or below the line rather than perfectly vertically adjusted to the line? I'm sorry, that is just bullshit. All that shows is that "your eye" is not as good as an experts eye.
And please reference your claim "even experienced typographic experts who are Democrats and Kerry supports have analyzed it to death and concluded they were obvious fakes made in Word."
All a Word experiment shows is that a modern word processor can be set up to reproduce almost any style of letter if it has the correct fonts etc. It does not logically illuminate *at all* whether these documents are false or not, or I can prove any typewritten document for the last 50 years is fake because WOW! I can reproduce it in Microsoft Word!!
How about this: some of the documents were an insanely bad forgery. Humorously bad. They were easily recreated in Microsoft Word with the default settings. No settings need to be changed - the default margins, tab-stops, and font all matched up perfectly. Pixel-perfectly.
Read this and this and summarise just HOW exactly that the documents could be created in Microsoft Word is relevant. Also, you are completely wrong about "default settings" as anyone with a cursory knowledge of the debate would know.
CBS's mistake was in insisting the documents were primary sources, when they weren't. It still isn't clear whether the documents are forgeries or genuine, CBS just could not prove they were genuine, nor did they go through appropriate steps to find this out, this is why they are being punished.
Nothing Fox News has done has come anywhere near this
How about just making up a statement by Kerry and reporting it as news?
He bought the tracks. He owns the music. Is it OK to make your consumers jump through any arbitrary series of hoops you like, as long as you can eventually circumvent the Apple format issues?
I see this as analogous to Windows Activation, where the customer is treated from the off as a de facto pirate, and forced to go through a laborious process to use software they've already paid for. That's also why I've also supported Playfair with donations. I tried to find a URL for PlayFair, but it's been taken down from sarovar as well due to legal threats.
And you assume it is easy for everyone to just "make a CD". Most users would have great trouble even with this simple task. It isn't at all obvious to Aunt Tillie like my uncle what formats are, how they are different, or even how to solve a problem like that.
I think when Linus retires, then they'll HAVE to get an American in to do the job, because of market forces. I know for a fact that because it is said (by certain Redmond backed PR astrotrufers) that Linucks is run by a "foreign national", the influential in government procurement circles are NOT INTERESTED in Linucks. These are major players and major markets Linucks is missing out on.
We need an American, Wall-Street savvy maintainer. He doesn't even need to be a hugely good coder, after all Linus isn't either.
Linux versus windows in the workplace will not be decided by showing them a spreadsheet of fiddled figures. This test is hardly a good way to test security, its an interesting sideshow, no more.
The message isn't Linux > Windows, it's that not keeping up to date with your patches is dangerous, and Linux is less of a target than Windows at the moment. By the submitters criterion, you would be recommending Apple to your PHB, not Linux, as an unpatched box wasn't even hit with any OS specific exploits!
Another desperately bad spin on an otherwise mildly interesting article.
CCR5 strains predominate since they can pass the vaginal/penile mucousal membrane to infect the individual. X4 corecepter using HIV strains are not as good at this. X4 types of HIV become plentiful in the end stage of human HIV infection, when their immune system is near total collapse.
CCR5 knockouts do survive, but it is a signalling molecule the body needs so knocking it out of healthy individuals 1)would not necessarily protect them from HIV and 2)may harm their health in as yet unforeseen ways.
Hi,
Sweden is in the EU, in the second tier of countries who aren't as closely involved in the process as say Germany or France, but who are signatories to treaties involving EU jurisdiction over nation's laws. at least I think so, please correct me if I'm wrong.
At the moment places like piratesbay in europe are protected, but will this be the case forever? Recent attempts to make europes copyright laws more in line with America's seem to have stalled (with Poland doing the good deed last time I heard about it), but I'm not confident this will be the case forever.
In this case, will EU legislation take precedence over Swedish law, meaning these type of sites will face lawsuits in their own countries?
I could be wrong, but it gets a little less certain.
I imagine the copyright holders will go after the people who index bittorrent seeds, rather than the people involved in the filesharing, for facilitating the crime. If they hit these people, BitTorrent will become less popular as it becomes increasingly difficult to find what you want. It probably won't even matter if this is dubious, legally, just look at the RIAA's actions. A few C&D letters will cool off most people who have neither the money or inclination to fight a protracted court battle.
True, but the fact they already pay a monthly subscription anyway just pushes it over the edge for me.
Free content additions?
What about all the poor suckers who bought the expansion with their own hard cash originally? What recompense are they going to get? Is this what MMORPG's are going to do now, release expansions, get a few suckers to give them money, then just release it for free anyway later on?
The sodium borate is being used somewhat like an enzyme, in that it facilitates a reaction but remains ultimately unchanged. It can be reconverted back into sodium borohydrate. So a fuel cell of this type doesn't need any extra sodium borate once created. And thankfully doesn't make any sodium hydroxide, which is a pretty nasty chemical.
See here.
Anyway, fuel cells will make cities better places by removing gasoline fumes, but when you consider they have to use conventional power sources ie nuclear/coal/natural gas/oil power to ultimately charge, their environmental credentials don't look so great. Still, it could make a great difference to the pleasantness of city life; I've noticed an afternoon in London gives me black bogies all day.
OK, good points. The two modern creatures I would compare them to are the hyena and the rhinoceros. Rhinoceroses are largely ignored by hyenas, as Ankylosaurus was (probably) largely ignored by T Rex.
/T Rex is no fun at all, scavenger or not.
OK, the comparison isn't perfect, but its the best I could think of. Hyena's aren't the greatest comparator either; they tend to hunt in packs whereas T Rex was thought to be a solitary hunter, so would certainly kill more prey than scavenge from other killers.
Man, that movie's science sucked. The whole move from DNA to organism, using amphibious DNA allows gender swapping dinosaurs...still, it was entertaining. Perhaps I'm biased because I have it to blame for several sleepless nights, being chased by raptors
Heh, char limit prevented me from making it like this: Recursion. I was just mucking about. It would be a ironic Googlebomb though, to put another search website in there. (nice site about them here)
Material that is available for legal distribution is just too boring to attract subscribers, at least currently. (Musically that is, so Project Goethenberg aside)