You forgot the best part - half an hour of "the pirates are out to get you" adverts when you actually paid to see the movie.
I used to have a music teacher who would spend the first half of each orchestra practice complaining about how many people weren't turning up to orchestra practice. Guess how popular her orchestra was?
And they think this will make the dollar more stable?
Yes. This will mean noone knows that they're stepping up production to keep the US on top because the value of the dollar is basically collapsing. As long as noone notices it's about to collapse, it doesn't collapse. That's how finance works.
they would soon be stuck with just iPods and iBooks and Powerbooks. The cannot do this, for it would kill the company.
I don't think they would die. There's no sense them giving up their desktop division while it's making money, but they could survive perfectly well on the other lines you mention.
If i rename a malicious.WMF as a.JPG, and display it as an on a website, will IE execute the WMF, or will the JPG just not work?
Without actually knowing I'm pretty sure it'll work. The exploit can work through an image displayed on a webpage and work through a renamed image, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work with both.
JPG, PNG, GIF etc. all have headers that should surely be checked before displaying the picture. Do IE not do this?
The mimetypethe webserver gave (which will presumably be application/x-wmf) should take priority over the extension anyway, and I believe IE's approach is "It claims to be an image of some sort, so call the image rendering library".
In short, do i have to actively click a "Open this file" dialog on the browser?
Kopete does this (via one of the plugins, but I'm pretty sure it's enabled by default). Whenever someone says a URL in a conversation, it's automatically bookmarked (under their folder). But to do this it first downloads the page so it can get the title and icon. Kopete doesn't exist on windows except via cygwin, so this isn't a problem, but I'd imagine some other clients have a similar feature.
Bad example. IE is integrated into the OS, third-party software doesn't have that option. Quite often it's poor windows design that forces programs to run as admin - win2k won't let you use a cd writer without admin privileges.
This is mainstream software, and is used probably by millions of developers. But it still places fucking ini files in the install directory.
Given the mess that is the registry, can you blame it?
Funny how things like volcanic activity have more effect on things like global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, etc. than anything mankind is doing.
Yes, because we see ozone holes appearing and disappearing all the time, and evidence that they've done so throughout history. Oh, wait
When we see nature affect itself like this, it really puts things into perspective.
Oh please. "Nature is amazing, so I can go on doing whatever the fuck I want to it.
(Oof. I await the inevitable hammering by left-wing moderators.)
Because left-wingers are the only people able to see sense?
For example, you might want to take a look at the Reformation and what that was all about.
But it didn't, on the whole, succeed. The catholic church is still there, still teaching more or less the same thing, and I'm pretty sure still more popular than the reformed denominations, certainly comparable. And the reason it didn't succeed is there is no real evidence in questions of religion, it's just one authority over another. Compare with science - how many scientists seriously follow an old, wrong theory, claim, say, that newtonian gravity is superior to relativity? Few or none - they can't, the experimental results show otherwise.
Why so sexy? I think its simply the golden ratio. Its why bodies look good. 1:1.6 is everywhere. The best looking body has 1:1.6 ratio in forarm to arm, waste to shoulders, thighs to calfs, calf and knee girth to ankle girth. Plus, for a side profile (on women) breast to waist width, and (on all, a side profile still) buttocks to thigh width.
Nonsense. You can find pretty much any number you like all over people, and since beauty is so subjective you can claim anything is the perfect shape. The "golden rectangle" looks too long if you try and use it for a painting or similar.
The anti-Christian quotes are all very much in dispute, the source is rather weak. He was certainly publicly very Christian and acting in the name of Christianity.
Of course the experimenter's choice of axes to measure was determined- by the experimenter. This isn't random either- it's a conceious choice by a mind to reduce the resolution of the experiment.
The point is that if the experimenter had a choice of axes, then there is no way the result for each axis could be determined ahead of time.
Both of these quotes came from the discussion of science as religion- and they are NOT consistent with one another.
They're consistent. When I say "accurate" I don't mean absolutely accurate, just pretty/very accurate. Like when I say "good" I don't mean perfect.
Actually, not all Christians believe all of those. One sect believes in trinities, another does not. Some say that Jesus was just a prophet. The Bible as the inspired word of God is accepted- but means very little for some meanings of the word "inspired". In fact, I can't think of a basic assumption that is accepted by all Christians.
Fair enough, but within the sects most of the assumptions have remained the same for a long time - the schisms happened, but then the divided parts kept doing the same things until another crisis emerged. New ones are emerging, and some change does occur - several churches seem to be gradually accepting homosexuality, for example - but mostly the core beliefs that define a religion remain the same.
Nope- not all religions have a God. Zen Buddhists have only the universe.
Ok, fair enough, but I'm sure there's a similar unquestionable core belief.
Catholicism considers God to be such a nebulous concept that "everything and nothing" fits.
Not my experience of it.
The religion of objectivism is a relatively recent set of beliefs that would deny the existance of everything outside of self- and has a morality based on that.
If you're insinuating that to believe in science requires one to be fundamentally immoral, you're gravely mistaken.
Religion is far larger than you can possibly imagine- because all a religion is is a set of beliefs. You attempt to reduce religion down to the ones you are personally opposed to-
I think of religions in terms of the ones I'm personally familiar with. If I don't take a certain religion into account it's not because I can't criticise it as easily, just that I don't know about it.
and put science on a pedestal upon which it does not belong.
Science is different from religion, and superior in terms of results if nothing else.
Accuracy is not possible for human beings- but that doesn't mean that accuracy is impossible.
Absolute accuracy is impossible, and to the best of our knowledge not just for us but for anything. Accuracy is still possible and best achieved through science.
Slashdot Mirror
Go out and buy a voodoo 5. Unfortunately they're getting older (and rarer) every year.
I used to have a music teacher who would spend the first half of each orchestra practice complaining about how many people weren't turning up to orchestra practice. Guess how popular her orchestra was?
Can I have a hat with a red button on it?
Yes. This will mean noone knows that they're stepping up production to keep the US on top because the value of the dollar is basically collapsing. As long as noone notices it's about to collapse, it doesn't collapse. That's how finance works.
I don't think they would die. There's no sense them giving up their desktop division while it's making money, but they could survive perfectly well on the other lines you mention.
No. Art is about beauty. It's not about the "values", it's about making something that looks good.
Then why are they not sure whether these are fake or not?
Without actually knowing I'm pretty sure it'll work. The exploit can work through an image displayed on a webpage and work through a renamed image, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work with both.
JPG, PNG, GIF etc. all have headers that should surely be checked before displaying the picture. Do IE not do this?
The mimetypethe webserver gave (which will presumably be application/x-wmf) should take priority over the extension anyway, and I believe IE's approach is "It claims to be an image of some sort, so call the image rendering library".
In short, do i have to actively click a "Open this file" dialog on the browser?
No.
A WMF file *is* a script, it's a vector language like postscript.
And aren't most of Microsoft's vulnerabilities related to the wanton running of scripts without a user being aware that it's happening?
Quite often, but this is just a good old programming error.
Kopete does this (via one of the plugins, but I'm pretty sure it's enabled by default). Whenever someone says a URL in a conversation, it's automatically bookmarked (under their folder). But to do this it first downloads the page so it can get the title and icon. Kopete doesn't exist on windows except via cygwin, so this isn't a problem, but I'd imagine some other clients have a similar feature.
Bad example. IE is integrated into the OS, third-party software doesn't have that option. Quite often it's poor windows design that forces programs to run as admin - win2k won't let you use a cd writer without admin privileges.
This is mainstream software, and is used probably by millions of developers. But it still places fucking ini files in the install directory.
Given the mess that is the registry, can you blame it?
Erm, no, because research is still grossly underfunded
What's so bad about a non-devotee being able to tell which bloody side the players are on?
Yes, because we see ozone holes appearing and disappearing all the time, and evidence that they've done so throughout history. Oh, wait
When we see nature affect itself like this, it really puts things into perspective.
Oh please. "Nature is amazing, so I can go on doing whatever the fuck I want to it.
(Oof. I await the inevitable hammering by left-wing moderators.)
Because left-wingers are the only people able to see sense?
Oh yes, because his side is the one that listens to scientists.
But it didn't, on the whole, succeed. The catholic church is still there, still teaching more or less the same thing, and I'm pretty sure still more popular than the reformed denominations, certainly comparable. And the reason it didn't succeed is there is no real evidence in questions of religion, it's just one authority over another. Compare with science - how many scientists seriously follow an old, wrong theory, claim, say, that newtonian gravity is superior to relativity? Few or none - they can't, the experimental results show otherwise.
3) Sue them for $$$
Absolutely. And the "golden ratio" is no better than any other.
You can see my picture as the 8th picture listed on that site (orion.jpg), though the true colors are hard to capture.
To me that proves my point. It looks great, but I'd prefer a shorter rectangle, closer to 1.4 or so.
No, you just don't think any of the other parties is better.
Nonsense. You can find pretty much any number you like all over people, and since beauty is so subjective you can claim anything is the perfect shape. The "golden rectangle" looks too long if you try and use it for a painting or similar.
The anti-Christian quotes are all very much in dispute, the source is rather weak. He was certainly publicly very Christian and acting in the name of Christianity.
Erm, Hitler was catholic through and through. Making it 50 million each.
AIUI he's talking about the new suit where he's the defendant
The point is that if the experimenter had a choice of axes, then there is no way the result for each axis could be determined ahead of time.
Both of these quotes came from the discussion of science as religion- and they are NOT consistent with one another.
They're consistent. When I say "accurate" I don't mean absolutely accurate, just pretty/very accurate. Like when I say "good" I don't mean perfect.
Actually, not all Christians believe all of those. One sect believes in trinities, another does not. Some say that Jesus was just a prophet. The Bible as the inspired word of God is accepted- but means very little for some meanings of the word "inspired". In fact, I can't think of a basic assumption that is accepted by all Christians.
Fair enough, but within the sects most of the assumptions have remained the same for a long time - the schisms happened, but then the divided parts kept doing the same things until another crisis emerged. New ones are emerging, and some change does occur - several churches seem to be gradually accepting homosexuality, for example - but mostly the core beliefs that define a religion remain the same.
Nope- not all religions have a God. Zen Buddhists have only the universe.
Ok, fair enough, but I'm sure there's a similar unquestionable core belief.
Catholicism considers God to be such a nebulous concept that "everything and nothing" fits.
Not my experience of it.
The religion of objectivism is a relatively recent set of beliefs that would deny the existance of everything outside of self- and has a morality based on that.
If you're insinuating that to believe in science requires one to be fundamentally immoral, you're gravely mistaken.
Religion is far larger than you can possibly imagine- because all a religion is is a set of beliefs. You attempt to reduce religion down to the ones you are personally opposed to-
I think of religions in terms of the ones I'm personally familiar with. If I don't take a certain religion into account it's not because I can't criticise it as easily, just that I don't know about it.
and put science on a pedestal upon which it does not belong.
Science is different from religion, and superior in terms of results if nothing else.
Accuracy is not possible for human beings- but that doesn't mean that accuracy is impossible.
Absolute accuracy is impossible, and to the best of our knowledge not just for us but for anything. Accuracy is still possible and best achieved through science.
That's never the way it's been. Game reviews are the same - just the name as the title. It was pretty obviously not a news story.