Is there compelling evidence either for or against [the ability to make] genetic determination of homosexuality?
Compelling? No. But studies are being done, results are coming in, some of them get media attention, and I can imagine a teacher wanting to talk about the subject in a "new interesting research" sense.
On the issue of psychological well-being - I don't think you can have any kind of scientific study of the effects on psychological well-being without a solid definition of psychological well-being, and I don't think you'll have enough people agree on a definition to make any results widely accepted.
Well no, but you can look at e.g. incidence of specific mental illnesses, or exclusions from schools. And people do, and will, I am sure, and any of these studies will be controversial whatever the result is.
Again, please. Don't think I haven't heard all this before. Yes, the best parts of Lisp are making it into modern languages. The same is true of any language, ever. But this is far from a monotonic trend - if you look at the newest languages e.g. Ruby, they are less lisplike than comparable languages from a few years ago e.g. Perl; Python is dropping many of its more lispy features from the new version (you'd be well advised to read some of the replies to the page you link to). This is unsurprising - after all, were lisp the perfect language, there would be no need to invent new ones. Some of its features are good and get adopted, some of them are bad, or better replacements are found, and they get dropped. Because, ultimately, lisp is just a (yes, pretty decent, and well ahead of its time) programming language - no less, but no more either. It's qualitatively no different from any other language you care to name.
Microkernel design. Stable ABI. Stable releases of the kernel are actually stable. Kernel "personalities" features. Beautiful unified disk cache/virtual memory system, which is a lot more flexible than the Linux swap business. Cleaner design, e.g. none of the multiple layering of the SCSI/block devices that Linux has (to be fair this is a legacy thing that looks to be going away)
Seriously, I could write the code to do it, but I couldn't distribute it legally, so there seems little point. I'll bet someone has already written it and is using it themselves.
Oh please. Why do lisp fanboys try to claim that every popular language is really lisp. Your language is dead, its better features have been picked up and ran with by newer, better languages, as is always the case. Ultimately, lisp is no different from anything else. Get over it.
So in two years when they can't add any more addresses, the only ones to blame will be those who stuck they feet in the mud and wouldn't budge. Besides, they can always just start taking away all those spam sites that offer no real content and just distribute those to other who actually need them,
I don't think they're a big source of IPs, since they're mostly 10000 sites hosted on the same server with the one IP.
So you're saying it's a GOOD thing that the player manufacturers are using planned obsolescence to sell us new players that incrementally add features that they've been planning since the beginning?
It's better than using same to sell us new players and new format copies of the same movies. So yes.
People bitch about "having" to rebuy their movies in a new format. And yet they're perfectly fine when those same movies are re-released on the same format adding new features with incremental improvements.
Yes, because the latter doesn't have the problems that go with the former - you can keep your old movies, need only one player (and be able to replace it if it breaks), and play all your movies without rebuying any of them.
However more importantly, what good does the source really do you? I mean I can get the Truecrypt source, and I can look at it, but it really isn't going to tell me anything other than that I'm not very good at C++. I'm not a programmer by trade, so I certainly can't trace through all the complicated code that makes up a program like Truecrypt (it even includes assembly).
While you might not have that expertise, you can if need be hire someone who does.
Now please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I think Truecrypt is untrustworthy. Far from it, I use and trust it. I am just saying that there is the false warm fuzzy myth about OSS that tends to get thrown around on/. a lot. That the code is open doesn't mean anything because 99.999+% of people can't "easily look at the source" since it won't be meaningful to them. A source audit is only useful if the person doing it is an expert and does a thorough job.
I remember the maintainer of the CKT series alternative builds of PGP - a quite obscure crypto program as they go - saying something along the lines of "I get detailled, technical queries about what certain parts of the source are doing on a weekly basis" - and my own limited experience of maintaining open source code would tally with this. 0.001% of the internet is still a hell of a lot of people.
Let's imagine that the Mozilla developers had modified the release notes for 2.0.0.12 so that it wasn't obvious what they'd fixed. Would that have been any better? Of course not. I can grab the code, diff against 2.0.0.11, take note of the changes, and presumably figure out why they were made. Now I can craft a working exploit against 2.0.0.11. After testing it on Firefox, what's the first thing I might try? How about... see if other browsers have the same problem?
That'd take you a while though - which is all Opera needs, a bit of delay so that they can get the patch out. Or even if you insist on showing the changes, keeping the working exploit code in the bugreports hidden for a few more days would hurt noone, and help Opera out a lot, since it changes the game from "vulnerable to every script kiddie and his dog" to "vulnerable to anyone with the time to do a decent amount of research".
It gives a way to give the standard more longevity - sure, not all players are full-profile now, but as costs go down it's likely that manufacturers will put all the features in, and we'll get to the stage where those features can actually be used. Which is a lot better than switching to entirely new formats - I have often remarked on the superiority of hard disks where we mostly just gradually move up through the same specifications with a lot of forward/backward compatibility (yes, SATA puts a big hole in this, but that's the first major change in as long as I can remember), rather than optical media where we need a completely new spec every few years.
And even that one isn't feature-complete with regards to the audio codecs that BD supports. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single BD player out there that supports the full range of options that are in the BD spec.
So what? That's what options are there for, to be optional. And in this particular case it's better for customers, because it means studios just put uncompressed audio on the BDs (and there's room for it)
The computational impossibility of the former (seriously, if people could forge the MS SSL cert, don't you think they'd have done it by now?), and for the latter, probably never giving the user an option - hardcoded MS cert, any other cert silently dropped
I've got the option of "arcade" controls, but never handled them particularly well - it's not like I'm a serious player, and as soon as I've dug out my gamepad I'll be using that and can do down down down just fine. Generally, it just seems impossible that a joystick would ever be better - the commands are digital, it's necessary to execute precise sequences of directions, so a digital input is much better - you know exactly how far you need to press it, so it's one less thing to worry about. Conversely, of course if you're in a game with analog controls you definitely want a joystick - I have previously tried to play flight sims with a pad, oh the pain.
Slashdot Mirror
The theory can handle it; the rocket equation exists for a reason.
Compelling? No. But studies are being done, results are coming in, some of them get media attention, and I can imagine a teacher wanting to talk about the subject in a "new interesting research" sense.
On the issue of psychological well-being - I don't think you can have any kind of scientific study of the effects on psychological well-being without a solid definition of psychological well-being, and I don't think you'll have enough people agree on a definition to make any results widely accepted.
Well no, but you can look at e.g. incidence of specific mental illnesses, or exclusions from schools. And people do, and will, I am sure, and any of these studies will be controversial whatever the result is.
In softer science, anything about the psychological wellbeing of children raised by same-sex couples.
This is blowing my irony-meter.
Again, please. Don't think I haven't heard all this before. Yes, the best parts of Lisp are making it into modern languages. The same is true of any language, ever. But this is far from a monotonic trend - if you look at the newest languages e.g. Ruby, they are less lisplike than comparable languages from a few years ago e.g. Perl; Python is dropping many of its more lispy features from the new version (you'd be well advised to read some of the replies to the page you link to). This is unsurprising - after all, were lisp the perfect language, there would be no need to invent new ones. Some of its features are good and get adopted, some of them are bad, or better replacements are found, and they get dropped. Because, ultimately, lisp is just a (yes, pretty decent, and well ahead of its time) programming language - no less, but no more either. It's qualitatively no different from any other language you care to name.
And that's why the BBC funded independently of the government.
Microkernel design. Stable ABI. Stable releases of the kernel are actually stable. Kernel "personalities" features. Beautiful unified disk cache/virtual memory system, which is a lot more flexible than the Linux swap business. Cleaner design, e.g. none of the multiple layering of the SCSI/block devices that Linux has (to be fair this is a legacy thing that looks to be going away)
Seriously, I could write the code to do it, but I couldn't distribute it legally, so there seems little point. I'll bet someone has already written it and is using it themselves.
Oh please. Why do lisp fanboys try to claim that every popular language is really lisp. Your language is dead, its better features have been picked up and ran with by newer, better languages, as is always the case. Ultimately, lisp is no different from anything else. Get over it.
Given that GNU managed to release a compatible version of unix without violating copyright, I think MS can probably manage it.
Easy answer: Hardware support. Hard answer: Like it or not, it's actually a very nice kernel; seriously, I'd take it over Linux any day.
Which lets one person among those being NATed run a webserver. Putting us right back to where we were before NAT.
I don't think they're a big source of IPs, since they're mostly 10000 sites hosted on the same server with the one IP.
Not every OS has the drivers to do it, and Linux might be the only one he knows about.
Surely you don't need to do any transcoding, since the codecs for both formats are the same, so processor power isn't an issue.
Actually, as a 64-bit linux user, a windows media video is a lot easier to play than that flash crap.
It's better than using same to sell us new players and new format copies of the same movies. So yes.
People bitch about "having" to rebuy their movies in a new format. And yet they're perfectly fine when those same movies are re-released on the same format adding new features with incremental improvements.
Yes, because the latter doesn't have the problems that go with the former - you can keep your old movies, need only one player (and be able to replace it if it breaks), and play all your movies without rebuying any of them.
While you might not have that expertise, you can if need be hire someone who does.
Now please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I think Truecrypt is untrustworthy. Far from it, I use and trust it. I am just saying that there is the false warm fuzzy myth about OSS that tends to get thrown around on /. a lot. That the code is open doesn't mean anything because 99.999+% of people can't "easily look at the source" since it won't be meaningful to them. A source audit is only useful if the person doing it is an expert and does a thorough job.
I remember the maintainer of the CKT series alternative builds of PGP - a quite obscure crypto program as they go - saying something along the lines of "I get detailled, technical queries about what certain parts of the source are doing on a weekly basis" - and my own limited experience of maintaining open source code would tally with this. 0.001% of the internet is still a hell of a lot of people.
That'd take you a while though - which is all Opera needs, a bit of delay so that they can get the patch out. Or even if you insist on showing the changes, keeping the working exploit code in the bugreports hidden for a few more days would hurt noone, and help Opera out a lot, since it changes the game from "vulnerable to every script kiddie and his dog" to "vulnerable to anyone with the time to do a decent amount of research".
It gives a way to give the standard more longevity - sure, not all players are full-profile now, but as costs go down it's likely that manufacturers will put all the features in, and we'll get to the stage where those features can actually be used. Which is a lot better than switching to entirely new formats - I have often remarked on the superiority of hard disks where we mostly just gradually move up through the same specifications with a lot of forward/backward compatibility (yes, SATA puts a big hole in this, but that's the first major change in as long as I can remember), rather than optical media where we need a completely new spec every few years.
So what? That's what options are there for, to be optional. And in this particular case it's better for customers, because it means studios just put uncompressed audio on the BDs (and there's room for it)
Wheras now you've got 3x the speed right up until you actually try and use it?
The computational impossibility of the former (seriously, if people could forge the MS SSL cert, don't you think they'd have done it by now?), and for the latter, probably never giving the user an option - hardcoded MS cert, any other cert silently dropped
I've got the option of "arcade" controls, but never handled them particularly well - it's not like I'm a serious player, and as soon as I've dug out my gamepad I'll be using that and can do down down down just fine. Generally, it just seems impossible that a joystick would ever be better - the commands are digital, it's necessary to execute precise sequences of directions, so a digital input is much better - you know exactly how far you need to press it, so it's one less thing to worry about. Conversely, of course if you're in a game with analog controls you definitely want a joystick - I have previously tried to play flight sims with a pad, oh the pain.
Actually I do remember a few of those - and can't think of any that are better to control with a joystick than a pad.