The trouble with your opinion is that you didn't really understand Tron. Tron was a movie about religion and just used the setting of inside a computer as a device to tell the story. It can basically be described as a tale of the coming of Jesus. Flint entering the computer is basically the birth of christ and his exploits including miracles end up freeing the minds of the programs.
What made it truly interesting is that it hit on the idea that the creators don't have a uniformed plan, they were just doing something to get the job done and life was created by accident. We are supposed to take that to our own world and say, hey maybe god doesnt have a plan he/she is just doing whatever it takes to do something and we are inadvertantly created as a by product.
As an atheist I don't agree with the assessment of the movie but the themes and quality of the underlying story is just downright amazing. As a movie buff I see that Tron told a story filled with imagery and very thoughtful dialogue if your willing to invest the time to analyze it.
I imagine that none of our sufficiently large telescopes are built to be able to focus on something as close as the moon telescopes typically can focus properly on a range that is determined by components of the optical system, my guess is that if hubble took a look at the moon we would get a horrible grainy image, no clarity whatsoever.
For example, take a normal commercial telescope and put an object 1 inch from the lens and see if you can get it to focus properly.
Furthermore, why waste the effort doing something so trivial. We have images of the moon with that crap lying about but the nutjobs don't accept those, what makes you think telescope images from earth would change there minds? The conspiracy nuts are just going to claim the telescope photos are doctored.
First off, this was illegal when the first laser pointers hit the market. This has nothing to do with terrorism this has to do with the fact that pointing a laser a plane risks a lot of lives. If it crashes it not only kills all on board but likely kills a bunch of people on the ground too. What they are taking serious is how this person threatened many lives by being a dumbass. Yes he should be arrested, and no this has nothing to do with terrorism.
After the first month at your "real" job you will be practically TEACHING the CS Classes you are taking.
Either I don't know what a real job is or you took some really shitty CS classes. First off you don't learn dick about CS as a help desk lackey. As a programmer you honestly learn little more aside from bad habits that become hard to unlearn when you are shown proper theory.
CS != fixing computers and CS != programming. My advice to you go to a real school, the kind where you are constantly being challenged and the kind where you are taught actually CS not just here is a tour of programming languages. Its people like this that are ruining Computer Science as a science, instead they look at it just as a trade ie programming.
I'd agree with you if the weapons systems that we spend billions of dollars on could actually protect us, but unfortunately they don't. What is unwise is spending billions on something that will never ever be practical. This article will show you what I mean. There are only 2 reasons you would continue to fund and develop a pointless project, you can either be a moron, or you are pandering to the interests of the industry and insuring that these companys have plenty of big contracts.
I know you would like to pretend I said we shouldnt build any weapons because thats better for your argument but in fact my point is that lots of the weapons systems in development are pork barrel. Useless unnecessary spending with no usable outcome. My decision to not be a part of it has to do with my political slant which would result in less DOD funding and also the fact that our DOD has caused the deaths of more innocent civilians than Saddam.
Responsible for the reckless creation of thousands of weapons many of which are unaccounted for. You see we were creating so many so fast we were building them just in time to store them away so we have room for the next weapon, the Soviet Union did the same both countries have had theft and missing weapons. Or given excess to unstable countries like Iran, Iraq, and Israel.
destroyed Soviet Union
In the chaos that followed its fall, weapons were flowing out of Soviet control and into the hands of terrorists. 100 nukes missing
Are you aware that the industries that were manufactoring our weapons are also involved in manufacturing our enemies weapons? That these companies sell to both sides with the hopes that increased conflict and greater loss of life will up demand for their products.
Revisionist pro Reagan history gives him and the arms race more credit that they deserve. The fall of the soviet union was inevitable. Futhermore, what has the soviet fall really accomplished, some regions in eastern europe still aren't free(Chechnya anyone?) and the majority of Russian political leaders are all ex communists ex KGB etc.. Same people new banner, I don't buy it. Its all the same crap just now we label them democratic and therefore they are good so we now ignore their human rights violations like we do our own.
I'd like to start by saying that I don't need to defend myself from trolls like yourself but I will take the bait.
My feeling that the DOD should spend less and build less weapons systems has nothing to do with whether or not I would defend myself, my family or my country. Your argument is what we call a straw-man. Stockpiling nuclear weapons has nothing to do with defending my family, developing new nuclear weapons has nothing to do with defending my family. Its the product of a an incredibly lucrative indrustry controlling political candidates. It has to do with flawed arguments about how a nuclear war can be "winnable".
If I was drafted, if a sufficient international crisis that I felt strongly about existed(and I knew I would be sent to help it) I would willingly go and grab my gun. Unfortunately such a crisis(darfur) does exist but our troops are currently off on a debacle that could and should have been avoided.
My convictions do not preclude me from killing those attacking me, they do not disable me from defending my home and country with force. The flipside is that my desire to defend my country does not extend to allow me to wrecklessly build weapons, sell and trade them to future enemys, and to destroy innocent life only to excuse it as collatoral damage.
The unfortunate thing with statements like you made is that, like most people including myself, you have a conviction but have not acted on it to its fullest extent.
My conviction was that I refuse to work for the DOD to directly support that machine. In that sense I have acted on it to its fullest extent.
Clarification: I would like to see the DOD reduced in size and budget but not entirely go away. I would also like to see its actions be alot more ethical. If I were to work for the DOD I'd be in a very unfun position. I'd be voting and publicly voicing my opinion that its budget should be cut, that weapons systems development should be slowed, and that all the US nuclear weapons should be destroyed. Now if my wishes were granted in all likelyhood id be out of a job, so what do I do in that situation? If i'm voting for my job i'm more likely to compromise my convictions that we should have less weapons and spend less money on destructive tools. If I work for the DOD my opinion will change as my livelyhood depends on this work that I disagree with. Therefore I won't put myself in that position.
From your other reply: While I can't say that I necessarily think all war is bad (sometimes I think force is necessary to stop some behavior), I know war shouldn't be used for things of non-moral nature.
There is no such thing as a good war, war is terrible no matter how it goes down. Wars are sometimes inevitable and sometimes we have no choice but to use force.
I need to take technology to a religious level like I need a hole in my head.
I'd hardly classify that as a religious level. Most people have certain principles that they won't compromise. For instance I refuse to work for the DOD or a company that is contracted by them. I refuse to work for any organization that develops weapons systems or supports them. Is my unwillingness to be part of the war machine on the religious level? I wouldn't say so.
He is sooo wacky.
I would argue that an individual who has no principles which can't be bought is truly the whacky one.
I just don't see why wikipedia has to subvert its democratic aims to conform to a meritocratic ideals. The project doesn't owe you anything. It can do as it pleases.
If it trys to market itself as an encyclopedia with information that can be used and cited then it has a responsibility to ensure accuracy and truthfulness. In that sense it does owe me something. If you want wikipedia to be a collection of misinformation and popular history then you should admit that its not a viable source for research(except when researching the incorrect beliefs on various subject matter that some people have).
What I don't want to see is people reading wikipedia thinking its a truthful source when it contains misinformation. Wikipedia as it stands now can never be a viable source of information because it has no real method of rooting out lies and misinformation and thats what I'm looking for.
Honestly wikipedia is interesting but it was doomed from the beginning, the ignorant masses should not be writing history. They should not be toying with what could be used as an educational tool. It scares me to think about the misinformation that such practices have spread. The sooner wikipedia changes to a meritocracy or the sooner it dies the better.
People kept asking me if I wanted the new star wars DVD set and I always replied with a no. They point out that the only movies I watch on my VCR are my star wars non special edition set. And so I say with a sad look on my face "Star Wars is dead to me.". I know that when my VHS tapes disintigrate it will have been the last time that I watch star wars. As a film buff more than a star wars fan boy this irks me on more levels than just "my childhood has been raped" because honestly it is Lucas' baby he can run it over with a truck if he wants. But it doesnt change the fact that a milestone in cinema is lost to us now. The original 1977 release which is the most important sci-fi film ever will fade and be lost forever.
Note: Jar Jar does not bother me, I don't see what the problem is with him, the problem i do see is horrible horrible acting from hayden christensen. Unbelievable(unbelievable in the sense of I can't believe he got paid for this crap), snivling, no magic with natalie portman at all, its unbearable to watch.
You have failed to provide a counter to my assessment that open source is democratic software development and in a democratic style government open and free acess to government documents(which i think should include the source code that comprises government used applications) should be present. Its obvious that democracy isn't the easiest or perhaps the "best" form of government. Why should we accept any less freedom especially when it comes to the software that tallys our votes and stores our personal and government records?
Open source does not need to prove itself, it already has with Linux, Apache, and the various BSD(wasn't originally free but since they have become free they have expanded in directions that far excede cloning existing software) flavors.
Nothing wrong with anti-elitism... Who determines who the "experts" and "authorities" are?
Clearly society determines who the experts and authorities are. In our society we have institutions known as colleges and universities, they happen to award degrees based in part on obtaining expertise in a specific subject. Furthermore in our society we have trades which are practiced by individuals as a source of income. An individual who has been a practicing carpenter for the past 30 years is likely an expert on the subject of carpentry. This is where anti-elitism is foolish. Knowledge obtained through years of study or practice of a craft is and should be respected for the amount of hard work that it is. With that respect I believe comes the right to trump an untested fool on the subject. A 13 year old kid should not be considered a equally valuable source on carpentry as a carpenter with 30 years experience.
Larry Sanger may be an epistemologist, but his views on knowledge and its justification seem a bit naive.
It is i think your views on knowledge that are a bit naive. To assume that fools or just ignorant people possess equally viable knowledge as professionals and scholars is disgustingly naive.
But then why even make wikipedia in the first place?
They probably have a mission statement. But if I was creating it I would look to create a central base of all knowledge that has the greatest depth and breadth of information because so many knowledgable people have submitted entries.
Wikipedia is not a reflection of these social structures, and that was intentional from the very beginning.
Wikipedia is still a reflection of social structures. Instead of reflecting a community that reviews its knowledge and resolves differences through discussion it now reflects the social structure of the troll.
The government has no place doing this sort of promotion. Their job is to use whatever works the best.
In that case the government should be promoting a totalitarian regime as it would be easier. Just like Bush said "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."
We have enough problems with ideology in this country - no sense adding more to the fire.
I think as a democracy it is imperitive that we promote free and open forums, open source is in essence democracy applied to software development. To say that a democratic nation should use totalitarian software(properitary close source) when a free and democratic choice exists is i think rediculous. We must accept the baggage of freedom and cope with it, not do away with freedoms and free exchange whenever it suits our needs.
In the end if you want freedom, if you want democracy you have to take the good and the bad, no system is perfect. Without a doubt however any democratic nation should be promoting open source as it flows perfectly with the idealogy of the founding principles of democracy.
I prefer not to call it Free software. Many people on here are mistaking it for Free as in beer and not how it was meant to be taken and that is as the movement that advocates using only Free software and nothing else, this form of free implies that the source code is available. Personally using the term Free to describe this movement is just too ambiguous, thats why people are assuming free(as in beer). Open Source as a label for the same phenomenon makes much much more sense, the source code is open it is available and logically it follows that its free(both idealogically and beer).
Lets just stick with the label that makes the most sense and is readily accepted without confusion. And so from this point on let it be known only as Open Source.
complain when it's abused, not because it CAN be abused.
Great policy, that attitudes seems to really be the best idea.
Nasa guy: shit , some foam hit the shuttle when it took off, this COULD be a problem Other Nasa Guy: well its not a problem yet, lets wait until it is.
Scientist: oh man this global warming could be bad Politician: screw it, it aint a problem yet
if you listened to complaints based on something COULD be a problem, we wouldn't have the internet or 99% of inventions.
Listening to possible problems and concerns is how things are designed, its way easier to address the problem at design than to address it after we been using it for 3 years which means 10 billion devices are using poorly designed technology. Basically, all forseeable concerns should be addressed in the design phase. Why? Thats easy, because we can be sure that new problems will arise ones that we had no clue about. So rather than implement somethign that has both known and unknown problems we should just implement technology that has unknown problems.
The level of transparency in XP running old apps makes Apple's half-baked approach look amateurish.
Thats odd, my feeling was the other way around since, I have yet to find a program that fails to run in Apple's OS 9 compatibility "mode"(aside from some apps that attempt to capture from hardware directly, especially hardware that isn't supported by OS X but thats to be expected). Meanwhile 9/10 of all older apps ive attempted to run under win XP fail to work entirely.
I was much more pleased with OS 9 stuff under OS X because it was very much like using virtual PC, you got a window with that OS running in it. That seems to be much cleaner and easier to use for the average user than the nonsensical and rarely functioning XP hackjob.
At the risk of being moderated redundant, ill reply by saying Apple is going after people who violated an NDA. An NDA could be said to waive your first amendment rights willingly in exchange for a sneak peak at software, development snap shots, source code, whatever.
Sorry MS fanboys, you can't brand Apple evil yet in retaliation for tarnishing the good name of M$, they are doing something they should and have every right to do.
If Boeing had come out and publicly said "that test was a disaster, we are going to have to do more work". You can bet your sweet ass that the stock would have fallen 2-5%. They are just trying to keep retarded stock trends from happening because of random irrelevant news. It actuall works the same for politicians approval, if bush had said "crap I made a mistake I admit it, this is how i'm gonna fix it" his approval rating would have dipped by a similiar value, possibly cause him to lose the election, instead he said everything is fine, I'm write(even though I'm wrong) people didn't get that knee jerk reaction that causes both approval and stock prices to drop...
FTA: First, I need to preface this review by leaving my nerd credentials at the door. I have not read Douglas Adams' series of books, nor have I heard the HITCHHIKER GUIDE TO THE GALAXY radio show. The only knowledge I had of Adams' works is what I had read on-line prior to the screening, so that maybe I would be able to get some of the inside jokes.
So in otherwords your completely unqualified to review this for fans of Douglas Adams? This review might be useful for people who have no clue what H2G2 is but for me and other die hard fans out there its completely useless. Its like the movie reviews of LOTR I read by people who had never read the book, sadly this is becoming too commonplace, peeps need to get out and read.
I deeply regret that the point of this is to be able to monitor all this traffic without any court orders. In essence the government wants to go trolling for terrorists. Now, with that in mind this pisses me off to no end, if the government wants to tap or listen on something they need to specifically ask permission for some specific medium using specific methods for a specific amount of time and get a judge to sign off on that(this is how it should be and possibly used to be).
Now, here come the naysayers, well if you were abiding the laws then you have nothing to hide. Sure maybe now I have nothing to hide, but lets say we give up our privacy and the christian theocracy that is taking over the US gets what it wants by making blasphemy illegal I sure as shit want pricacy so I can say whatever I please about religion. What if it becomes illegal to criticize our leaders? I'd rather protect my privacy now, so I don't have to worry about going to jail for speaking my mind later on.
Here is my bit for you all to think about... A hell of alot more than 6000 people died to give me the first amendment and a right to privacy. I don't see why these 6000 deaths should reverse there sacrifice.
Slashdot Mirror
You. Right. Grumsh hate evolution. It stinky farty poo. Atheists go squish now!
What made it truly interesting is that it hit on the idea that the creators don't have a uniformed plan, they were just doing something to get the job done and life was created by accident. We are supposed to take that to our own world and say, hey maybe god doesnt have a plan he/she is just doing whatever it takes to do something and we are inadvertantly created as a by product.
As an atheist I don't agree with the assessment of the movie but the themes and quality of the underlying story is just downright amazing. As a movie buff I see that Tron told a story filled with imagery and very thoughtful dialogue if your willing to invest the time to analyze it.
Becuase sequals suck more consistently than remakes do. I'd welcome a remake any day over a shoddy sequel.
For example, take a normal commercial telescope and put an object 1 inch from the lens and see if you can get it to focus properly.
Furthermore, why waste the effort doing something so trivial. We have images of the moon with that crap lying about but the nutjobs don't accept those, what makes you think telescope images from earth would change there minds? The conspiracy nuts are just going to claim the telescope photos are doctored.
First off, this was illegal when the first laser pointers hit the market. This has nothing to do with terrorism this has to do with the fact that pointing a laser a plane risks a lot of lives. If it crashes it not only kills all on board but likely kills a bunch of people on the ground too. What they are taking serious is how this person threatened many lives by being a dumbass. Yes he should be arrested, and no this has nothing to do with terrorism.
Either I don't know what a real job is or you took some really shitty CS classes. First off you don't learn dick about CS as a help desk lackey. As a programmer you honestly learn little more aside from bad habits that become hard to unlearn when you are shown proper theory.
CS != fixing computers and CS != programming. My advice to you go to a real school, the kind where you are constantly being challenged and the kind where you are taught actually CS not just here is a tour of programming languages. Its people like this that are ruining Computer Science as a science, instead they look at it just as a trade ie programming.
I know you would like to pretend I said we shouldnt build any weapons because thats better for your argument but in fact my point is that lots of the weapons systems in development are pork barrel. Useless unnecessary spending with no usable outcome. My decision to not be a part of it has to do with my political slant which would result in less DOD funding and also the fact that our DOD has caused the deaths of more innocent civilians than Saddam.
Responsible for the reckless creation of thousands of weapons many of which are unaccounted for. You see we were creating so many so fast we were building them just in time to store them away so we have room for the next weapon, the Soviet Union did the same both countries have had theft and missing weapons. Or given excess to unstable countries like Iran, Iraq, and Israel.
destroyed Soviet Union
In the chaos that followed its fall, weapons were flowing out of Soviet control and into the hands of terrorists. 100 nukes missing
Are you aware that the industries that were manufactoring our weapons are also involved in manufacturing our enemies weapons? That these companies sell to both sides with the hopes that increased conflict and greater loss of life will up demand for their products.
Revisionist pro Reagan history gives him and the arms race more credit that they deserve. The fall of the soviet union was inevitable. Futhermore, what has the soviet fall really accomplished, some regions in eastern europe still aren't free(Chechnya anyone?) and the majority of Russian political leaders are all ex communists ex KGB etc.. Same people new banner, I don't buy it. Its all the same crap just now we label them democratic and therefore they are good so we now ignore their human rights violations like we do our own.
My feeling that the DOD should spend less and build less weapons systems has nothing to do with whether or not I would defend myself, my family or my country. Your argument is what we call a straw-man. Stockpiling nuclear weapons has nothing to do with defending my family, developing new nuclear weapons has nothing to do with defending my family. Its the product of a an incredibly lucrative indrustry controlling political candidates. It has to do with flawed arguments about how a nuclear war can be "winnable".
If I was drafted, if a sufficient international crisis that I felt strongly about existed(and I knew I would be sent to help it) I would willingly go and grab my gun. Unfortunately such a crisis(darfur) does exist but our troops are currently off on a debacle that could and should have been avoided.
My convictions do not preclude me from killing those attacking me, they do not disable me from defending my home and country with force. The flipside is that my desire to defend my country does not extend to allow me to wrecklessly build weapons, sell and trade them to future enemys, and to destroy innocent life only to excuse it as collatoral damage.
My conviction was that I refuse to work for the DOD to directly support that machine. In that sense I have acted on it to its fullest extent.
Clarification: I would like to see the DOD reduced in size and budget but not entirely go away. I would also like to see its actions be alot more ethical. If I were to work for the DOD I'd be in a very unfun position. I'd be voting and publicly voicing my opinion that its budget should be cut, that weapons systems development should be slowed, and that all the US nuclear weapons should be destroyed. Now if my wishes were granted in all likelyhood id be out of a job, so what do I do in that situation? If i'm voting for my job i'm more likely to compromise my convictions that we should have less weapons and spend less money on destructive tools. If I work for the DOD my opinion will change as my livelyhood depends on this work that I disagree with. Therefore I won't put myself in that position.
From your other reply: While I can't say that I necessarily think all war is bad (sometimes I think force is necessary to stop some behavior), I know war shouldn't be used for things of non-moral nature.
There is no such thing as a good war, war is terrible no matter how it goes down. Wars are sometimes inevitable and sometimes we have no choice but to use force.
I'd hardly classify that as a religious level. Most people have certain principles that they won't compromise. For instance I refuse to work for the DOD or a company that is contracted by them. I refuse to work for any organization that develops weapons systems or supports them. Is my unwillingness to be part of the war machine on the religious level? I wouldn't say so.
He is sooo wacky.
I would argue that an individual who has no principles which can't be bought is truly the whacky one.
If it trys to market itself as an encyclopedia with information that can be used and cited then it has a responsibility to ensure accuracy and truthfulness. In that sense it does owe me something. If you want wikipedia to be a collection of misinformation and popular history then you should admit that its not a viable source for research(except when researching the incorrect beliefs on various subject matter that some people have).
What I don't want to see is people reading wikipedia thinking its a truthful source when it contains misinformation. Wikipedia as it stands now can never be a viable source of information because it has no real method of rooting out lies and misinformation and thats what I'm looking for.
Honestly wikipedia is interesting but it was doomed from the beginning, the ignorant masses should not be writing history. They should not be toying with what could be used as an educational tool. It scares me to think about the misinformation that such practices have spread. The sooner wikipedia changes to a meritocracy or the sooner it dies the better.
Note: Jar Jar does not bother me, I don't see what the problem is with him, the problem i do see is horrible horrible acting from hayden christensen. Unbelievable(unbelievable in the sense of I can't believe he got paid for this crap), snivling, no magic with natalie portman at all, its unbearable to watch.
Open source does not need to prove itself, it already has with Linux, Apache, and the various BSD(wasn't originally free but since they have become free they have expanded in directions that far excede cloning existing software) flavors.
Clearly society determines who the experts and authorities are. In our society we have institutions known as colleges and universities, they happen to award degrees based in part on obtaining expertise in a specific subject. Furthermore in our society we have trades which are practiced by individuals as a source of income. An individual who has been a practicing carpenter for the past 30 years is likely an expert on the subject of carpentry. This is where anti-elitism is foolish. Knowledge obtained through years of study or practice of a craft is and should be respected for the amount of hard work that it is. With that respect I believe comes the right to trump an untested fool on the subject. A 13 year old kid should not be considered a equally valuable source on carpentry as a carpenter with 30 years experience.
Larry Sanger may be an epistemologist, but his views on knowledge and its justification seem a bit naive.
It is i think your views on knowledge that are a bit naive. To assume that fools or just ignorant people possess equally viable knowledge as professionals and scholars is disgustingly naive.
But then why even make wikipedia in the first place?
They probably have a mission statement. But if I was creating it I would look to create a central base of all knowledge that has the greatest depth and breadth of information because so many knowledgable people have submitted entries.
Wikipedia is not a reflection of these social structures, and that was intentional from the very beginning.
Wikipedia is still a reflection of social structures. Instead of reflecting a community that reviews its knowledge and resolves differences through discussion it now reflects the social structure of the troll.
In that case the government should be promoting a totalitarian regime as it would be easier. Just like Bush said "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."
We have enough problems with ideology in this country - no sense adding more to the fire.
I think as a democracy it is imperitive that we promote free and open forums, open source is in essence democracy applied to software development. To say that a democratic nation should use totalitarian software(properitary close source) when a free and democratic choice exists is i think rediculous. We must accept the baggage of freedom and cope with it, not do away with freedoms and free exchange whenever it suits our needs.
In the end if you want freedom, if you want democracy you have to take the good and the bad, no system is perfect. Without a doubt however any democratic nation should be promoting open source as it flows perfectly with the idealogy of the founding principles of democracy.
Lets just stick with the label that makes the most sense and is readily accepted without confusion. And so from this point on let it be known only as Open Source.
Great policy, that attitudes seems to really be the best idea.
Nasa guy: shit , some foam hit the shuttle when it took off, this COULD be a problem
Other Nasa Guy: well its not a problem yet, lets wait until it is.
Scientist: oh man this global warming could be bad
Politician: screw it, it aint a problem yet
if you listened to complaints based on something COULD be a problem, we wouldn't have the internet or 99% of inventions.
Listening to possible problems and concerns is how things are designed, its way easier to address the problem at design than to address it after we been using it for 3 years which means 10 billion devices are using poorly designed technology. Basically, all forseeable concerns should be addressed in the design phase. Why? Thats easy, because we can be sure that new problems will arise ones that we had no clue about. So rather than implement somethign that has both known and unknown problems we should just implement technology that has unknown problems.
Thats odd, my feeling was the other way around since, I have yet to find a program that fails to run in Apple's OS 9 compatibility "mode"(aside from some apps that attempt to capture from hardware directly, especially hardware that isn't supported by OS X but thats to be expected). Meanwhile 9/10 of all older apps ive attempted to run under win XP fail to work entirely.
I was much more pleased with OS 9 stuff under OS X because it was very much like using virtual PC, you got a window with that OS running in it. That seems to be much cleaner and easier to use for the average user than the nonsensical and rarely functioning XP hackjob.
Sorry MS fanboys, you can't brand Apple evil yet in retaliation for tarnishing the good name of M$, they are doing something they should and have every right to do.
If Boeing had come out and publicly said "that test was a disaster, we are going to have to do more work". You can bet your sweet ass that the stock would have fallen 2-5%. They are just trying to keep retarded stock trends from happening because of random irrelevant news. It actuall works the same for politicians approval, if bush had said "crap I made a mistake I admit it, this is how i'm gonna fix it" his approval rating would have dipped by a similiar value, possibly cause him to lose the election, instead he said everything is fine, I'm write(even though I'm wrong) people didn't get that knee jerk reaction that causes both approval and stock prices to drop...
So in otherwords your completely unqualified to review this for fans of Douglas Adams? This review might be useful for people who have no clue what H2G2 is but for me and other die hard fans out there its completely useless. Its like the movie reviews of LOTR I read by people who had never read the book, sadly this is becoming too commonplace, peeps need to get out and read.
Whew thats a relief, better keep it the way it is, don't want it to drop to 1%...
Now, here come the naysayers, well if you were abiding the laws then you have nothing to hide. Sure maybe now I have nothing to hide, but lets say we give up our privacy and the christian theocracy that is taking over the US gets what it wants by making blasphemy illegal I sure as shit want pricacy so I can say whatever I please about religion. What if it becomes illegal to criticize our leaders? I'd rather protect my privacy now, so I don't have to worry about going to jail for speaking my mind later on.
Here is my bit for you all to think about... A hell of alot more than 6000 people died to give me the first amendment and a right to privacy. I don't see why these 6000 deaths should reverse there sacrifice.
So.. uh.. how do you feel about dating guys you meet on /.?