Colonization, especially of extrasolar planets, is extremely unlikely, but it is definitely physically possible, given the economic and and political will to do so.
Here is the thing that doesn't make sense of the article... Building atomic bombs and sending men to the moon is not profitable, but was because of politics and geo-political situations of the cold war.
Considering us westerners have a limited world view when it comes to certain aspects of the world, we are most likely missing out on the fact that new superpowers may emerge in the next 100 years or so like China and India who may have different views on space travel. (I could really see China beating us to Mars for example)
More than likely, I would argue that the United Stated of America will not be here in 1,000 years and neither will our form of capitalism/socialism which means neither economics nor politics as we know it now will have anything to do with colonization of the galaxy. Whether we are living in mud huts practicing some form of feudalistic bartering system or living in some Star Trek singularitian utopia where the need for physical goods can simply be replicated and transported molecularly has yet to be seen.
And a lot of "hard tests" are "hard" just by including inordinate amounts of stuff that's unimportant trivia.
I would have to agree.
I'm one of those guys that test well, because I am one of those sorts that remember random useless trivia. (Did you know that the croissant originated from the Battle of Tours in the 700's?)
And I would say I aced many of my important tests by using particular test taking methods by crossing off the choices I know aren't true at the moment and come back to the answer later when I'm running low on time and just randomly pick an answer that I know I have a 50/50 chance on.
However, don't ask me to write an English paper or a thesis.
That said, I really can't see any real world application of test taking skills other than game shows and computer troubleshooting (if these conditions exist than only these possible actions could be taken) while most real world issues are highly complex and open ended.
I would argue that the root core of the problems is that the high school and college degree is used for hiring people rather than technical or hands on training.
Sure there needs to be some basic level, but I think college has lost itself in being used for a requirement for a job whereas in reality it has nothing to do with the actual job itself (except for research and science fields which usually involved Universities directly)
I'm not sure if I am making myself clear, but if we made higher education more of a hands on training or something non-ranked rather than a quantitative judgment on whether someone knows their field or not then people would simply learn for the sake of learning and not trying to game tests.
I mean I would love to go back to school just to learn things that I may or may not even use in my regular job (say like astrophysics or Japanese), but the cost of this is too high for me to even really consider.
The worst case is if the experts will also start doing this: trying to offload the patient - and therefore the risk - to someone else as soon as possible. That will lead to the people with actual serious illnesses dying, since no one will actually diagnose them in their hurry to send them to someone else before they have a chance to die on them.
Have you ever seen that episode of Scrubs where they take that wealthy hospital donor to every department to try to figure out what is wrong with them, but no one knows.
It turned out the best solution was to do nothing at all (which it turned out the protagonist did because he simply did not know the what was wrong) and the problem went away.
Had they actually did something it might have caused more a problem that the correct answer of "do nothing".
The rights rights guranteed in the constitution, are, in general, protections of an individual against government action. There is no first ammendment issue in this case, as the governemtn is not bringing action against the individual.
One of those questions I would ask is "What is the spirit of the first amendment?" by looking at the context of the time period it was created in.
Back then, people didn't sue because someone said something untrue about them... No... Usually it involved duels and although most prominent Americans looked down on dueling it was usually the solution to the matter.
But seriously, when a conflict between two individuals involves the government court... Well... That still involves the government. Hence, the government is being used by an individual to censor an individual.
Had the other party not used a governmental body to "censor" the other party, then they of course would have used other means than using a governmental court. Maybe dueling with pistols at 10 paces?
In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights.
However, I would argue that given enough technological application that you could supply the world with infinite resources or at least virtual resources which actually make the value of "real" property go down
Take the copying of an album that was released legally on mp3s over say bit torrent. Yes, it takes some degree of production to move electrons through wires, photons through fiber, and of course the material used to create the routers, your PC, and the server you got it from and the musicians effort to produce the album. In theory, if everyone in the world had internet access and a computer, the effort of getting the album to one person is almost the same as getting it to 6 billion.
Even though that might take up a bit of resources, that is minuscule the amount of resources it would take for that musician to make 6 billion cds and hand it out to everyone on the planet.
Now lets take this a step further... And take Second Life for example. As people take things from the real world and put them on virtual, then the value of "real" property goes down. Then as technology improves the immersion value of a virtual life, then having property in the real world is pointless because you can get infinite amount online with very little revenue or at least not as much as you would need if you were going to buy the comparable thing in real life.
Give it about 50 to 100 years, but the value of tangible property will go away on its own due to market forces I believe as people put more value into virtual commodities. (I'm still amazed that people buy WoW gold)
Hey... Um... That is the "Air port tax" scam that most Japanese travel agencies have standard. Since most Japanese have a hard time disagreeing, the fee is usually unquestioned. If you simply tell them "no" then they'll usually drop it since they will often try to put the "tax" onto your fees labeled "Los Angeles Airport Tax" when you know good and well that California has no taxes for travel through their airports.
Personally, I feel that gas taxes are one of the fairest taxes the government imposes, as it's an actual usage tax. If you use the infrastructure more, you pay more in taxes.
As another poster has said, that is what tolls are for.
NJ has the lowest gas prices in the nation because they charge tolls for usage on their major highways.
It makes sense because in theory you can drive from Philadelphia, PA to NYC without stopping to buy gas in NJ therefore avoiding the gas tax all together if there was one. Really... Its better for people that live in NJ since they benefit all around, but when I'm over there visiting friends or shopping I'll fill up on gas because I would pay the $3.00 exit tolls regardless.
That sounds silly and made up. Most of our experience with policemen come when we're pulled over for speeding or some other traffic infraction. It's happened to me probably ten times in my life. Never once have I had a problem in any of the four states I was pulled over. In each case, the policeman was professional and polite.
That is pretty anecdotal and you are talking about traffic cops. Treat them nice and they will generally be cool. Now if you ever deal with cops in a major city then your mileage may vary. I personally like the cops in our city in a sense they don't do that much sometimes. I've run red lights in front of them before by accident and they didn't lift a finger.
On the other hand I've heard stories that at the clubs they'll watch people get the crap beat out of them without lifting a finger either.
Of course in a city of 300 murders per year... (I'll let you figure out which one)
Anyways, I had to get a local lawyer once in the South who told me that the cop involved in a certain case lies on the stand and he has had to deal with him before. They did an illegal search on my car and not finding any illegal materials, pursued other charges and even disregarded the original reason they pulled me over for (which was speeding) but everything worked out ok for me since I wasn't living in the state at the time.
So again... Depending on where you live your mileage may vary. I've heard nightmare stories from friends in NYC about police abuse, but again... All anecdotal like mine and your stories and pretty much not a scientific study.
MacPaint was neat but Photoshop was one of the apps that made the Mac a must-have platform, and Photoshop didn't come from Apple.
Have you ever seen the difference between Adobe's Premiere and Apple's Final Cut Pro? FCP is light years ahead of anything that Premiere could do. I bought a mac just for FCP a few years ago. Its that good.
The only outcome Apple is interested in is selling product and making money for their shareholders.
Actually, I would argue that only companies who do not adhere to the whims of the shareholders are the most successful ones. Usually these are companies with "dictators" at the helm or a small group with a vision.
Take Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for example. Some of their decisions go straight against earning the company money in the short term.
Not to mention Google's decision to not split the stock in order to keep it in a small set of hands. Appeasing the stockholders is a moot point if you have complete control over the direction of the company and you are free do whatever you feel like.
This could involve dumping money into non-profitable game console which later only becomes profitable in its second generation system or doing crazy things like ripping all ATI cards out of your computers because they made a good with a press release.
Most companies who had to comply with the average corporate share holders could not do such things and get away with it. However, since these companies are controlled by a small set of persons they can usually stick with their vision.
Sad-ending vs happy-ending, or realistic-ending vs fantastic-ending, is just a matter of taste, not a matter of maturity.
But doesn't being able to enjoy more complex issues make you more mature in general? Or at least require an individual with an "aged" outlook on life.
Rather than a matter of taste, it would be simply impossible for someone to enjoy a tragedy unless they themselves understood it from experience themselves?
And it's turned out to be some of the best money I've ever spent, because before I was spending loads of time doing all the paperwork and covering my own ass. Now the lawyer does it. And he's a nice guy, to boot. Shocking.
Defense Lawyers = Good Other Person's Lawyer = Bad Prosecutor Lawyers = Really Bad Corporate Lawyers = Really Evil
If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general?
To be fair, the Russian revolution would have never happened if Tsar had not placed so much belief in his faith with God in the war and kept Rasputin around to faith heal his son. I could go on about the intracity of the Russian Orthodox church and Russian Feudalism which again lead to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
Secondly, without Hitler's campaign into Russia, there might have never been a Russian superpower as we know it. And Hitler's success in Germany was due to a long standing historical anti-semitic view by the German people.
Take the 1096AD German Crusade which rather than going all the way to the Holy Lands to fight infidels, Germans stayed at home and attacked Jewish communities. Although this was not directly a part of the Papacies doing, it was defiantly a part of the German people religious attitudes towards non-Christians that caused this issue.
Not to mention the historical political situation in Germany would have never come about had the religious wars of the 1600-1700s between the Protestants and Catholics which latter resulted in a rather unified Prussia who later became the German empire and lost WWI which later gave rise to Hitler and WWII.
Yes, this is all 6th person removed what if scenarios, but religion is a part of our world and is responsibile for our political situation today. (Especially in the mid-east)
We'd still have a great deal of problems with Nationalism wars, but otherwise we wouldn't see the issues we are in the middle east if everyone just up and stopped believed in their particular man in the sky.
The world would be without a lot of hospitals and institutions of higher learning.
Oh, so you mean the ancient Romans and Greeks never did anything like that?
Actually, from my understanding one of the reasons for the Dark Ages was because of Christianity. Not until the Church lost its dominance did things such as higher education, scientific, and modern medicine emerge during the renaissance.
And to be fair, they had a great helping hand from the Roman and Greek texts that the Church had simply stashed away ignored for almost a 1,000 years.
And to also be fair, I'm strictly talking about the Catholic church central powers and authority. It is interesting to note that the re-emergence of science and higher learning did coincide with the Protestant reformation and that Islamic scholars did also acheive similar results in their eras way before this.
I'm just saying Christianity isn't required for the things you talk of as example of ancient Romans and Greeks.
Or rather a Church that has so little faith in its message that it has to use a secular governmental court to enforce its views.
Seriously, no one has the right to earn automatic respect. You have the right to freedom of speech and the right to not by physically harmed.
But you do not have the right to not be disrespected.
Otherwise we end up with situations of death threats against Danish newspapers for cartoons of Mohamed.
Freedom of speech means being able to disrespect anyone or anything and be free from harm or punishment by the government. Otherwise many people will use "anti-disrespect laws" to enforce their political views and or religious views onto people who disagree with them.
Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure that requires a trademark or a copyright.
And I seriously doubt the church has either of those.
4. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS, without asking permission?
Gun problem? Did Manchester have over 300 murders last year like many of our cities have in the US?
I seriously doubt that.
Secondly, the FPS was about a war in which the battle was waged through the church and not a murder sim like GTA.
I can't tell you how many Churches were used as key battle points in WWII on both West and Eastern fronts. Churches usually provided good places for covering fire and observation points for artillery spotters. And although this is a sort of fictional futuristic sci-fi war FPS, I could realistically see a church being fought over by troops.
Lastly, there is no scientific evidence (or logical common sense evidence) that links video game violence with real life violence.
So really, this has more to do with unpatched windows than IIS? Or am I missing something?
Did you even read the summary?
It says the malware is because of pirated versions of windows that don't get updated with security fixes.
Without reading the article you can use logic to assume the following 2 reasons:
1. You can't run IIS on anything but Windows OS 2. Windows OS isn't free so the users resort to piracy
Now in that respect, you could in theory have a pirated Windows Advanced Server 2003 running Apache if you really wanted to, but anyone that is going through with the trouble of running Apache is most likely going to download a free Linux distro because of two reasons:
1. It is more secure because you do have access to the latest patches 2. It is legally free
I believe more so the second one has more to do that the first, because even someone who is blatantly disregarding security or technical knowhow may not want to run a website using illegal methods. (Especially running a business)
Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?
I heard a good deal of this was subsidized by tax payer money or tax breaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Colonization, especially of extrasolar planets, is extremely unlikely, but it is definitely physically possible, given the economic and and political will to do so.
Here is the thing that doesn't make sense of the article... Building atomic bombs and sending men to the moon is not profitable, but was because of politics and geo-political situations of the cold war.
Considering us westerners have a limited world view when it comes to certain aspects of the world, we are most likely missing out on the fact that new superpowers may emerge in the next 100 years or so like China and India who may have different views on space travel. (I could really see China beating us to Mars for example)
More than likely, I would argue that the United Stated of America will not be here in 1,000 years and neither will our form of capitalism/socialism which means neither economics nor politics as we know it now will have anything to do with colonization of the galaxy. Whether we are living in mud huts practicing some form of feudalistic bartering system or living in some Star Trek singularitian utopia where the need for physical goods can simply be replicated and transported molecularly has yet to be seen.
And a lot of "hard tests" are "hard" just by including inordinate amounts of stuff that's unimportant trivia.
I would have to agree.
I'm one of those guys that test well, because I am one of those sorts that remember random useless trivia. (Did you know that the croissant originated from the Battle of Tours in the 700's?)
And I would say I aced many of my important tests by using particular test taking methods by crossing off the choices I know aren't true at the moment and come back to the answer later when I'm running low on time and just randomly pick an answer that I know I have a 50/50 chance on.
However, don't ask me to write an English paper or a thesis.
That said, I really can't see any real world application of test taking skills other than game shows and computer troubleshooting (if these conditions exist than only these possible actions could be taken) while most real world issues are highly complex and open ended.
I would argue that the root core of the problems is that the high school and college degree is used for hiring people rather than technical or hands on training.
Sure there needs to be some basic level, but I think college has lost itself in being used for a requirement for a job whereas in reality it has nothing to do with the actual job itself (except for research and science fields which usually involved Universities directly)
I'm not sure if I am making myself clear, but if we made higher education more of a hands on training or something non-ranked rather than a quantitative judgment on whether someone knows their field or not then people would simply learn for the sake of learning and not trying to game tests.
I mean I would love to go back to school just to learn things that I may or may not even use in my regular job (say like astrophysics or Japanese), but the cost of this is too high for me to even really consider.
The worst case is if the experts will also start doing this: trying to offload the patient - and therefore the risk - to someone else as soon as possible. That will lead to the people with actual serious illnesses dying, since no one will actually diagnose them in their hurry to send them to someone else before they have a chance to die on them.
Have you ever seen that episode of Scrubs where they take that wealthy hospital donor to every department to try to figure out what is wrong with them, but no one knows.
It turned out the best solution was to do nothing at all (which it turned out the protagonist did because he simply did not know the what was wrong) and the problem went away.
Had they actually did something it might have caused more a problem that the correct answer of "do nothing".
The rights rights guranteed in the constitution, are, in general, protections
of an individual against government action. There is no first ammendment issue in this case, as the governemtn is
not bringing action against the individual.
One of those questions I would ask is "What is the spirit of the first amendment?" by looking at the context of the time period it was created in.
Back then, people didn't sue because someone said something untrue about them... No... Usually it involved duels and although most prominent Americans looked down on dueling it was usually the solution to the matter.
But seriously, when a conflict between two individuals involves the government court... Well... That still involves the government. Hence, the government is being used by an individual to censor an individual.
Had the other party not used a governmental body to "censor" the other party, then they of course would have used other means than using a governmental court. Maybe dueling with pistols at 10 paces?
I would genuinely like to know why you disagree.
Well I disagree primarily because it isn't taking care of the root cause of the problem. Which the human.
No amount of legislation of social engineering can fix the fact that humans are bad drivers.
The only solution is of something something like this.
In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights.
However, I would argue that given enough technological application that you could supply the world with infinite resources or at least virtual resources which actually make the value of "real" property go down
Take the copying of an album that was released legally on mp3s over say bit torrent. Yes, it takes some degree of production to move electrons through wires, photons through fiber, and of course the material used to create the routers, your PC, and the server you got it from and the musicians effort to produce the album. In theory, if everyone in the world had internet access and a computer, the effort of getting the album to one person is almost the same as getting it to 6 billion.
Even though that might take up a bit of resources, that is minuscule the amount of resources it would take for that musician to make 6 billion cds and hand it out to everyone on the planet.
Now lets take this a step further... And take Second Life for example. As people take things from the real world and put them on virtual, then the value of "real" property goes down. Then as technology improves the immersion value of a virtual life, then having property in the real world is pointless because you can get infinite amount online with very little revenue or at least not as much as you would need if you were going to buy the comparable thing in real life.
Give it about 50 to 100 years, but the value of tangible property will go away on its own due to market forces I believe as people put more value into virtual commodities. (I'm still amazed that people buy WoW gold)
Try leaving Japan sometime. They charge to leave.
Hey... Um... That is the "Air port tax" scam that most Japanese travel agencies have standard. Since most Japanese have a hard time disagreeing, the fee is usually unquestioned. If you simply tell them "no" then they'll usually drop it since they will often try to put the "tax" onto your fees labeled "Los Angeles Airport Tax" when you know good and well that California has no taxes for travel through their airports.
Personally, I feel that gas taxes are one of the fairest taxes the government imposes, as it's an actual usage tax. If you use the infrastructure more, you pay more in taxes.
As another poster has said, that is what tolls are for.
NJ has the lowest gas prices in the nation because they charge tolls for usage on their major highways.
It makes sense because in theory you can drive from Philadelphia, PA to NYC without stopping to buy gas in NJ therefore avoiding the gas tax all together if there was one. Really... Its better for people that live in NJ since they benefit all around, but when I'm over there visiting friends or shopping I'll fill up on gas because I would pay the $3.00 exit tolls regardless.
So what? The people will move out of the state because of it?
I was thinking that voting in elections would be cheaper than moving.
That sounds silly and made up. Most of our experience with policemen come when we're pulled over for speeding or some other traffic infraction. It's happened to me probably ten times in my life. Never once have I had a problem in any of the four states I was pulled over. In each case, the policeman was professional and polite.
That is pretty anecdotal and you are talking about traffic cops. Treat them nice and they will generally be cool. Now if you ever deal with cops in a major city then your mileage may vary. I personally like the cops in our city in a sense they don't do that much sometimes. I've run red lights in front of them before by accident and they didn't lift a finger.
On the other hand I've heard stories that at the clubs they'll watch people get the crap beat out of them without lifting a finger either.
Of course in a city of 300 murders per year... (I'll let you figure out which one)
Anyways, I had to get a local lawyer once in the South who told me that the cop involved in a certain case lies on the stand and he has had to deal with him before. They did an illegal search on my car and not finding any illegal materials, pursued other charges and even disregarded the original reason they pulled me over for (which was speeding) but everything worked out ok for me since I wasn't living in the state at the time.
So again... Depending on where you live your mileage may vary. I've heard nightmare stories from friends in NYC about police abuse, but again... All anecdotal like mine and your stories and pretty much not a scientific study.
MacPaint was neat but Photoshop was one of the apps that made the Mac a must-have platform, and Photoshop didn't come from Apple.
Have you ever seen the difference between Adobe's Premiere and Apple's Final Cut Pro? FCP is light years ahead of anything that Premiere could do. I bought a mac just for FCP a few years ago. Its that good.
The only outcome Apple is interested in is selling product and making money for their shareholders.
Actually, I would argue that only companies who do not adhere to the whims of the shareholders are the most successful ones. Usually these are companies with "dictators" at the helm or a small group with a vision.
Take Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for example. Some of their decisions go straight against earning the company money in the short term.
Not to mention Google's decision to not split the stock in order to keep it in a small set of hands. Appeasing the stockholders is a moot point if you have complete control over the direction of the company and you are free do whatever you feel like.
This could involve dumping money into non-profitable game console which later only becomes profitable in its second generation system or doing crazy things like ripping all ATI cards out of your computers because they made a good with a press release.
Most companies who had to comply with the average corporate share holders could not do such things and get away with it. However, since these companies are controlled by a small set of persons they can usually stick with their vision.
First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.
True, but according to free market economics, I have the ability and right to boycott private organizations who participate in such behavior.
Getting this information out and the opening and decrying it helps others to do the same and to know the truth about this behavior.
Even though it is legal, it doesn't make it right in my views and I can voice my opinion by not supporting their private organization.
A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes
Huh? That is how GPLv2 is supposed to work as of now.
Sad-ending vs happy-ending, or realistic-ending vs fantastic-ending, is just a matter of taste, not a matter of maturity.
But doesn't being able to enjoy more complex issues make you more mature in general? Or at least require an individual with an "aged" outlook on life.
Rather than a matter of taste, it would be simply impossible for someone to enjoy a tragedy unless they themselves understood it from experience themselves?
And it's turned out to be some of the best money I've ever spent, because before I was spending loads of time doing all the paperwork and covering my own ass. Now the lawyer does it. And he's a nice guy, to boot. Shocking.
Defense Lawyers = Good
Other Person's Lawyer = Bad
Prosecutor Lawyers = Really Bad
Corporate Lawyers = Really Evil
If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general?
To be fair, the Russian revolution would have never happened if Tsar had not placed so much belief in his faith with God in the war and kept Rasputin around to faith heal his son. I could go on about the intracity of the Russian Orthodox church and Russian Feudalism which again lead to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
Secondly, without Hitler's campaign into Russia, there might have never been a Russian superpower as we know it. And Hitler's success in Germany was due to a long standing historical anti-semitic view by the German people.
Take the 1096AD German Crusade which rather than going all the way to the Holy Lands to fight infidels, Germans stayed at home and attacked Jewish communities. Although this was not directly a part of the Papacies doing, it was defiantly a part of the German people religious attitudes towards non-Christians that caused this issue.
Not to mention the historical political situation in Germany would have never come about had the religious wars of the 1600-1700s between the Protestants and Catholics which latter resulted in a rather unified Prussia who later became the German empire and lost WWI which later gave rise to Hitler and WWII.
Yes, this is all 6th person removed what if scenarios, but religion is a part of our world and is responsibile for our political situation today. (Especially in the mid-east)
We'd still have a great deal of problems with Nationalism wars, but otherwise we wouldn't see the issues we are in the middle east if everyone just up and stopped believed in their particular man in the sky.
The world would be without a lot of hospitals and institutions of higher learning.
Oh, so you mean the ancient Romans and Greeks never did anything like that?
Actually, from my understanding one of the reasons for the Dark Ages was because of Christianity. Not until the Church lost its dominance did things such as higher education, scientific, and modern medicine emerge during the renaissance.
And to be fair, they had a great helping hand from the Roman and Greek texts that the Church had simply stashed away ignored for almost a 1,000 years.
And to also be fair, I'm strictly talking about the Catholic church central powers and authority. It is interesting to note that the re-emergence of science and higher learning did coincide with the Protestant reformation and that Islamic scholars did also acheive similar results in their eras way before this.
I'm just saying Christianity isn't required for the things you talk of as example of ancient Romans and Greeks.
Oh... And let's not forget ancient China!
This simply shows a sad lack or respect.
Or rather a Church that has so little faith in its message that it has to use a secular governmental court to enforce its views.
Seriously, no one has the right to earn automatic respect. You have the right to freedom of speech and the right to not by physically harmed.
But you do not have the right to not be disrespected.
Otherwise we end up with situations of death threats against Danish newspapers for cartoons of Mohamed.
Freedom of speech means being able to disrespect anyone or anything and be free from harm or punishment by the government. Otherwise many people will use "anti-disrespect laws" to enforce their political views and or religious views onto people who disagree with them.
Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure that requires a trademark or a copyright.
And I seriously doubt the church has either of those.
4. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS, without asking permission?
Gun problem? Did Manchester have over 300 murders last year like many of our cities have in the US?
I seriously doubt that.
Secondly, the FPS was about a war in which the battle was waged through the church and not a murder sim like GTA.
I can't tell you how many Churches were used as key battle points in WWII on both West and Eastern fronts. Churches usually provided good places for covering fire and observation points for artillery spotters. And although this is a sort of fictional futuristic sci-fi war FPS, I could realistically see a church being fought over by troops.
Lastly, there is no scientific evidence (or logical common sense evidence) that links video game violence with real life violence.
There should be no legal repercussions for Sony choosing to tell a story a certain way.
This would be akin to Germany suing video game makers for showing the Brandenburg gates in a WWII game.
Otherwise it appears that the Church has so little faith in their own message that they have to use a secular government to enforce their views.
So really, this has more to do with unpatched windows than IIS? Or am I missing something?
Did you even read the summary?
It says the malware is because of pirated versions of windows that don't get updated with security fixes.
Without reading the article you can use logic to assume the following 2 reasons:
1. You can't run IIS on anything but Windows OS
2. Windows OS isn't free so the users resort to piracy
Now in that respect, you could in theory have a pirated Windows Advanced Server 2003 running Apache if you really wanted to, but anyone that is going through with the trouble of running Apache is most likely going to download a free Linux distro because of two reasons:
1. It is more secure because you do have access to the latest patches
2. It is legally free
I believe more so the second one has more to do that the first, because even someone who is blatantly disregarding security or technical knowhow may not want to run a website using illegal methods. (Especially running a business)
It really hurts me to take microsoft's side.
What was that saying?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Seemed to work for the Allies and Soviets during WWII. Never mind the problems afterwards...
Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?
I heard a good deal of this was subsidized by tax payer money or tax breaks.