You want a GLBT guild? Blizzard says "OK!" You want a red-haired puppy lover guild? Blizzard says "OK!" You want a hamburger flippers guild? Blizzard says "OK!" You want a guild built around any inclusive or exclusive group you can dream up? Blizzard says "OK!"
BUT! and this is where the weeping and gnashing of teeth comes from...
You can't advertise it AS a restrictive guild, or a guild built around real life issues in game. Period.
You can use Official World of Warcraft Guild Recruitment forums (paid for by Blizzard, I might add) to advertise your guild, be it GLBT, radical Islamist, drunken bum... whatever. But you can't hop into General chat and say "GLBT guild recruiting" or "Christian guild recruiting" or "Slashdot readers guild recruiting"
If it touches on a sensative real life issue, you don't discuss it public channels in game. Out of game... you go for it. Blizzard will even pay for the bandwidth.
As for marriages? Blizzard has said repeatidly... the tools are there to do it if you want to. Its not officially supported, but its not hindered either. You want two female cows to get married on top of the Twin Collusses? Go for it. Just don't advertise a lesbian wedding in general chat.
The Apollo example is bad. When 'slim chance' met orbital mechanics, orbital mechanics won easily. And thus, Apollo landed. That was not random... that was intelligently guided. Careful... that way lies dragons.
But to your main point... dead on.
I think it was Hawking who said something like: In a universe of infinite size and infite duration, everything possible will have happened an infinite amount of times.
Life could have formed by random processes. It could also have been planted by aliens, who themselves formed from random processes, or dropped off by a passing comet, or arrived on a Chesterfield Sofa.
The probability argument looks nice... but when you stop to consider everything else it brings to the table, it may be a sleeping dragon that is best left alone, out of sight of the loonies of the left and radicals of the right. (yes, the loonies of the left are behaving themselves right now... doesn't mean we should tempt them)
You are fortunate. Many public schools do not teach non-Euclidean geometry at all. Which is sad.
It sounds you were exposed to critical thinking, independent thought, and had the freedom to raise questions and seek answers. IE: you had a decent high school education.
This should be the standard, not the exception.
If that designer is hypothocized to be an invisible god that does not wish to be found, then that verions of ID is not proveable, and is not science.
If that designers is hypothocized to be an alien race that seeded earth with designed life forms, the situation changes. We COULD find the designer and thus COULD prove that version of intelligent design.
ID does not equal a god and only a god. Any designer falls under Intelligent Design.
And yes, if we hypothocize a designer that can be found, we can in fact prove ID. Or disprove ID, should we find evidence that life was not designed and seeded.
Remember... science deals in best theories, not absolute truths. And not-best theories are not dismissed unless disproven. Alien-design could be on the table for a long time, given that other intelligent life forms are currently in the realm of possibility for the known universe. It may not be the best, but it will probably hang around. And that is OK.
And there are real scientists who don't believe in any god who think that intelligent design might be right.
You have a hard case selling intelligent design as not being a theory. It is a very minority theory, I grant you. And yes, it is proveable. All we need to do in order to prove intelligent design is to find the people who designed and seeded life on earth.
That could be $deity. It could also be aliens who are watching our progress from a secret base on Venus that the EU Venus probe could discover in the next couple of years.
The fact is, the question of the first appearance of life opens the door that allows for an outside force to seed the earth with life... be it alien, asteroid (which holds more validity among many astronomers) or complex natural processes.
We don't know. And there is nothing wrong with offering explanations until we do know. And determining what evidence would be needed to validate or disprove those explanations. Eliminating those that cannot be proven or disproven (an invisible god who wishes to not be found, for instance should elimanted as not being provable or disproveable. Aliens can be proven or disproven, and thus can remain on the table). Once we have a list of explanations and what would support or deny them, we go look for that evidence for or against, we publish our find in journals for other scientists to reveiw, and debate which better supports what, adjust our lists of possibilities according to the new info, and keep looking. Intelligent design is just an item on the list, although one that is not well supported. Evolution is an item, although one that is well supported. Tomorrow, that could all change. That is beauty of science.
Insisting that ONLY evolution CAN be right and ONLY evolution CAN be taught is just as wrong as saying that ONLY intelligent design can be right.
Science does not deal in absolute explanations. It deals in best explanations.
It worries me more that so many/. types are unwilling to concede that evolution should ever be quetioned by anyone for any reason, ever. That makes me wonder if we didnt' quit teaching science in the US a long time ago...
I'm not sure there is a scientist that does NOT concede that evolution has some holes. Or, to be more specific, some areas in which evolutionary explanations rely heavily on events or processes that exist only theoretically.
For instance: the creation of life in the first place. To date, this has not been done in any laboratory, anywhere, by anyone, ever. Period. In fact, we really don't even know what makes a living thing living. And yet evolution depends as a cornor stone that at some point a natural (random some would say, debateable though it may be) process resulted in a living organism. This is a phnomenon that is inexplicable under modern science.
Is it a hole in evolution? You bet. Fatal flaw? Nope. Valid criticism? I'd say so. Reason to keep an eye out for alternative theories that can explain everything that evolution explains AND this phenomenon? Sure. That's what science is all about.
Retrograde motion was what led Copernicus to move from earth-centric to sun-centric solar system views. It could be that the life question will lead some genius down the road to an explanation that explains everything evolution does AND the creation of life, which is yet inexplicable.
And this is only one hole. There are serious questions about the development of certain sub-cellular systems that would appear to not work unless the whole system appeared at the same time. Some biologists use these microscopic but complex and integrated systems to quetion current evolutionary theory. Again, this does not mean evolution is disproved. Only that there are places where evolutionary explanations are iffy, and which open the door that something better could come along.
Remember, gravity looked fantastic as a theory... until Einstein wrote General Relativity and kicked gravity aside. Newtonian equations still give mostly correct answers, and his stuff is still taught in high school physics (which I disagree with). But the new Relativity theory better explains the phenonoma that the Law of gravity explains. Change happens.
My point: Evolution is not a perfect theory. It has gaps. It has flaws. There are things it should explain that it explains poorly or not at all. Just like earth-centric theory. Just like gravity.
Evolution SHOULD be questioned. Regularly. Harshly. It should be held up and ripped up and down, in and out, beaten and battered and every last flaw found, examined, exposed, and denounced. THAT is what science does. Evolution is not a perfect theory, and should be criticized.
However, just because a theory has weak places does not mean it is dead wrong and should be discarded.
Saying ID is right and evolution is wrong because of a few gaps in evolution is wrong. Saying evolution is complete, polished, always right and cannot be challenged is also wrong. Neither is science.
Teaching the problems with evolution at the high school level I think is a good idea. I also think we should teach general relativity and non-Euclidean geometry, so I may have higher standards than most. But that is a seperate rant.
If Sony wants Blu-Ray movies.. Sony will get Blu-Ray movies.
Sony is big in the movie industry. Sony brought a ton of movies to UMD. Sony has other movie companies on board the Blu-Ray consortium.
Why would Sony not be able to have lots of Blu-Ray (and Blu-Ray only) releases available for the PS3 release? They control how their movies are encoded and on what... if they wanted to release Spiderman 2 on floppies, they could do it.
Since when? I thought one big gripe was that MS left it at DVD, with the promise of maybe one day upgrading it to HD-DVD.
I think the GP has a fair argument. If XBOX360 = DVD and PS3 = (better than DVD) and Sony makes sure that movies will be available in the (better than DVD) format (which is cake for them), then PS3 gets a big marketing boost over the XBOX360.
If the programs run on AMD slow or crash as result of funny business by the Intel compiler, then wouldn't all companies and individuals using AMD processors have grounds for a class action lawsuit against Intel?
Or, more likely, wouldn't the companies that use the Intel compiler have such grounds? Because if Uber-Game is compiled with an Intel compiler, and crashes repeatidly on AMD... either the gaming house will take a hit in reputation and sales, or the QA for the gaming house will take a hit in job security and paycheck size. Either way, Intel sounds like they could be liable as such instability would (potentially) directly stem from their attempts at sabotaging AMD.
Only if you are so closed minded that you only consider scholarship to be valid if it is an area that interests you.
There are scholars of science fiction. Is 'science fiction scholar' an oxymoron? No. The scholar is studying science fiction. So how is 'theological scholar' and oxymoron? It is someone who studies theology. And that study would be... wait for it.... theological scholarship.
You may believe both areas of study to be absolute fact (and wonder why the Enterprise hasn't shown up lately), or to be absolute fiction (probably your case). Doesn't matter. At all. They are still areas worthy of study, and that study would be 'scholarship.'
I fail to see how anyone with above a fifth grade education could consider a study they don't like to not be real. Either such a person is impossibly stupid, blinded by ideology (your case I suspect), or trolling.
Intelligent troll... now THAT's an oxymoron.
some people might argue that society is awarding a multi-year all expenses paid vacation to a luxury resort to anyone who breaks the law.
Private room, central air, cable, near perfect security, high speed internet, guaranteed meals (that are nutritious, even), little contact with that annoying Real World (tm)... Geek Heaven?
The last thing we want to is provide geeks with incentive to rob a bank so they can move into something better than the basement.
If you support Apple, you agree that NDA are binding and that breaking a NDA is breaking the law. You further agree that journalists should be allowed to protect criminals.
If you support the bloggers, you agree that NDAs are not binding and that breaking an NDA is not breaking the law. The Journalist/crime thing does not come into play, as you do not see a crime.
If you support the Journalists, you agree that regardless of the presence or lack of a crime or trade secret, Journalists should be allowed to publish anything, anytime, anywhere, and not have to ever reveal any sources, ever, for any reason, to anyone.
So... all those who support the bloggers and are under an NDA, please post all the information covered by that NDA here... since clearly you feel that all that information is part the right of the public and it is the job of the company to cut off your fingers and rip out your tongue so you couldn't tell anyone what is covered by the NDA. Otherwise, the company didn't really care... right? So... all you 'Apple is wrong' people, start posting! I know none of you are hypocrits... I can't wait to see what juicy info you have that is covered by NDAs to disclose!
Anyone have any reviews for Tiger on any hardware platform?
I'm sure Ars will have one up (complaining about the finder again) before too much longer. Anything to convince me to take my g3 700 640mb iBook to Tiger in the meantime?
That would be the social responsible, intelligent, insightful thing to do. Naturally, slashdot would rather whine and price airline tickets and emigration restrictions... then still be in the country six months later, still whining, still pricing airline tickets, and still wondering why Congress isn't listening to them.
Here's a clue, folks... most Congressmen do listen. If you call them, if you write them, your opinion is taken into consideration. Even if there is no money attached. Do corporations have too much power? You bet they do. Does that mean we are powerless? Not in the slighest.
The slashdot effect can do more than take down webservers. You have political power. 500,000 emails each from a private individual going to DHS will be hard to ignore. A flood protesting phone calls to relevant Senators, a flood so big it knocks out phone service to the capital for the afternoon... that will cause lots of conversation in the halls of Congress.
The biggest complaint of every politician I know of is this: the people do not communicate enough. That's a blank check slashdot.
Now, go back to pricing plane tickets. Much easier that way.
Given that Soyuz is the result of the Russian attempt to copy the hugely successful US Apollo program, I'd expect the Soyuz to still work well. As space craft go, the Apollo series was not that complex... almost no re-useable components... small to nonexistent cargo capacity... cramped... small crew... useless in satellite retrieval...
Yep. It's decades behind the shuttle alright. But that doesn't mean its useless. A horse may be decades behind a pickup truck... it may not have as much power and versatility as a pickup truck... but if you want to get something from A to B, odds are that outdated, decades old horse will do it, every time. That doesn't mean the truck maker is taking advice from the horse trainer on how to handle cargo transport, though. Nor does it mean that the horse is better than the truck.
Not really. The hole fix (or modification, if you prefer) is old news. It's been out for quite some time now.
All, and I mean all, Apple did was require the newest PyMusique-proof version in order to use the iTMS.
Besides, from Apple's (RIAA mandated) point-of-view, this probably was a security hole, seeing as it was fixed weeks before DVD-John decided to take advantage of the exploit. The problem was fixed before the problem occured... they just now are requiring people to download the fix.
Lies about steroids = libel
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, this is a big deal
Take the Boone conversation that could physically never have happened. That story implicates Boone as a criminal, one who used an illegal (under US law) substance. Since that story is very obviously a lie... ie: phyically impossible that it happened... then Canseco's implication of Boone as a steroid junky is a lie ie: based on evidence that is not real. Thus, Canseco lied when he implicated Boone as a criminal. Thus, Boone should be able to sue his chemically enhanced butt for millions in a basic libel suit. And sue the publisher as well.
Accusing someone of being a criminal based on evidence that does not exist is not a small matter. It could be criminal, IANAL.
Now, use your head... if Canseco made up stories that we can prove to be false, what are the odds that he is telling the truth about the stuff that we have no proof of? If he making libelous claims that can be proven false, what are the odds he is telling the truth in the libelous claism that are not verifiable? Seriously... if this guy offered to sell you a used car, would you buy it without driving it first? And yet you believe him when he makes criminal claims against peole with no known record (Palmeiro)?
Here's hoping Palmeiro does file that libel suit he is considering and bleeds this stupid jerk out of every last dime that book made him.
People wanting to save a TV show tend to be more organized and attractive to the media than someone wanting to save an old probe.
Stuff happens when the media covers it. Hollywood is sexy... it gets covered.
Science is stuffy... it gets ignored.
Welcome to academia.
No, no he is not.
No funding redirected into the moon/mars missions came from this program. Nor did the moon/mars directive cost us Hubble.
And NASA was largely spared budget cuts in the latest proposed budget... no one has "summarily cut" NASAs budget regardless of moon/mars.
Now excuse me while I am modded into oblivion for posting something that even looks faintly like a defense of Bush Inc.
As far as that goes, why not see if a few big universities would want to take them over for prestige reasons?
Pros: keeps scientists around the project, attracts new graduate students, looks good in recruiting.
Cons: Star Trek convention relocates to your campus, local CS majors holding a hacking contest to see who can be the first to overclock or install linux on an object outside the solar system, university webserver melted by/. everytime a new discovery is made
please... someone mod this clown as funny before anyone actually takes him seriously...
the last thing we need is for people to think that slashdot lifted its front page customizing scheme from google.
How did you decide that this has to do with Japan protecting its markets (from what? If US companies can't sell processors to Japan, where will they go for chips to drive their computers? Toshiba?)?
1. Intel was not dominating Japan. AMD was doing ok there. 2. Intel suddenly beats the snot out of AMD in Japan 3. Japan investigates, for some reason, learns that Intel was raising the price of Intel processors sold to any company that also bought from AMD 4. Investigation hits the press/slashdot.
Read the article... heck just skim the article for years. This started way back before the dollar was weak. Like, when the dollar was really really strong. Unless Intel has invented time travel, the price of the dollar has less to do with this investigation than the price of eggs in China.
I wonder, though... if Intel was doing this same thing with Dell. Might explain why Dell won't leave Intel... at all. Even though the Opteron has lately been a better product, and one for which there is significant demand.
According the article, no one was all that surprised Win XP SP 1 went down in 18 minutes. After all, it is not up to date... it is essentially an old OS, right? So this is expected, right? Old OSs should be broken into, right?
And then we have OS X 10.2, aka, Jaguar. No successful attacks. Older OS, check. Not up to date with all the latest security features that are in Panther, check. And not one successful attack.
One company makes on OS that still stands after two and a half years... one company makes an OS that only stands after a major major major patch and constant updates that sometimes break software. Now, which company's OS would I choose to build a secure network? Sure, it's a flawed argument, but still I think worth noting.
More importantly, Apple has the sizable cash reserve to prop TiVo up until a way can be found to keep the device from losing money. iMovie store a possibility there.
On the other hand, why would Apple want to take on a company that is losing money? Does TiVo have any IP that Apple needs? Any engineers that Apple wants to hire but can't pry away from TiVo? If all Apple is going for is a good PVR device for some future Mac... why not leverage your own brand and build your own? Apple has the tech and the cash to do it... do they really need TiVo for a mere PVR?
Slashdot Mirror
You want a GLBT guild? Blizzard says "OK!"
You want a red-haired puppy lover guild? Blizzard says "OK!"
You want a hamburger flippers guild? Blizzard says "OK!"
You want a guild built around any inclusive or exclusive group you can dream up? Blizzard says "OK!"
BUT! and this is where the weeping and gnashing of teeth comes from...
You can't advertise it AS a restrictive guild, or a guild built around real life issues in game. Period.
You can use Official World of Warcraft Guild Recruitment forums (paid for by Blizzard, I might add) to advertise your guild, be it GLBT, radical Islamist, drunken bum... whatever. But you can't hop into General chat and say
"GLBT guild recruiting" or
"Christian guild recruiting" or
"Slashdot readers guild recruiting"
If it touches on a sensative real life issue, you don't discuss it public channels in game. Out of game... you go for it. Blizzard will even pay for the bandwidth.
As for marriages? Blizzard has said repeatidly... the tools are there to do it if you want to. Its not officially supported, but its not hindered either. You want two female cows to get married on top of the Twin Collusses? Go for it. Just don't advertise a lesbian wedding in general chat.
The Apollo example is bad. When 'slim chance' met orbital mechanics, orbital mechanics won easily. And thus, Apollo landed. That was not random... that was intelligently guided. Careful... that way lies dragons.
But to your main point... dead on.
I think it was Hawking who said something like: In a universe of infinite size and infite duration, everything possible will have happened an infinite amount of times.
Life could have formed by random processes. It could also have been planted by aliens, who themselves formed from random processes, or dropped off by a passing comet, or arrived on a Chesterfield Sofa.
The probability argument looks nice... but when you stop to consider everything else it brings to the table, it may be a sleeping dragon that is best left alone, out of sight of the loonies of the left and radicals of the right. (yes, the loonies of the left are behaving themselves right now... doesn't mean we should tempt them)
You are fortunate. Many public schools do not teach non-Euclidean geometry at all. Which is sad. It sounds you were exposed to critical thinking, independent thought, and had the freedom to raise questions and seek answers. IE: you had a decent high school education. This should be the standard, not the exception.
We need only find the designer.
If that designer is hypothocized to be an invisible god that does not wish to be found, then that verions of ID is not proveable, and is not science.
If that designers is hypothocized to be an alien race that seeded earth with designed life forms, the situation changes. We COULD find the designer and thus COULD prove that version of intelligent design.
ID does not equal a god and only a god. Any designer falls under Intelligent Design.
And yes, if we hypothocize a designer that can be found, we can in fact prove ID. Or disprove ID, should we find evidence that life was not designed and seeded.
Remember... science deals in best theories, not absolute truths. And not-best theories are not dismissed unless disproven. Alien-design could be on the table for a long time, given that other intelligent life forms are currently in the realm of possibility for the known universe. It may not be the best, but it will probably hang around. And that is OK.
Teaching criticism of evolution is EXACTLY what science classes should be doing. Science depends on criticism... that is what makes science work.
Teaching ANYTHING as an absolute truth under the label of "science" should be fought. That is not science.
That does not mean that the Kansas School Board is right. Only that being critical of evolution is not wrong.
And there are real scientists who don't believe in any god who think that intelligent design might be right.
/. types are unwilling to concede that evolution should ever be quetioned by anyone for any reason, ever. That makes me wonder if we didnt' quit teaching science in the US a long time ago...
You have a hard case selling intelligent design as not being a theory. It is a very minority theory, I grant you. And yes, it is proveable. All we need to do in order to prove intelligent design is to find the people who designed and seeded life on earth.
That could be $deity. It could also be aliens who are watching our progress from a secret base on Venus that the EU Venus probe could discover in the next couple of years.
The fact is, the question of the first appearance of life opens the door that allows for an outside force to seed the earth with life... be it alien, asteroid (which holds more validity among many astronomers) or complex natural processes.
We don't know. And there is nothing wrong with offering explanations until we do know. And determining what evidence would be needed to validate or disprove those explanations. Eliminating those that cannot be proven or disproven (an invisible god who wishes to not be found, for instance should elimanted as not being provable or disproveable. Aliens can be proven or disproven, and thus can remain on the table). Once we have a list of explanations and what would support or deny them, we go look for that evidence for or against, we publish our find in journals for other scientists to reveiw, and debate which better supports what, adjust our lists of possibilities according to the new info, and keep looking. Intelligent design is just an item on the list, although one that is not well supported. Evolution is an item, although one that is well supported. Tomorrow, that could all change. That is beauty of science.
Insisting that ONLY evolution CAN be right and ONLY evolution CAN be taught is just as wrong as saying that ONLY intelligent design can be right.
Science does not deal in absolute explanations. It deals in best explanations.
It worries me more that so many
I'm not sure there is a scientist that does NOT concede that evolution has some holes. Or, to be more specific, some areas in which evolutionary explanations rely heavily on events or processes that exist only theoretically.
For instance: the creation of life in the first place. To date, this has not been done in any laboratory, anywhere, by anyone, ever. Period. In fact, we really don't even know what makes a living thing living. And yet evolution depends as a cornor stone that at some point a natural (random some would say, debateable though it may be) process resulted in a living organism. This is a phnomenon that is inexplicable under modern science.
Is it a hole in evolution? You bet.
Fatal flaw? Nope. Valid criticism? I'd say so.
Reason to keep an eye out for alternative theories that can explain everything that evolution explains AND this phenomenon? Sure. That's what science is all about.
Retrograde motion was what led Copernicus to move from earth-centric to sun-centric solar system views. It could be that the life question will lead some genius down the road to an explanation that explains everything evolution does AND the creation of life, which is yet inexplicable.
And this is only one hole. There are serious questions about the development of certain sub-cellular systems that would appear to not work unless the whole system appeared at the same time. Some biologists use these microscopic but complex and integrated systems to quetion current evolutionary theory.
Again, this does not mean evolution is disproved. Only that there are places where evolutionary explanations are iffy, and which open the door that something better could come along.
Remember, gravity looked fantastic as a theory... until Einstein wrote General Relativity and kicked gravity aside. Newtonian equations still give mostly correct answers, and his stuff is still taught in high school physics (which I disagree with). But the new Relativity theory better explains the phenonoma that the Law of gravity explains.
Change happens.
My point: Evolution is not a perfect theory. It has gaps. It has flaws. There are things it should explain that it explains poorly or not at all. Just like earth-centric theory. Just like gravity.
Evolution SHOULD be questioned. Regularly. Harshly. It should be held up and ripped up and down, in and out, beaten and battered and every last flaw found, examined, exposed, and denounced. THAT is what science does. Evolution is not a perfect theory, and should be criticized.
However, just because a theory has weak places does not mean it is dead wrong and should be discarded.
Saying ID is right and evolution is wrong because of a few gaps in evolution is wrong.
Saying evolution is complete, polished, always right and cannot be challenged is also wrong.
Neither is science.
Teaching the problems with evolution at the high school level I think is a good idea. I also think we should teach general relativity and non-Euclidean geometry, so I may have higher standards than most. But that is a seperate rant.
If Sony wants Blu-Ray movies.. Sony will get Blu-Ray movies.
Sony is big in the movie industry.
Sony brought a ton of movies to UMD.
Sony has other movie companies on board the Blu-Ray consortium.
Why would Sony not be able to have lots of Blu-Ray (and Blu-Ray only) releases available for the PS3 release? They control how their movies are encoded and on what... if they wanted to release Spiderman 2 on floppies, they could do it.
The XBox 360 will be HD-DVD?
Since when? I thought one big gripe was that MS left it at DVD, with the promise of maybe one day upgrading it to HD-DVD.
I think the GP has a fair argument. If XBOX360 = DVD and PS3 = (better than DVD) and Sony makes sure that movies will be available in the (better than DVD) format (which is cake for them), then PS3 gets a big marketing boost over the XBOX360.
Not clear on something:
If the programs run on AMD slow or crash as result of funny business by the Intel compiler, then wouldn't all companies and individuals using AMD processors have grounds for a class action lawsuit against Intel?
Or, more likely, wouldn't the companies that use the Intel compiler have such grounds? Because if Uber-Game is compiled with an Intel compiler, and crashes repeatidly on AMD... either the gaming house will take a hit in reputation and sales, or the QA for the gaming house will take a hit in job security and paycheck size. Either way, Intel sounds like they could be liable as such instability would (potentially) directly stem from their attempts at sabotaging AMD.
Only if you are so closed minded that you only consider scholarship to be valid if it is an area that interests you. There are scholars of science fiction. Is 'science fiction scholar' an oxymoron? No. The scholar is studying science fiction. So how is 'theological scholar' and oxymoron? It is someone who studies theology. And that study would be... wait for it.... theological scholarship. You may believe both areas of study to be absolute fact (and wonder why the Enterprise hasn't shown up lately), or to be absolute fiction (probably your case). Doesn't matter. At all. They are still areas worthy of study, and that study would be 'scholarship.' I fail to see how anyone with above a fifth grade education could consider a study they don't like to not be real. Either such a person is impossibly stupid, blinded by ideology (your case I suspect), or trolling. Intelligent troll... now THAT's an oxymoron.
some people might argue that society is awarding a multi-year all expenses paid vacation to a luxury resort to anyone who breaks the law.
Private room, central air, cable, near perfect security, high speed internet, guaranteed meals (that are nutritious, even), little contact with that annoying Real World (tm)... Geek Heaven?
The last thing we want to is provide geeks with incentive to rob a bank so they can move into something better than the basement.
Let me put it this way....
If you support Apple, you agree that NDA are binding and that breaking a NDA is breaking the law. You further agree that journalists should be allowed to protect criminals.
If you support the bloggers, you agree that NDAs are not binding and that breaking an NDA is not breaking the law. The Journalist/crime thing does not come into play, as you do not see a crime.
If you support the Journalists, you agree that regardless of the presence or lack of a crime or trade secret, Journalists should be allowed to publish anything, anytime, anywhere, and not have to ever reveal any sources, ever, for any reason, to anyone.
So... all those who support the bloggers and are under an NDA, please post all the information covered by that NDA here... since clearly you feel that all that information is part the right of the public and it is the job of the company to cut off your fingers and rip out your tongue so you couldn't tell anyone what is covered by the NDA. Otherwise, the company didn't really care... right? So... all you 'Apple is wrong' people, start posting! I know none of you are hypocrits... I can't wait to see what juicy info you have that is covered by NDAs to disclose!
Anyone have any reviews for Tiger on any hardware platform? I'm sure Ars will have one up (complaining about the finder again) before too much longer. Anything to convince me to take my g3 700 640mb iBook to Tiger in the meantime?
That would be the social responsible, intelligent, insightful thing to do. Naturally, slashdot would rather whine and price airline tickets and emigration restrictions... then still be in the country six months later, still whining, still pricing airline tickets, and still wondering why Congress isn't listening to them.
Here's a clue, folks... most Congressmen do listen. If you call them, if you write them, your opinion is taken into consideration. Even if there is no money attached. Do corporations have too much power? You bet they do. Does that mean we are powerless? Not in the slighest.
The slashdot effect can do more than take down webservers. You have political power. 500,000 emails each from a private individual going to DHS will be hard to ignore. A flood protesting phone calls to relevant Senators, a flood so big it knocks out phone service to the capital for the afternoon... that will cause lots of conversation in the halls of Congress.
The biggest complaint of every politician I know of is this: the people do not communicate enough. That's a blank check slashdot.
Now, go back to pricing plane tickets. Much easier that way.
Given that Soyuz is the result of the Russian attempt to copy the hugely successful US Apollo program, I'd expect the Soyuz to still work well. As space craft go, the Apollo series was not that complex... almost no re-useable components... small to nonexistent cargo capacity... cramped... small crew... useless in satellite retrieval... Yep. It's decades behind the shuttle alright. But that doesn't mean its useless. A horse may be decades behind a pickup truck... it may not have as much power and versatility as a pickup truck... but if you want to get something from A to B, odds are that outdated, decades old horse will do it, every time. That doesn't mean the truck maker is taking advice from the horse trainer on how to handle cargo transport, though. Nor does it mean that the horse is better than the truck.
Not really. The hole fix (or modification, if you prefer) is old news. It's been out for quite some time now.
All, and I mean all, Apple did was require the newest PyMusique-proof version in order to use the iTMS.
Besides, from Apple's (RIAA mandated) point-of-view, this probably was a security hole, seeing as it was fixed weeks before DVD-John decided to take advantage of the exploit. The problem was fixed before the problem occured... they just now are requiring people to download the fix.
Sorry, this is a big deal
Take the Boone conversation that could physically never have happened. That story implicates Boone as a criminal, one who used an illegal (under US law) substance. Since that story is very obviously a lie... ie: phyically impossible that it happened... then Canseco's implication of Boone as a steroid junky is a lie ie: based on evidence that is not real.
Thus, Canseco lied when he implicated Boone as a criminal. Thus, Boone should be able to sue his chemically enhanced butt for millions in a basic libel suit. And sue the publisher as well.
Accusing someone of being a criminal based on evidence that does not exist is not a small matter. It could be criminal, IANAL.
Now, use your head... if Canseco made up stories that we can prove to be false, what are the odds that he is telling the truth about the stuff that we have no proof of? If he making libelous claims that can be proven false, what are the odds he is telling the truth in the libelous claism that are not verifiable? Seriously... if this guy offered to sell you a used car, would you buy it without driving it first? And yet you believe him when he makes criminal claims against peole with no known record (Palmeiro)?
Here's hoping Palmeiro does file that libel suit he is considering and bleeds this stupid jerk out of every last dime that book made him.
People wanting to save a TV show tend to be more organized and attractive to the media than someone wanting to save an old probe. Stuff happens when the media covers it. Hollywood is sexy... it gets covered. Science is stuffy... it gets ignored. Welcome to academia.
No, no he is not. No funding redirected into the moon/mars missions came from this program. Nor did the moon/mars directive cost us Hubble. And NASA was largely spared budget cuts in the latest proposed budget... no one has "summarily cut" NASAs budget regardless of moon/mars. Now excuse me while I am modded into oblivion for posting something that even looks faintly like a defense of Bush Inc.
As far as that goes, why not see if a few big universities would want to take them over for prestige reasons? Pros: keeps scientists around the project, attracts new graduate students, looks good in recruiting. Cons: Star Trek convention relocates to your campus, local CS majors holding a hacking contest to see who can be the first to overclock or install linux on an object outside the solar system, university webserver melted by /. everytime a new discovery is made
please... someone mod this clown as funny before anyone actually takes him seriously... the last thing we need is for people to think that slashdot lifted its front page customizing scheme from google.
How did you decide that this has to do with Japan protecting its markets (from what? If US companies can't sell processors to Japan, where will they go for chips to drive their computers? Toshiba?)?
1. Intel was not dominating Japan. AMD was doing ok there.
2. Intel suddenly beats the snot out of AMD in Japan
3. Japan investigates, for some reason, learns that Intel was raising the price of Intel processors sold to any company that also bought from AMD
4. Investigation hits the press/slashdot.
Read the article... heck just skim the article for years. This started way back before the dollar was weak. Like, when the dollar was really really strong. Unless Intel has invented time travel, the price of the dollar has less to do with this investigation than the price of eggs in China.
I wonder, though... if Intel was doing this same thing with Dell. Might explain why Dell won't leave Intel... at all. Even though the Opteron has lately been a better product, and one for which there is significant demand.
According the article, no one was all that surprised Win XP SP 1 went down in 18 minutes. After all, it is not up to date... it is essentially an old OS, right? So this is expected, right? Old OSs should be broken into, right? And then we have OS X 10.2, aka, Jaguar. No successful attacks. Older OS, check. Not up to date with all the latest security features that are in Panther, check. And not one successful attack. One company makes on OS that still stands after two and a half years... one company makes an OS that only stands after a major major major patch and constant updates that sometimes break software. Now, which company's OS would I choose to build a secure network? Sure, it's a flawed argument, but still I think worth noting.
More importantly, Apple has the sizable cash reserve to prop TiVo up until a way can be found to keep the device from losing money. iMovie store a possibility there. On the other hand, why would Apple want to take on a company that is losing money? Does TiVo have any IP that Apple needs? Any engineers that Apple wants to hire but can't pry away from TiVo? If all Apple is going for is a good PVR device for some future Mac... why not leverage your own brand and build your own? Apple has the tech and the cash to do it... do they really need TiVo for a mere PVR?