Yes, Paint Show Pro has been able to handle Photoshop plugins for many years now, although i remember trying some plugins with PSP 6 that didn't function. All of the Photoshop plugins that i have now function in Paint Shop Pro 8. Not sure about the other graphics manipulation programs.
The business of government is governing. They like to be in charge of stuff, and like to control your lives and money. The only way around it is to vote for limited government candidates -- libertarians and independents, and have them legislate term limits, 2 terms for senators and 3 for representatives. It's hardly tyranny, it's just that when you give people power, they're generally apt to take it and beat you over the head with it. One thing the Patriot Act proves, though, is that the U.S. is a nation where laws are meaningful. If you don't like them, you have an opportunity to change them by voting or by running for office, and by supporting and campaigning for the candidates of your choice. I guess the alternative is to sit around and complain that voting machines are rigged everywhere and that the people are being duped, but that doesn't solve anything at all.
French errr freedom fries with ketchup counts as TWO vegetables! Beat that, mom. So I guess hot dogs and french fries with ketchup count as meat and two veg.
That being said, you couldn't be more correct. We have to train kids to eat correctly from the earliest age; otherwise, they will revert to the saltiest and most sugary foods when given the choice. This monitoring system won't make a difference, though. Parents who understand healthy eating and care about their children already do most of the things necessary to ensure that their children follow healthy eating principles. The others will continue not caring, because it's easier that way, which is the same attitude that started them feeding their children microwave burritos and spaghetti-os in the first place.
I think that the point is perhaps some of this data shouldn't be publicly available; for instance, marriage licenses are considered public record, along with most of the information that i provided for mine in my home state. I asked the clerk if i could prohibit my personal information from becoming public record, in order to maintain privacy. She looked at me like no one had ever asked that question (and this was in a state capital). Why should my obtaining a marriage or professional license automatically disclose otherwise personal information to anyone who wants it? I could try to maintain my privacy, but if i don't disclose the information to the best of my ability, then i'm a criminal. It just makes it way too easy for people to steal identities, ruin credit scores, steal from you, stalk you, kill you, etc. The only way to counteract the machine is to restore local control of money and information, and build stronger (local) communities in which the people know each other and their elected representatives. That will never happen, so i'm moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit.
Right! I suggest the Rainbow Screen of Tolerance. It's quite soothing, actually. Maybe making it red is the point, though. I mean, if it's irritating enough, something may actually be done about it.
How about instead of hunting animals using a fairly immobile remote rifle, we manufacture millions of battle droids and have users control them from home computers, in an arena. We could put some captured deer in there, or better yet, just have the droids battle each other. Then maybe we could take it a step further and just use virtual robots and animals. We wouldn't even need a physical location; it could all be done in a virtual arena. Yeah, we could make programs in which fictitious characters go around shooting other fictitious characters. It would be loads of fun and wouldn't cause injury to people, animals, or machines. We could respawn the characters as needed without incurring great cost or loss of life. Maybe one day my idea will catch on. And if you're hungry while you're playing, you can call your local butcher and order some steak. You could even make a donation in the form of food or money to a local shelter or food depository instead. Seriously, could someone explain to me why virtually killing a real creature is any more fun or satisfying than virtually killing a virtual creature, provided that the computer user is not some sort of sadist? I used to live on a farm, and i have hunted, but i'm not sure i could derive pleasure from doing it over the net, potentially at great cost, in view of the myriad games already available. I don't think that it's like internet gambling, because there's no real opportunity for monetary gain. I guess there's a lower chance of being shot whilst behind a computer screen at home.
Mod Parent Troll. Duh. Okay, i'll actually bite on this one. C.S. Lewis read his stories to the Inklings, a group mainly consisting of Oxford dons. For the most part (Tolkien excluded), they liked his work and found it provocative and entertaining. If you'd like to learn more, i think someone is giving a talk about Lewis, Tolkien, and subcreation at Magdalen College, Oxford, this week sometime. Now i'm assuming you're a smart guy because you have a low UID and knew about/. in its earlier days because you're well-informed. You probably respect the opinions of other well-informed and well-educated individuals, and so i suggest considering the opinions of qualified academics. Also, it's spelled "Chronicles", not "Chronicals". I'd judge that to be a first-grade spelling mistake (okay, maybe second- or third-grade; first-graders would have a difficult time reading and comprehending the series). Your spelling mistake doesn't matter much to me, but you're not doing the best job proving your point. Incidentally, widely available info blurbs list suggested ages like "8 and up", "9-12", "young adult", and "all ages". None of those correspond to first-grade readers.
I can't disagree, but i feel it necessary to add a comment. Granted, Tolkien despised some manifestations of allegory (and disagreed with Lewis for his frivolous selections of names as well as his adherence to allegorical techniques), but he did introduce multiple implicit and explicit references to Christianity, either intentionally or inadvertently. To say that a work is not allegorical as a whole means that each part of it does not correspond directly to another meaning, story, or event. Tolkien was not concerned with recreating or representing Catholicism, because his beliefs and religious practises were sufficient for him; he was instrumental in C.S. Lewis's conversion to Christianity, and his writing was greatly influenced by Christian writings, theology, and symbolism, as was the writing of previous writers and recorders of mythology (in some cases corrupting the original stories). Interestingly enough, Tolkien's story "Leaf by Niggle" is widely considered to be an allegory. You can read about it in Wikipedia: in Letter 153 he said, "I tried to show allegorically how [subcreation] might come to be taken up into Creation in some plane in my 'purgatorial' story Leaf by Niggle."
It is true, however, that Tolkien largely disliked the idea of allegory mixed with subcreative mythology, i think mainly because it shows a lack of imagination and originality. He preferred history to allegory. His distaste for allegory may have worked against him during his lifetime, because it is more difficult for the reader to grasp Tolkien's ideas about language and mythology than it is to perceive Lewis's overt references. Although neither author has appealed greatly to critics of the modernist or post-modernist persuasion, Lewis was a more prolific and immediately popular author because he was not so locked in his own imaginary world. It is taking people a much longer time to grasp the depth of LOTR and The Silmarillion.
Sorry, by "Americans" do you mean people living in the Americas? North Americans? U.S. Americans? I'm pretty sure it's not U.S. Americans, because we will likely pay a dear price for the greed of a powerful minority and the ignorance of politicians who don't know how to enact mutually beneficial policies.
Talk about being delusional, talk about rhetoric and extreme exaggeration. I suspect you're all in the same kooky club. I hear they're accepting scrennplay submission for Conspiracy Theory II.
Why is it that everyone has a problem with the fact that the Borg became a defeatable enemy in Voyager? Honestly, one would think that the absolute worst thing to do to the Trek series would be introducing the Borg as an absolutely untouchable, all-powerful enemy without hope of defeat. Talk about beating an idea to death. Trek fans are incredibly hypocrital, on one hand tiring of the incessant time travel plots and technicalities, on the other calling for a static omnipotent Borg that are always 3 steps ahead of their enemies. For those who say that Voyager never did anything but try to get home, i would have to respond that you didn't actually watch the show. There was an overall goal of travelling 70,000 light years to return home, just as there was a goal to explore outwardly in TOS and TNG. I seem to remember episodes like Chakotay being brainwashed as a combatant in a war, and Paris battling as Captain Proton on the Holodeck. I love what they did to the Borg, forcing them into ueasy alliances, making them defeatable but still dangerous. I always thought it was lame to have such a powerful adversary with no hope of winning battles without an elevnth hour stroke of genius or luck. Interestingly enough, i don't hear trek fans whining about how the Klingons used to be the eternal malicious enemies of the Federation, and now they're allies. Trek alliances, plot lines and characterisitics of alien races have to evolve in order to maintain a feasible universe with myriad possibilities. I will only concede to all the trekkers whining about the later series being rubbish that better decisions could be made in choosing episode details, and in some cases, plot lines, and exploring new ideas in terms of enemies and anomalies.
Why sue? He's the Attorney General. Why not prosecute instead?
$$$$$?
Seriously, i applaud Spitzer for going after some dirty rotten liars, cheaters, and thieves, although i'm not positive he isn't one of those things himself. He seems to be extremely selective in taking legal action. Maybe it's about publicity, maybe money, maybe good or bad judgment.
Re:The More Attention This Gets, The Better
on
Phishing for Credit
·
· Score: 1, Informative
It appears that the experimenters did have some clearance, after RTFA. Perhaps they didn't follow the plan, didn't disclose all of the information to the review board, or the board didn't understand the nature of the project?
The More Attention This Gets, The Better
on
Phishing for Credit
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
I think it's pretty clear to everyone that these students didn't follow proper procedure for research studies. When I did human experimental research, I had to have my research proposal approved by the Institutional Review Board at my college.
That being said, I hope this gets tons of media coverage. People should be talking about this at home, at work, at school, everywhere. I'm constantly having to tell friends and relatives not to enter any personal information into a computer without knowing where it's going to end up. People just don't get it, and maybe they will if they're scared about the things that could happen because of their carelessness, including financial losses and risks to personal safety.
It's not like spending lots of money on something that doesn't quite succeed will make all that much of a dent in his absurdly large bank account balance
I think it may have less to do with what's already in his bank account than what will be in it when he's done. I think Lucas puts artistry on the back burner and concentrates on the same blockbuster crap that makes other movies suck so much, cutesy kid stuff and hammy one-liners, the kind of thing that didn't so obviously infest IV-VI (although i can't deny there was some hammy crap in those movies, too).
There are clear marketing and moneymaking schemes built into the new movies, such as the scene in Episode II when Anakin steers into a flame while piloting a speeder instead of away from it, just to make a scene that looks like a video game, slaloming around obstacles.
Parent is dead on right about this. Schools are supposed to teach principles, not to expound the merits of using MS products.
When i was a youngster, i used FrEd (the Free Editor), and when i took a software applications class in high school, we used whatever crap applications were available for an Apple IIe. I have no trouble using Word, WordPerfect, or OOo, and have all three installed on this machine. If i don't know how to do something, i read the help file. What's the big advantage of Word over OOo? The grammar check? Good, kids shouldn't have that anyway (not to mention the fact that it doesn't work correctly). Yes, there are advanced functions, which 99% of students will never learn or utilise, and the ones who do can pick it up on their own.
What are schools for? To teach kids how to plug words into a computer and numbers into a calculator, or to teach them language, math, science, and history? Believe me, they can get by just fine on OOo, and it wouldn't be worthwhile to pay any licensing fees, no matter how small, in view of OOo being free.
This is a librarian's nightmare.
It's so lovely to find pages torn (or carefully cut with an Xacto blade) out of a book or periodical...NOT! The greed of one person - in this case for $10,000 - destroys a reference material shared by all.
Hey Intel, why not donate $10,000 to every library which had this article stolen.
I really hope you're joking; that's more than a shovel full of bogus sentiment. I mean, Intel is going to use this magazine for the same purpose that libraries currently do, except that more people will now be aware of it, so don't pretend that this is a valid opportunity for learning institutions to squeeze money from corporate America. I know that everyone is out there sharing and caring about a 40 year old magazine that can now be found in.pdf format for free all over the web, and so is completely useless for the purposes of 99% or greater of the world's researchers. Seriously, why would you need the physical copy of it, unless you're planning a museum-type display, or must test the physical and chemical properties of magazine pages from April 1965?
Lighten up. The truth is that someone nicked a copy of a magazine from a library, and you are aware that it actually happens all the time. It's wrong and is a crime and should be prosecuted when the thief is caught. If librarians don't like it, they should work diligently protecting their resources and stop standing behind the circulation desk filing their nails, as i can tell you from experience most librarians at U.S. colleges are doing.
This whole crusade against file sharing is starting to piss me off. These companies buy up publishing rights and lobby to have copyright laws extend their monopoly/oligopoly into the next millenium, and then try to take down legal file sharing companies/programs/servers/users because it's the easiest way to enforce copyright law. Maybe we should outlaw FTP - that could also be used to distribute copyrighted material illegally. Better yet, why not eliminate all forms of media storage and sever all internet connections, because those things can be used to disseminate kiddie porn? It's time for these people to go after lawbreakers, i.e., people who take their copy of the lataest Metallica CD "Butt-Load", then rip it to mp3, then offer it to greedy little downloaders who don't really give a crap about Metallica, because the only thing the band ever did for them was offer a 17 dollar/pound CD once every 1.5 years, and give them the grand opportunity to purchase concert tickets at reasonable prices like 50 bucks/quid a pop. Honestly, i'm so sick of all this crap that if i can't use P2P programs to legally download free music anymore, i'm going to just listen to the music in my head and not support any of these "artists".
PhD candidates research and write dissertations of 100-300 pages in 2-5 years, solo. The cost of attending a decent school is somewhere around 30K per year, including living expenses, maybe slightly more. Let's say 100K over 3 years. Seems like more than enough money and time for funding a report that's likely to be obsolete or redundant before it's finished. Of course, when funding is being appropriated, watch the researchers and scientists all line up and say how necessary and important it is.
I can't believe how many people post comments in pure ignorance, claiming that the Feds are out to silence everyone, and no one is allowed to express himself for fear of retribution. I've gone around my entire life saying and doing pretty much whatever i want, criticising the U.S. government, my elected representatives, police forces, etc. I've owned and fired guns on my own property and on the property of others. I have read any website that i wanted to read, and i've posted any time i felt the urge. I have travelled overseas and back, and across U.S. borders and back in my car. I've had quite alot of freedom, both online and in real life, freedom that is protected by the United States Constitution and government agencies and officials.
I know that the vast majority of people are idiots and think they should be able to do whatever they want to do, including protesting by blocking traffic and inhibiting local businesses, as well as inciting violence. I have news for those people: Your rights end where another's rights begin. I'll grant that you have the freedom to swing your arms as a form of self-expression, as long as you don't do so in the general direction of my face, knocking out several teeth in the process. That's what it means to put limits on freedom. If you don't like it, move to Western Europe. Better yet, move to Cuba. That should give you some sense of contrast. Hopefully, you'd find that there is a balance to be struck between freedom and responsibility, or between freedom and security.
Furthermore, the feds and government officials aren't attempting to suppress free speech; in fact, they appreciate people being able to express themselves. Talking rationally about issues is much preferred to the violent solutions that might be enacted were we not able to do so.
There's a good chance that someone will pick out a single sentence from this post and ridicule the notion contained therein, like the idea of putting limits on freedom. How horrible -- the majority of the people have elected officials who have, in turn, passed laws, and the executive branch now enforces them. What a terrifying way to effect a social contract by which people give up some potential freedoms in order to protect life and property. If you don't understand these basic principles of modern democracy, please go back to school and take a 9th or 10th grade government class.
If you want the artists to get the money from the music/films that you buy, just go to local shows/film festivals and buy the cds or dvds there, directly from the artists. They will get basically all of the profits from that kind of thing. You can also purchase cds or dvds from the artist websites sometimes. Unfortunately, very few musicians and writer/director/producer types sell their products electronically, and usually use the internet for advertising and wider distribution in order to get popular, not for making money. The already popular major label acts like Britney or Metallica are exceptions i'm sure, but i don't want their crappy music anyway (if you do, it's not difficult to obtain). Artists are likely always going to use outside services for distribution via the internet until it becomes a part of their technological repertoire to do secure sales via their own sites. The best thing to do about that is to send email, snail mail, telephone/text messages, etc., to the artists until they get it. If they don't, well, they may not be cut out to make it in that business.
they hold certain beliefs that they can change, and it is precisely these views that are objectionable
You haven't stated so, but you've implied that the whole world should change its views to suit you and whoever else may find them objectionable. I've seen some intelligent people hold calm, moderated debates on science, evolution, and the Bible during which each side supports its opinion or interpretation of facts in an intellectual manner. I'd hardly call the views of either side "objectionable" in themselves, unless you're intolerant in the first place, a characteristic which one might argue is in itself "objectionable".
A Christian fundi I went to school with once told me
Please don't lump every person with fundamentalist principles into the same category as a single person from your own experience who made one statement about a topic. I believe the most common type of fundamentalist is one who hold the original texts to be inerrant. This person could have miscommunicated his/her ideas, and at the very least is no more representative of Christian fundamentalism than the smug and intolerant Jerry Falwell. Most Christians that study the Bible actually do consult the original texts where there is a question of meaning.
I don't say this as a fundamentalist; i believe that i'm far to young, inexperienced, and lacking in knowledge to be so closed-minded as to proclaim that one view or another is 100% correct.
I'd also use some common sense. Whistleblowing for unsafe or unethical practise is a good thing, but working in a hostile environment completely sucks. If people start making your life miserable at work, you'll end up quitting anyway. There was a very recent/. article on a similar topic... if you don't like it, then quit. You can tell people, including the proper authorities, all about it, but why do it while you're still working there? I mean isn't that kind of like eating at McDonald's twice per day and then suing them for making you fat? You know where you are and what you're doing, and you do have a choice. The bottom line is that you can't have it both ways, complaining about how evil your company is at the beginning of the week, then collecting your big fat check at the end of it for contributing to all of the evil that your company does.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Paint Show Pro has been able to handle Photoshop plugins for many years now, although i remember trying some plugins with PSP 6 that didn't function. All of the Photoshop plugins that i have now function in Paint Shop Pro 8. Not sure about the other graphics manipulation programs.
The business of government is governing. They like to be in charge of stuff, and like to control your lives and money. The only way around it is to vote for limited government candidates -- libertarians and independents, and have them legislate term limits, 2 terms for senators and 3 for representatives. It's hardly tyranny, it's just that when you give people power, they're generally apt to take it and beat you over the head with it. One thing the Patriot Act proves, though, is that the U.S. is a nation where laws are meaningful. If you don't like them, you have an opportunity to change them by voting or by running for office, and by supporting and campaigning for the candidates of your choice. I guess the alternative is to sit around and complain that voting machines are rigged everywhere and that the people are being duped, but that doesn't solve anything at all.
That being said, you couldn't be more correct. We have to train kids to eat correctly from the earliest age; otherwise, they will revert to the saltiest and most sugary foods when given the choice. This monitoring system won't make a difference, though. Parents who understand healthy eating and care about their children already do most of the things necessary to ensure that their children follow healthy eating principles. The others will continue not caring, because it's easier that way, which is the same attitude that started them feeding their children microwave burritos and spaghetti-os in the first place.
I think that the point is perhaps some of this data shouldn't be publicly available; for instance, marriage licenses are considered public record, along with most of the information that i provided for mine in my home state. I asked the clerk if i could prohibit my personal information from becoming public record, in order to maintain privacy. She looked at me like no one had ever asked that question (and this was in a state capital). Why should my obtaining a marriage or professional license automatically disclose otherwise personal information to anyone who wants it? I could try to maintain my privacy, but if i don't disclose the information to the best of my ability, then i'm a criminal. It just makes it way too easy for people to steal identities, ruin credit scores, steal from you, stalk you, kill you, etc. The only way to counteract the machine is to restore local control of money and information, and build stronger (local) communities in which the people know each other and their elected representatives. That will never happen, so i'm moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit.
Right! I suggest the Rainbow Screen of Tolerance. It's quite soothing, actually. Maybe making it red is the point, though. I mean, if it's irritating enough, something may actually be done about it.
How about instead of hunting animals using a fairly immobile remote rifle, we manufacture millions of battle droids and have users control them from home computers, in an arena. We could put some captured deer in there, or better yet, just have the droids battle each other. Then maybe we could take it a step further and just use virtual robots and animals. We wouldn't even need a physical location; it could all be done in a virtual arena. Yeah, we could make programs in which fictitious characters go around shooting other fictitious characters. It would be loads of fun and wouldn't cause injury to people, animals, or machines. We could respawn the characters as needed without incurring great cost or loss of life. Maybe one day my idea will catch on. And if you're hungry while you're playing, you can call your local butcher and order some steak. You could even make a donation in the form of food or money to a local shelter or food depository instead. Seriously, could someone explain to me why virtually killing a real creature is any more fun or satisfying than virtually killing a virtual creature, provided that the computer user is not some sort of sadist? I used to live on a farm, and i have hunted, but i'm not sure i could derive pleasure from doing it over the net, potentially at great cost, in view of the myriad games already available. I don't think that it's like internet gambling, because there's no real opportunity for monetary gain. I guess there's a lower chance of being shot whilst behind a computer screen at home.
Mod Parent Troll. Duh. Okay, i'll actually bite on this one. C.S. Lewis read his stories to the Inklings, a group mainly consisting of Oxford dons. For the most part (Tolkien excluded), they liked his work and found it provocative and entertaining. If you'd like to learn more, i think someone is giving a talk about Lewis, Tolkien, and subcreation at Magdalen College, Oxford, this week sometime. Now i'm assuming you're a smart guy because you have a low UID and knew about /. in its earlier days because you're well-informed. You probably respect the opinions of other well-informed and well-educated individuals, and so i suggest considering the opinions of qualified academics. Also, it's spelled "Chronicles", not "Chronicals". I'd judge that to be a first-grade spelling mistake (okay, maybe second- or third-grade; first-graders would have a difficult time reading and comprehending the series). Your spelling mistake doesn't matter much to me, but you're not doing the best job proving your point. Incidentally, widely available info blurbs list suggested ages like "8 and up", "9-12", "young adult", and "all ages". None of those correspond to first-grade readers.
I can't disagree, but i feel it necessary to add a comment. Granted, Tolkien despised some manifestations of allegory (and disagreed with Lewis for his frivolous selections of names as well as his adherence to allegorical techniques), but he did introduce multiple implicit and explicit references to Christianity, either intentionally or inadvertently. To say that a work is not allegorical as a whole means that each part of it does not correspond directly to another meaning, story, or event. Tolkien was not concerned with recreating or representing Catholicism, because his beliefs and religious practises were sufficient for him; he was instrumental in C.S. Lewis's conversion to Christianity, and his writing was greatly influenced by Christian writings, theology, and symbolism, as was the writing of previous writers and recorders of mythology (in some cases corrupting the original stories). Interestingly enough, Tolkien's story "Leaf by Niggle" is widely considered to be an allegory. You can read about it in Wikipedia: in Letter 153 he said, "I tried to show allegorically how [subcreation] might come to be taken up into Creation in some plane in my 'purgatorial' story Leaf by Niggle."
It is true, however, that Tolkien largely disliked the idea of allegory mixed with subcreative mythology, i think mainly because it shows a lack of imagination and originality. He preferred history to allegory. His distaste for allegory may have worked against him during his lifetime, because it is more difficult for the reader to grasp Tolkien's ideas about language and mythology than it is to perceive Lewis's overt references. Although neither author has appealed greatly to critics of the modernist or post-modernist persuasion, Lewis was a more prolific and immediately popular author because he was not so locked in his own imaginary world. It is taking people a much longer time to grasp the depth of LOTR and The Silmarillion.
Sorry, by "Americans" do you mean people living in the Americas? North Americans? U.S. Americans? I'm pretty sure it's not U.S. Americans, because we will likely pay a dear price for the greed of a powerful minority and the ignorance of politicians who don't know how to enact mutually beneficial policies.
Talk about being delusional, talk about rhetoric and extreme exaggeration. I suspect you're all in the same kooky club. I hear they're accepting scrennplay submission for Conspiracy Theory II.
Why is it that everyone has a problem with the fact that the Borg became a defeatable enemy in Voyager? Honestly, one would think that the absolute worst thing to do to the Trek series would be introducing the Borg as an absolutely untouchable, all-powerful enemy without hope of defeat. Talk about beating an idea to death. Trek fans are incredibly hypocrital, on one hand tiring of the incessant time travel plots and technicalities, on the other calling for a static omnipotent Borg that are always 3 steps ahead of their enemies. For those who say that Voyager never did anything but try to get home, i would have to respond that you didn't actually watch the show. There was an overall goal of travelling 70,000 light years to return home, just as there was a goal to explore outwardly in TOS and TNG. I seem to remember episodes like Chakotay being brainwashed as a combatant in a war, and Paris battling as Captain Proton on the Holodeck. I love what they did to the Borg, forcing them into ueasy alliances, making them defeatable but still dangerous. I always thought it was lame to have such a powerful adversary with no hope of winning battles without an elevnth hour stroke of genius or luck. Interestingly enough, i don't hear trek fans whining about how the Klingons used to be the eternal malicious enemies of the Federation, and now they're allies. Trek alliances, plot lines and characterisitics of alien races have to evolve in order to maintain a feasible universe with myriad possibilities. I will only concede to all the trekkers whining about the later series being rubbish that better decisions could be made in choosing episode details, and in some cases, plot lines, and exploring new ideas in terms of enemies and anomalies.
$$$$$?
Seriously, i applaud Spitzer for going after some dirty rotten liars, cheaters, and thieves, although i'm not positive he isn't one of those things himself. He seems to be extremely selective in taking legal action. Maybe it's about publicity, maybe money, maybe good or bad judgment.
It appears that the experimenters did have some clearance, after RTFA. Perhaps they didn't follow the plan, didn't disclose all of the information to the review board, or the board didn't understand the nature of the project?
I think it's pretty clear to everyone that these students didn't follow proper procedure for research studies. When I did human experimental research, I had to have my research proposal approved by the Institutional Review Board at my college.
That being said, I hope this gets tons of media coverage. People should be talking about this at home, at work, at school, everywhere. I'm constantly having to tell friends and relatives not to enter any personal information into a computer without knowing where it's going to end up. People just don't get it, and maybe they will if they're scared about the things that could happen because of their carelessness, including financial losses and risks to personal safety.
It's not like spending lots of money on something that doesn't quite succeed will make all that much of a dent in his absurdly large bank account balance
I think it may have less to do with what's already in his bank account than what will be in it when he's done. I think Lucas puts artistry on the back burner and concentrates on the same blockbuster crap that makes other movies suck so much, cutesy kid stuff and hammy one-liners, the kind of thing that didn't so obviously infest IV-VI (although i can't deny there was some hammy crap in those movies, too).
There are clear marketing and moneymaking schemes built into the new movies, such as the scene in Episode II when Anakin steers into a flame while piloting a speeder instead of away from it, just to make a scene that looks like a video game, slaloming around obstacles.
See Appendix Two for the physiology of asphyxiation
When i was a youngster, i used FrEd (the Free Editor), and when i took a software applications class in high school, we used whatever crap applications were available for an Apple IIe. I have no trouble using Word, WordPerfect, or OOo, and have all three installed on this machine. If i don't know how to do something, i read the help file. What's the big advantage of Word over OOo? The grammar check? Good, kids shouldn't have that anyway (not to mention the fact that it doesn't work correctly). Yes, there are advanced functions, which 99% of students will never learn or utilise, and the ones who do can pick it up on their own.
What are schools for? To teach kids how to plug words into a computer and numbers into a calculator, or to teach them language, math, science, and history? Believe me, they can get by just fine on OOo, and it wouldn't be worthwhile to pay any licensing fees, no matter how small, in view of OOo being free.
I really hope you're joking; that's more than a shovel full of bogus sentiment. I mean, Intel is going to use this magazine for the same purpose that libraries currently do, except that more people will now be aware of it, so don't pretend that this is a valid opportunity for learning institutions to squeeze money from corporate America. I know that everyone is out there sharing and caring about a 40 year old magazine that can now be found in .pdf format for free all over the web, and so is completely useless for the purposes of 99% or greater of the world's researchers. Seriously, why would you need the physical copy of it, unless you're planning a museum-type display, or must test the physical and chemical properties of magazine pages from April 1965?
Lighten up. The truth is that someone nicked a copy of a magazine from a library, and you are aware that it actually happens all the time. It's wrong and is a crime and should be prosecuted when the thief is caught. If librarians don't like it, they should work diligently protecting their resources and stop standing behind the circulation desk filing their nails, as i can tell you from experience most librarians at U.S. colleges are doing.
This whole crusade against file sharing is starting to piss me off. These companies buy up publishing rights and lobby to have copyright laws extend their monopoly/oligopoly into the next millenium, and then try to take down legal file sharing companies/programs/servers/users because it's the easiest way to enforce copyright law. Maybe we should outlaw FTP - that could also be used to distribute copyrighted material illegally. Better yet, why not eliminate all forms of media storage and sever all internet connections, because those things can be used to disseminate kiddie porn? It's time for these people to go after lawbreakers, i.e., people who take their copy of the lataest Metallica CD "Butt-Load", then rip it to mp3, then offer it to greedy little downloaders who don't really give a crap about Metallica, because the only thing the band ever did for them was offer a 17 dollar/pound CD once every 1.5 years, and give them the grand opportunity to purchase concert tickets at reasonable prices like 50 bucks/quid a pop. Honestly, i'm so sick of all this crap that if i can't use P2P programs to legally download free music anymore, i'm going to just listen to the music in my head and not support any of these "artists".
Now listening to (in my head):
Smurfs Theme Song
PhD candidates research and write dissertations of 100-300 pages in 2-5 years, solo. The cost of attending a decent school is somewhere around 30K per year, including living expenses, maybe slightly more. Let's say 100K over 3 years. Seems like more than enough money and time for funding a report that's likely to be obsolete or redundant before it's finished. Of course, when funding is being appropriated, watch the researchers and scientists all line up and say how necessary and important it is.
I can't believe how many people post comments in pure ignorance, claiming that the Feds are out to silence everyone, and no one is allowed to express himself for fear of retribution. I've gone around my entire life saying and doing pretty much whatever i want, criticising the U.S. government, my elected representatives, police forces, etc. I've owned and fired guns on my own property and on the property of others. I have read any website that i wanted to read, and i've posted any time i felt the urge. I have travelled overseas and back, and across U.S. borders and back in my car. I've had quite alot of freedom, both online and in real life, freedom that is protected by the United States Constitution and government agencies and officials.
I know that the vast majority of people are idiots and think they should be able to do whatever they want to do, including protesting by blocking traffic and inhibiting local businesses, as well as inciting violence. I have news for those people: Your rights end where another's rights begin. I'll grant that you have the freedom to swing your arms as a form of self-expression, as long as you don't do so in the general direction of my face, knocking out several teeth in the process. That's what it means to put limits on freedom. If you don't like it, move to Western Europe. Better yet, move to Cuba. That should give you some sense of contrast. Hopefully, you'd find that there is a balance to be struck between freedom and responsibility, or between freedom and security.
Furthermore, the feds and government officials aren't attempting to suppress free speech; in fact, they appreciate people being able to express themselves. Talking rationally about issues is much preferred to the violent solutions that might be enacted were we not able to do so.
There's a good chance that someone will pick out a single sentence from this post and ridicule the notion contained therein, like the idea of putting limits on freedom. How horrible -- the majority of the people have elected officials who have, in turn, passed laws, and the executive branch now enforces them. What a terrifying way to effect a social contract by which people give up some potential freedoms in order to protect life and property. If you don't understand these basic principles of modern democracy, please go back to school and take a 9th or 10th grade government class.
If you want the artists to get the money from the music/films that you buy, just go to local shows/film festivals and buy the cds or dvds there, directly from the artists. They will get basically all of the profits from that kind of thing. You can also purchase cds or dvds from the artist websites sometimes. Unfortunately, very few musicians and writer/director/producer types sell their products electronically, and usually use the internet for advertising and wider distribution in order to get popular, not for making money. The already popular major label acts like Britney or Metallica are exceptions i'm sure, but i don't want their crappy music anyway (if you do, it's not difficult to obtain). Artists are likely always going to use outside services for distribution via the internet until it becomes a part of their technological repertoire to do secure sales via their own sites. The best thing to do about that is to send email, snail mail, telephone/text messages, etc., to the artists until they get it. If they don't, well, they may not be cut out to make it in that business.
they hold certain beliefs that they can change, and it is precisely these views that are objectionable
You haven't stated so, but you've implied that the whole world should change its views to suit you and whoever else may find them objectionable. I've seen some intelligent people hold calm, moderated debates on science, evolution, and the Bible during which each side supports its opinion or interpretation of facts in an intellectual manner. I'd hardly call the views of either side "objectionable" in themselves, unless you're intolerant in the first place, a characteristic which one might argue is in itself "objectionable".
A Christian fundi I went to school with once told me
Please don't lump every person with fundamentalist principles into the same category as a single person from your own experience who made one statement about a topic. I believe the most common type of fundamentalist is one who hold the original texts to be inerrant. This person could have miscommunicated his/her ideas, and at the very least is no more representative of Christian fundamentalism than the smug and intolerant Jerry Falwell. Most Christians that study the Bible actually do consult the original texts where there is a question of meaning.
I don't say this as a fundamentalist; i believe that i'm far to young, inexperienced, and lacking in knowledge to be so closed-minded as to proclaim that one view or another is 100% correct.
I'd also use some common sense. Whistleblowing for unsafe or unethical practise is a good thing, but working in a hostile environment completely sucks. If people start making your life miserable at work, you'll end up quitting anyway. There was a very recent /. article on a similar topic... if you don't like it, then quit. You can tell people, including the proper authorities, all about it, but why do it while you're still working there? I mean isn't that kind of like eating at McDonald's twice per day and then suing them for making you fat? You know where you are and what you're doing, and you do have a choice. The bottom line is that you can't have it both ways, complaining about how evil your company is at the beginning of the week, then collecting your big fat check at the end of it for contributing to all of the evil that your company does.