The patent for 'a method and apparatus for securing software to reduce unauthorized use' (patent # 6,044,471) is dated March 28, 2000. The patent for 'a method for securing software to decrease software piracy' (patent # 6,785,825) is dated August 31, 2004.
Autodesk and Microsoft had argued during the six-day trial in federal district court in Tyler that the patents were invalid.
Well, I don't know about Autodesk, but I think everyone here knows Microsoft's rather dubious track record with patents, as evidenced by this list of previous Slashdot stories:
I am not implying that the statements negate each other. I am implying that by incompletely quoting the report (leaving out the key phrase: 'certain critical functions of government'), LinuxDevices encourages the false assumption that the Council is recommending that interoperable technology be mandated for all facets of government, not merely for 'certain critical functions'. That is why I characterized LinuxDevices' summary as 'a tad misleading', rather than 'grossly misleading'.
* Governments should not mandate any particular license, such as requiring open source software only; however...
o No citizen should be required to use the hardware or software of any particular vendor
o International procurements should also supprt inter-operability requirements
And directly from the report (boldface mine):
The Council believes there are certain critical functions of government that should be conducted solely with interoperable technology; in these critical areas, no citizen should be required to use the hardware or software of any particular vendor.
It's fortunate that LinuxDevices included a link to the PDF so we could read it in its entirity (plus, although the report is 72 pages long, only 44 of those pages are the actual report).
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter, so her preaching won't go beyond establishing her personal views on the issue. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals made the limits of the FCC on this issue quite clear when they struck down the Broadcast Flag (PDF warning).
In my experience, I'd have to say this article is right on the money. While snobs can be encountered for just about any OS you care to name, the Linux snobs are particularly shrill. This shrillness may be attributed to a variety of causes, including social ineptitude, feelings of intellectual/moral/fiscal superority, attempted concealment of their own limited knowledge, etc., but there is just no excuse for this sort of behavior. Linux is first and foremost a collaborative effort, and by failing to live up to that ideal, Linux snobs subvert the very point of Linux itself.
Yes, it is true that the answers to your questions are out there...Linux does have copious documentation. But the fact of the matter is that a simple answer to a simple question can do much more than save the newbie hours of combing through MAN pages...it can also foster the sense of community that is the very lifeblood of Linux.
Linux users need to understand that when disillusioned Windows users come to them asking for help with Linux, they effectively become representatives of Linux...ambassadors, if you will...and they need to behave accordingly. Abusing new Linux users for their lack of knowledge, rather than helping them to learn more, only harms the cause.
So, no, you didn't pay for a HARDWARE keyboard, which would have added additional cost to the unit, where a software keyboard does not.
So, all those guys who wrote the code for the software keyboard just did it for free?
Be it hardware or software, the keyboard costs. If the software keyboard isn't adequate, I'm in the position of paying for product that doesn't work, which was the GP's point.
You are so right, I attacked everyone else who responded to that thread!
No, you attacked me because a) I pointed out that you don't seem to know what commas are for, and b) I made a typo in my reply, giving you the opportunity to hit back in the only way you seem to know how.
There were several other posts pointing out some of the ontopic issues I addressed in my post...the fact that you didn't respond to them, and still haven't responded to me regarding the topic, makes the fact that you singled me out an indictment on your part, not on mine.
Gosh it must be hard being as insightful and informative as you are.
Discounting for just a moment that you just proved me right again regarding the comma issue, actually it's not hard at all, as the post of yours that started all this nonsense well illustrates. Completely uninformative, misleading, and just plain wrong...but for holding to the Slashdot groupthink ("Linux is not the problem here."), you get an automatic +5 insightful.
Masterful karma whoring, Whiney, and I'm sure many will agree that coming from me, that's no small compliment.
Anyway, I've lurked on/. for some time & have noticed your irritating tangentially ontopic comments appearing close to the top of the comments for some time.
"Irritating tangentially ontopic comments"? Do you even read what you type?
As you seem to have no apparant [sic] agenda, I presume its because you're unemployed & bored that you post so often to slashdot, including anonymous (with a shallow attempt to cover your writing style) appeals to get yourself employed as an editor (deny it all you like, noone can really confirm or deny an anonymous post)
All your presumptions don't change the facts, as much as you'd like them to. As for my alleged anonymous appeals to get myself employed as an editor, assert it all you like...after all, no one can really confirm or deny an anonymous post, can they?
Lastly, I note the link you provided is currently modded -1 flamebait.
Gee...mabye it is hard to be so insightful and informative...but actually, it's back up to +1 now, pretty much invalidating your argument.
I see at least some of the slashdot community agree with me that you're a whiney windows fanboy
Now I know you're new here. Read back through some of my previous posts to see just how much of a 'windows fanboy' I really am. Sheesh.
(smiley added so you have a chance to grab the joke as it wooshes over your head)
Ironic, considering that it's your inability to grasp a joke that's landed you in this mess.
Here's your sentence in its entirety, since you seem to be too dense to master the complex 'scroll up' maneuver:
Call me whiney all you like - at least I don't flame people for a simple mistake.
Obviously, you're referencing your mistake that I was supposedly guilty of 'flaming' you for. Are you with me so far, Whiney?
Why, then, when I requested a clarification, you would jump to again slamming me for a simple typo is unclear...unless you have no other position than that which can be obtained through your childish attempts at obfuscation.
By the way, seeing that this is the second post of yours that has had no content other than pointing out a typo, I'd like to revisit that former statement of yours. Let's read it again, shall we?
Call me whiney all you like - at least I don't flame people for a simple mistake.
The hypocrisy is so thick you can taste it.
requesite
Huh?
Seeing you didn't see the bolding last time, I'll point out you spelt the word "mean" with only half the needed letters (and that was simply the most glaring of a number of errors you made in your post)
First of all, the word wasn't supposed to be 'mean'...it was supposed to be 'be', which should have been apparent to you from context, but judging from your responses thus far, I can't say I'm surprised to see you fail it.
Second, unless by 'spelt' you're referring to an important wheat species in Europe from the Bronze Age to Roman times, you're making up words. This additional evidence strengthens my original assertion that you left the comma out of 'tiny laptop retard' because you lack a fundamental understanding of what commas are for, not because of a typo, as you previously asserted.
and that was simply the most glaring of a number of errors you made in your post
How about you catalogue all my errors, and I'll catalogue all yours? (I really don't think you want to go there.)
Cripes! And you tell me that I can't see a joke! (You seem completely bamboozled - do you understand humour?)
Given the fact that your knee-jerk reaction to 'tiny laptop retard' was the catalyst for this whole waste of time and bandwidth, it's possible that you intended the 'call me whiney if you like' as a joke. Given the fact that you're trying to pass off your inability to understand the use of commas as a typo, however, it's equally possible that you're lying (again).
Either way, I really don't care. I've made my point. You, however, have yet to make yours.
In an earlier post, I asked you to debate the topic, or conserve bandwidth. I now extend that invitation to you again.
My pointing out your lack of comma was an attempt at humor that has, rather predictably, been lost on you.
As for me 'flaming' you for a 'simple mistake', exactly which mistake are you referencing? Your lack of comma, or your inability to extract information from an article?
I find it more than mildly amusing that I write a screen-length reply to your original post, refuting all your 'points', and all you seem to be able to do is point out a typo and blast me for 'flaming' you. If you perceive my refutation of your original points (including your pointless Microsoft trolling) as 'flaming', then it's obvious you haven't been here very long.
If you want to discuss the topic, please do so. If you don't (or can't), save the bandwidth for those of us who do.
And one more thing...
Call me whiney all you like
Since that's what you've chosen to call yourself, I will, thanks.
1) Since when was their a patch for Win98 that stopped it from crashing? (apart from this patch)
It's bad enough that the submitter is guilty of pointless M$-bashing...you jumping on the bandwagon isn't really all that helpful....what madt you think it would be?
2) And - the review did not mention the O/S crashing - just applications crashing. Linux is not the problem here.
From TFA:
In two weeks of testing, it locked up and spontaneously rebooted more often than any computer I've used in that time.
You receive an F for reading comprehension, Whiney (assuming you actually took the trouble to read the entire article).
Oh - and rereading the review - it appears the reviewer's "biggest complaint" was the lack of keyboard. That's what seperates a tablet from a tiny laptop retard
Disregarding for just a moment what a 'tiny laptop retard' might me, two things:
That was hardly the reviewer's 'biggest complaint'. The lack of a viable input option was just one of a whole laundry list you would have seen if you had done more than skim the article (again, F for reading comprehension).
The lack of a viable input option is a valid complaint, regardless of whether or not you want to classify this device as a 'laptop' or a 'tablet'. It doesn't matter what you call it...if you can't use it effectively, I call it a paperweight.
Its biggest flaw is the keyboard that Nokia left out. You can enter text only by tapping a tightly packed on-screen keyboard, with help from an automatic word-completion option, or by taking your chances with handwriting recognition that's either ploddingly slow or wildly inaccurate. That alone should sink anything built for constant Web and e-mail use.
This latest failure underscores once again the main problem with miniaturization...that while we can continue to make things smaller and smaller, their interfaces (input - keyboard/mouse, output - screen/speakers) must remain large enough to be useful, and the larger, the better. Even if you totally discount other problems like removable data storage, the main problem of user interfaces will continue to stand in the way of true miniaturization.
I'm still wondering why we haven't seen a personal data device marketed with either a roll-up or projected keyboard, fingertip mouse, and VR glasses? Freed of these constraints, the device itself could easily be made small enough to be wearable.
Now, I'm sure that by now my opinion regarding ID and its proponents is well-known, and I'm equally sure that the majority of the Slashdot community are in agreement, but there is one positive thing I can say about ID: it's thrown a spotlight onto the theory of evolution, and has stimulated many concerned people towards a more comprehensive understanding of the theory (as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the word 'theory' as it pertains to science). Also, it seems like there have been some major advances lately...this latest story hot on the heels of the walking fish discovery, that have gone a long way towards silencing the detractors of evolution. Whether these advances are truly happening at a faster pace than in the past, or said advances are merely being perceived as such due to the increased attention evolution has been getting of late, is difficult to say...but the central point remains that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID have both been placed under the harsh light of truth, and it is ID, not evolution, that is shrivelling away.
ID has done quite a bit of harm to the minds of young people, but by virtue of the controversy, it has also done some good. Think of it as...well...evolution in action.
Anyway, this latest news is great....now I finally have something solid to point to when my fundie friends stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'missing link! missing link!'.
Rationality will triumph....it's just going to take us longer than we'd like.
I just wonder how long it will be before Mark Klein is repaid for his heroic and patriotic act with legal action from AT&T, a la Stephen Heller / Diebold.
I don't want to be an editor. I never have wanted to be an editor in the past, and I don't see that opinion changing anytime in the foreseeable future.
If someone did in fact want to be an editor, pointing out the shortcomings of the existing editors would be a valid and effective tactic toward demonstrating their own editorial skills.
Other than those two points, your statement is correct.
...and the anonymous contributor of the story doesn't fare so well, either.
From TFA:
The Trophy active protection system creates something equivalent to a hemispheric "force field" around the protected vehicle.
And from the summary:
The Trophy ADS generates something similar to a force field around one half of a vehicle as a direct reaction to incoming fire.
(Nice attempt at paraphrasing, but while the word 'hemispheric' may translate literally to the phrase 'one half of a vehicle', the real meaning is obfuscated. But at least the submitter isn't actaully calling the Trophy active protection system a 'force field' per se...)
And finally from the title:
Hardware: Mysterious 'Forcefield' Tested on US Tanks
Well done, ScuttleMonkey...you've effectively sensationalized the story into something it patently isn't. You must be auditioning for a position on Fox News.
Man, do not mess with Novell. I never worked for lawyers as good as these guys, and it's a plumb pleasin' pleasure to watch them work.
Methinks this gives the Novell lawyers a bit too much credit...after all, all they're doing is patiently assertiing that the sky is in fact blue and that water is, and has always been, wet.
The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have, although I admit that the admiration I experience witnessing their work is generously laced with nausea and trepidation. When SCO's house of cards finally falls, it will be with a deafening crash amid roars of appreciation from the OSS crowd, but in the meantime, hats off to the talented lawyers that have managed to keep it standing this long. They deserve respect, grudging though it my be.
Re:The Technology Hasn't Been Up To Snuff
on
How Bill Gates Works
·
· Score: 2, Funny
For the amount of money that Bill has at his disposal, he could just hire Bob Ross to generate his presentations on the fly. ^_^
On the average, I tend towards favoring less legislation, rather than more, but the simple fact is since it is not in the companies' best interests to disclose information about security failures, it can't be too much of a shock when they decide not to. This law is necessary to safeguard the information that citizens entrust to these companies, and given how inextricably our society is intertwined with the digital realm in this day and age, it's way overdue.
[Douglas Lowenstein, President of the ESA, said:] "It is noteworthy that Judge Steeh specifically chastised the state for not doing what we urged them to do from the start, which is to find less restrictive ways to help ensure that parents make sound choices about the games their kids play."
Translation:
Parents: we're not going to do your parenting for you. Take some responsibility.
Climate research is not sexy. A manned moon base, a la Space 1999 is sexy.
Deep space exploration via robotic probe is not sexy. A mission to Mars, a la...well..Mission to Mars, is sexy.
If NASA wants any funding at all, it has to portray what it does as sexy. Little wonder that manned moon bases and missions to Mars are what they're trying to sell, regardless of the actual feasability of either goal.
And why would you say that? At my last Sims BBQ party, we had headcrabs with drawn butter, and they were a big hit!
The trick to preparing headcrabs is proper tenderizing. A crowbar works best (thanks for the top, Gordon).
The party would have been a total success, except for two things. Tommy Vercetti got drunk (again) and started mouthing off about how he 'owns this city' (again), and Sam Fisher refused to be sociable at all, instead insisting on hiding in dark corners of the yard, blowing out my tiki torches, and grabbing and 'interrogating' anyone who tried to relight them.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent for 'a method and apparatus for securing software to reduce unauthorized use' (patent # 6,044,471) is dated March 28, 2000.
The patent for 'a method for securing software to decrease software piracy' (patent # 6,785,825) is dated August 31, 2004.
From TFA: Well, I don't know about Autodesk, but I think everyone here knows Microsoft's rather dubious track record with patents, as evidenced by this list of previous Slashdot stories:
Sorry, Microsoft, but if you want to play the patent game like this, you can't be too upset when you get played from time to time.
I am not implying that the statements negate each other. I am implying that by incompletely quoting the report (leaving out the key phrase: 'certain critical functions of government'), LinuxDevices encourages the false assumption that the Council is recommending that interoperable technology be mandated for all facets of government, not merely for 'certain critical functions'. That is why I characterized LinuxDevices' summary as 'a tad misleading', rather than 'grossly misleading'.
From LinuxDevices' summary: And directly from the report (boldface mine): It's fortunate that LinuxDevices included a link to the PDF so we could read it in its entirity (plus, although the report is 72 pages long, only 44 of those pages are the actual report).
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter, so her preaching won't go beyond establishing her personal views on the issue. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals made the limits of the FCC on this issue quite clear when they struck down the Broadcast Flag (PDF warning).
In my experience, I'd have to say this article is right on the money. While snobs can be encountered for just about any OS you care to name, the Linux snobs are particularly shrill. This shrillness may be attributed to a variety of causes, including social ineptitude, feelings of intellectual/moral/fiscal superority, attempted concealment of their own limited knowledge, etc., but there is just no excuse for this sort of behavior. Linux is first and foremost a collaborative effort, and by failing to live up to that ideal, Linux snobs subvert the very point of Linux itself.
Yes, it is true that the answers to your questions are out there...Linux does have copious documentation. But the fact of the matter is that a simple answer to a simple question can do much more than save the newbie hours of combing through MAN pages...it can also foster the sense of community that is the very lifeblood of Linux.
Linux users need to understand that when disillusioned Windows users come to them asking for help with Linux, they effectively become representatives of Linux...ambassadors, if you will...and they need to behave accordingly. Abusing new Linux users for their lack of knowledge, rather than helping them to learn more, only harms the cause.
Just remember....you were a n00b yourself once...
So, no, you didn't pay for a HARDWARE keyboard, which would have added additional cost to the unit, where a software keyboard does not.
So, all those guys who wrote the code for the software keyboard just did it for free?
Be it hardware or software, the keyboard costs. If the software keyboard isn't adequate, I'm in the position of paying for product that doesn't work, which was the GP's point.
You are so right, I attacked everyone else who responded to that thread!
No, you attacked me because a) I pointed out that you don't seem to know what commas are for, and b) I made a typo in my reply, giving you the opportunity to hit back in the only way you seem to know how.
There were several other posts pointing out some of the ontopic issues I addressed in my post...the fact that you didn't respond to them, and still haven't responded to me regarding the topic, makes the fact that you singled me out an indictment on your part, not on mine.
Gosh it must be hard being as insightful and informative as you are.
Discounting for just a moment that you just proved me right again regarding the comma issue, actually it's not hard at all, as the post of yours that started all this nonsense well illustrates. Completely uninformative, misleading, and just plain wrong...but for holding to the Slashdot groupthink ("Linux is not the problem here."), you get an automatic +5 insightful.
Masterful karma whoring, Whiney, and I'm sure many will agree that coming from me, that's no small compliment.
Anyway, I've lurked on
"Irritating tangentially ontopic comments"? Do you even read what you type?
As you seem to have no apparant [sic] agenda, I presume its because you're unemployed & bored that you post so often to slashdot, including anonymous (with a shallow attempt to cover your writing style) appeals to get yourself employed as an editor (deny it all you like, noone can really confirm or deny an anonymous post)
All your presumptions don't change the facts, as much as you'd like them to. As for my alleged anonymous appeals to get myself employed as an editor, assert it all you like...after all, no one can really confirm or deny an anonymous post, can they?
Lastly, I note the link you provided is currently modded -1 flamebait.
Gee...mabye it is hard to be so insightful and informative...but actually, it's back up to +1 now, pretty much invalidating your argument.
I see at least some of the slashdot community agree with me that you're a whiney windows fanboy
Now I know you're new here. Read back through some of my previous posts to see just how much of a 'windows fanboy' I really am. Sheesh.
(smiley added so you have a chance to grab the joke as it wooshes over your head)
Ironic, considering that it's your inability to grasp a joke that's landed you in this mess.
You can't seriously be this stupid...
Call me whiney all you like - at least I don't flame people for a simple mistake.
Obviously, you're referencing your mistake that I was supposedly guilty of 'flaming' you for. Are you with me so far, Whiney?
Why, then, when I requested a clarification, you would jump to again slamming me for a simple typo is unclear...unless you have no other position than that which can be obtained through your childish attempts at obfuscation.
By the way, seeing that this is the second post of yours that has had no content other than pointing out a typo, I'd like to revisit that former statement of yours. Let's read it again, shall we?
Call me whiney all you like - at least I don't flame people for a simple mistake.
The hypocrisy is so thick you can taste it.
Huh?
First of all, the word wasn't supposed to be 'mean'...it was supposed to be 'be', which should have been apparent to you from context, but judging from your responses thus far, I can't say I'm surprised to see you fail it.
Second, unless by 'spelt' you're referring to an important wheat species in Europe from the Bronze Age to Roman times, you're making up words. This additional evidence strengthens my original assertion that you left the comma out of 'tiny laptop retard' because you lack a fundamental understanding of what commas are for, not because of a typo, as you previously asserted.
How about you catalogue all my errors, and I'll catalogue all yours?
(I really don't think you want to go there.)
Given the fact that your knee-jerk reaction to 'tiny laptop retard' was the catalyst for this whole waste of time and bandwidth, it's possible that you intended the 'call me whiney if you like' as a joke. Given the fact that you're trying to pass off your inability to understand the use of commas as a typo, however, it's equally possible that you're lying (again).
Either way, I really don't care. I've made my point. You, however, have yet to make yours.
In an earlier post, I asked you to debate the topic, or conserve bandwidth. I now extend that invitation to you again.
Oh Whiney, you're just acting out because I pointed out your errors in a post you made two stories ago. ^_^
My pointing out your lack of comma was an attempt at humor that has, rather predictably, been lost on you.
As for me 'flaming' you for a 'simple mistake', exactly which mistake are you referencing? Your lack of comma, or your inability to extract information from an article?
I find it more than mildly amusing that I write a screen-length reply to your original post, refuting all your 'points', and all you seem to be able to do is point out a typo and blast me for 'flaming' you. If you perceive my refutation of your original points (including your pointless Microsoft trolling) as 'flaming', then it's obvious you haven't been here very long.
If you want to discuss the topic, please do so. If you don't (or can't), save the bandwidth for those of us who do.
And one more thing...
Call me whiney all you like
Since that's what you've chosen to call yourself, I will, thanks.
Need to set a few things straight, it appears...
1) Since when was their a patch for Win98 that stopped it from crashing? (apart from this patch)
It's bad enough that the submitter is guilty of pointless M$-bashing...you jumping on the bandwagon isn't really all that helpful....what madt you think it would be?
2) And - the review did not mention the O/S crashing - just applications crashing. Linux is not the problem here.
From TFA: You receive an F for reading comprehension, Whiney (assuming you actually took the trouble to read the entire article).
Oh - and rereading the review - it appears the reviewer's "biggest complaint" was the lack of keyboard. That's what seperates a tablet from a tiny laptop retard
Disregarding for just a moment what a 'tiny laptop retard' might me, two things:
From TFA: This latest failure underscores once again the main problem with miniaturization...that while we can continue to make things smaller and smaller, their interfaces (input - keyboard/mouse, output - screen/speakers) must remain large enough to be useful, and the larger, the better. Even if you totally discount other problems like removable data storage, the main problem of user interfaces will continue to stand in the way of true miniaturization.
I'm still wondering why we haven't seen a personal data device marketed with either a roll-up or projected keyboard, fingertip mouse, and VR glasses? Freed of these constraints, the device itself could easily be made small enough to be wearable.
Now, I'm sure that by now my opinion regarding ID and its proponents is well-known, and I'm equally sure that the majority of the Slashdot community are in agreement, but there is one positive thing I can say about ID: it's thrown a spotlight onto the theory of evolution, and has stimulated many concerned people towards a more comprehensive understanding of the theory (as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the word 'theory' as it pertains to science). Also, it seems like there have been some major advances lately...this latest story hot on the heels of the walking fish discovery, that have gone a long way towards silencing the detractors of evolution. Whether these advances are truly happening at a faster pace than in the past, or said advances are merely being perceived as such due to the increased attention evolution has been getting of late, is difficult to say...but the central point remains that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID have both been placed under the harsh light of truth, and it is ID, not evolution, that is shrivelling away.
ID has done quite a bit of harm to the minds of young people, but by virtue of the controversy, it has also done some good. Think of it as...well...evolution in action.
Anyway, this latest news is great....now I finally have something solid to point to when my fundie friends stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'missing link! missing link!'.
Rationality will triumph....it's just going to take us longer than we'd like.
I just wonder how long it will be before Mark Klein is repaid for his heroic and patriotic act with legal action from AT&T, a la Stephen Heller / Diebold.
Two problems with that statement:
Other than those two points, your statement is correct.
From TFA:
Yes.
From TFA:Methinks this gives the Novell lawyers a bit too much credit...after all, all they're doing is patiently assertiing that the sky is in fact blue and that water is, and has always been, wet.
The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have, although I admit that the admiration I experience witnessing their work is generously laced with nausea and trepidation. When SCO's house of cards finally falls, it will be with a deafening crash amid roars of appreciation from the OSS crowd, but in the meantime, hats off to the talented lawyers that have managed to keep it standing this long. They deserve respect, grudging though it my be.
For the amount of money that Bill has at his disposal, he could just hire Bob Ross to generate his presentations on the fly. ^_^
It's about time a law like this was enacted.
On the average, I tend towards favoring less legislation, rather than more, but the simple fact is since it is not in the companies' best interests to disclose information about security failures, it can't be too much of a shock when they decide not to. This law is necessary to safeguard the information that citizens entrust to these companies, and given how inextricably our society is intertwined with the digital realm in this day and age, it's way overdue.
From TFA: Translation:Hats off to Judge Steeh.
It's what's sexy.
Climate research is not sexy. A manned moon base, a la Space 1999 is sexy.
Deep space exploration via robotic probe is not sexy. A mission to Mars, a la...well..Mission to Mars, is sexy.
If NASA wants any funding at all, it has to portray what it does as sexy. Little wonder that manned moon bases and missions to Mars are what they're trying to sell, regardless of the actual feasability of either goal.
Story is a dupe...original story can be found here.
And why would you say that? At my last Sims BBQ party, we had headcrabs with drawn butter, and they were a big hit!
The trick to preparing headcrabs is proper tenderizing. A crowbar works best (thanks for the top, Gordon).
The party would have been a total success, except for two things. Tommy Vercetti got drunk (again) and started mouthing off about how he 'owns this city' (again), and Sam Fisher refused to be sociable at all, instead insisting on hiding in dark corners of the yard, blowing out my tiki torches, and grabbing and 'interrogating' anyone who tried to relight them.
Man, that guy has issues...