Reportedly, the new version will have more action in it. And more humor. And more romance. And more puzzles. And they are going to give the protagonist a sidekick for more comic relief. Oh, and the pursuit of our heroes by the bad guys won't mysteriously drop off in the third act.
Common misconceptions
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I got the offer from Vonage, too, and I'm debating it. I haven't done the research on it yet. However, it's a common misconception that companies that are experiencing explosive growth should be rolling in the cash. Rapid growth is actually quite expensive, because the company is having to dramatically increase its size in order to keep pace.
Secondly, debt is not necessarily a bad thing for businesses; in fact, it's a positive. I won't go into all the details, but suffice to say that it increases the earning power of the money supplied by the shareholders.
Third, debt is a much cheaper form of financing than equity offerings. It's only natural to expect Vonage to use as much debt as is available to them before they launch an IPO. Think of this, also -- with an IPO, the current Vonage stakeholders are giving up a lot of control over their company. So really, the fact that they are conducting an IPO should really raise more questions than the fact that they have a lot of debt.
I started my career as a Mac guy, and held on to the Mac for as long as I could, but Apple hemmoraged so much blood in '97 that I had to eventually buy/build my first PC.
The great thing about it was all of the A-List PC games that never made it to the Mac, I finally had access to. There were a good ten years' worth of stuff that I wanted, and most of it was in the bargain bins (wahoo!). X-Com:UFO was just so mind-blowingly great that, ten years after it's release, it could still hold its own; there just was never anything like it on the Mac side, and it's a game that I still revisit from time to time.
This isn't about protecting their trademark... these lawsuits started back in the Apple II's heyday, LONG before anyone thought of personal digitized music. At the time, the Apple II was most famously known for Visicalc and playing games. And it had a tone generator that was only capable of beeps and boops. There wasn't ever the possibility of someone confusing Apple Computer with a rock music production company.
No, Apple's fortunes took off in the early 80's, and George Harrison saw an opportunity to seize some easy cash. THAT'S how this started.
Except that their largest audience is on the WINDOWS platform.
Naming products isn't the problem, since it's not called the "Apple Music Store" but the "iTunes Music Store"; the problem is Apple's ownership of it.
Feasibly, Apple Computer could spin off iTunes and the iPod into a separate business. Hovever, the Apple Computer brand is one of the most recognizable in the world, with many millions having been spent on building brand awareness, so it's worth fighting to keep it an Apple-branded product.
It also helps to position future Apple-branded products, because of the success associated with iTMS.
There's an interesting story today that says that 90% of women in Brittain still think that one night stands are immoral and deviant, and that younger respondents were more vocal with their opinions than older ones.
I never said that there weren't other religions 6,000 years ago.
Are you suggesting that Hebrew is some sort of sacred language? You'll have to give me proof why. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, parts of Daniel was written in Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
Languages generally don't "pop" into existence. The ancient Hebrew of the Bible is part of a family of semitic languages, but not the first. If Hebrew did not exist at the time then it's likely that the Ten Commandments were written in whatever language was common with the Hebrew people, and probably in a language that evolved into Hebrew.
Besides, being raised as a prince in Egypt, Moses was one of the most educated men of his day. Who is to say that Moses did not have a strong hand in crafting the Hebrew language, as Eliezer Ben Yehuda had in reviving it in modern day?
I dare to say that the mechanism of evolution is a very well established fact. Two pieces of evidence. Firstly, you can simulate it on a computer, showing that the frequency of replicators which undergo small random changes is indeed subject to "environmental" pressure you impose on their "phenotypes" and that this can yield complexity without design. Secondly, breeding: mankind has very successfully altered species by artifically selecting small variations of animals and plants. (Breeding is actually the example used to introduce the idea of natural selection of variations by Darwin in his "On the Origin of Species"). So the mechanism is very well established.
Both examples are completely bogus. The parameters of the computer program are set up by the program's designers, and therefore do not reflect real world events. I also have a computer program that shows you are rewarded for eating blue dots in a maze and will advance in status if you can avoid being killed by the wandering ghosts. It doesn't prove anything, except how adept we've become at playing games.
Second, selective breeding, or what's known as "microevolution" has never been in dispute. Nobody has ever contested that there are wide variations within a species as a result of breeding. Macroevolution is where the division is. Show me the evidence that a frog became a horse. That's another story.
What one usually can not easily establish is how exactly a specific species evolved. One can invent some stories of why certain features of a phenotype helped to increase the frequency of the genes it carries. However, these always remain "just so stories", and the geological record is imperfect. Nevertheless we can observe evolution at work when it proceeds at a fast pace, for instance in the appearance of germs immune to antibiotics in hospitals.
Again, microevolution, not macroevolution. Also, survival of the fittest, which is also generally agreed upon.
You suggest that there is some symmetry between the concept of evolution and ID because neither can be proved definitively. In addition to my above argument, I think this gives ID far too much merit. The concept of evloution has greatly improved our understanding of how complexity can come about. It explains something. The invokation of a designer, on the other hand, explains nothing. It just raises the question where the designer came from in the first place.
Rubbish. What evolution has given us is a complex system as a starting point for critically evaluating the world around us. Whether or not its the correct one is a separate argument.
In similar fashion, mankind has almost always had some form of government. For many millenia, we've struggled to figure out the best way to manage societies and economies, and at no point along the path could we say, "We've arrived!" Rather, what we have are several millenia worth of experience in various systems of governing.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by the concept of removing God from scientific inquiry. Absolutely keep digging, keep searching, keep looking for answers. My problem is twofold: one, that the scientific method does not and cannot answer all of the questions of life, and therefore cannot be used in and of itself to rule out a discussion of God. Secondly, the belief in Darwin's theory is so firmly entrenched that to question it goes against a "scientific orthodoxy". What was found was a skull, nothing more. No bubblegum card was found alongside it saying, "This is missing link number 11... Collect all 24!" And yet, immediately the scientists want to shoehorn it into the geneology of mankind, as the link between man and ape.
Hey, scientists are people; they don't live in a vacuum. They want awards and accolades and recognition, just like the rest of us. They also have to prove their value in order to receive funding to continue their research work. So that puts pressure on them to actually discover something of great value. And I'm sure that the scientists truly believe in what they are doing and saying. But let's not kid ourselves; there's definitely a bias that's inherent in the system.
True, but SJG didn't break entirely from the mainstream, he was still defending Darwinism. Note the phrase in your Wiki link, "is mistakenly thought to oppose gradualism... though it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism."
Conflict from within and conflict from without are two separate things entirely. SJG was still able to make his case in the universities and in the scholarly journals, and was therefore able to engage a spirited debate. That's the ideal situation.
The reason that scientists don't attempt to disparage evolution is that the personal cost is quite high. The closest analogy I can think of would be going through a senate confirmation for a Supreme Court appointment; the politics are very high, the opponents are ruthless, and the effects can be career-ending. The major flaw with that analogy is that there is no two-party system in place to support dissent, there is only the one-party, Darwinists. When you go through the univesity system, evolution is taught as fact. If you're not a Darwinist, you most likely won't get published in the scientific journals because they treat evolution as fact.
And yes, there are some scientists who attempt to refute evolution, and they are mostly ostracized from the scientific community for doing so.
There is no way to definitively prove one that either evolution has occured or that God created everything. Both sides rest on circumstantial evidence, and have been mounting a lot of it for a long, long time. The main difference is that, in our current social and political climate, evolution has a voice and creationism does not. Ever notice how when the "evolution vs. creationism" debate comes up in the school system, the media never focuses on the "for vs. against" argument; rather, they always turn it into a First Amendment story. I'm not saying there's a grand conspiracy here; just saying that the current prevailing attitude is to give evolution the benefit of the doubt.
If I could disprove that this fossil was the "missing link," would the theory of evolution then collapse? Hardly. The scientific community would simply fall back to numerous other examples of circumstantial evidence and argue from those.
You say that nothing will sway the creationists; I say that BOTH sides are firmly entrenched on this issue, and it's going to take a lot more than circumstantial evidence to convince either side.
that professional hackers always ignore challenges like these. First of all, the last thing they want is lots of publicity. Secondly, the last thing they want is for their exploits to be found.
But to get to your comment, the point of this is to expose security holes in a very public way so that they can be patched.
How many movies came out last year with King Kong's budget? Just one.
The "average" cost of a movie is already far, far below $200 million... I would say that the "average" cost of movies is already in the $15-20 million range.
One of the biggest expenses of the movies is actors' salaries. Do anybody here actually believe that the studio execs LIKE paying $20 million to an actor for one film? Of course not, but they are paying the market rate for that actor. Actors draw audiences, so how does Lucas propose that the studios force the big name stars to take a lower salary?
What's written is what's written. How it actually transpired, we can only imagine.
I think the point of the story is that Eve came from the same genetic material as Adam, as opposed to fixing Adam up with the local orangutan.
Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted.
Not quite sure what you're going after here... However, the Bible is neatly packaged as one book, but it is actually 66 separate books, with numerous authors with numerous styles.
Which bible do you read, and why?
I personally prefer either the NIV or the NKJV, but I have other translations. The biggest reason for so many translations is that languages don't neatly translate into other languages, one word for one word. So, every translation has to strike a balance somewhere between one of two extremes; either it's very literal (and loses the nuances of the language) or it's very descriptive (and loses the pacing of the stories, possibly embellishing too much).
Most conservative Christian scholars will tell you that the only inerrant version of the scriptures are the original autographs, which we don't have. The closest thing that we have are copies of copies.
Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics?
As in every other walk of life, rules are written down when a person or group violates what are the commonly accepted and understood beliefs and practices.
The church councils convened to deal with various attacks on the belief system, internal and external. Part of what they had to deal with was extra material being passed around as authentic scriptures, so they presented arguments on why each book did or did not have a place in the canon and took a vote on it.
The Christian view would be that God guided the process, and that the correct books were included in the canon.
Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?
The apostles intentionally switched worship from Saturday to Sunday, because the resurrection occured on Sunday. It was also a way of differentiating themselves from Judaism. The Ten Commandments were under the old covenant; the New Testament reaffirms nine of the Ten Commandments, but it does not specify that the sabbath has to be on Saturday.
If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell?
This trinitarian doesn't think so. However, I'm not God, so I don't go around making proclamations on who's going to heaven and who is not.
All I know is that Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father. He doesn't say anything about having a theology degree and being able to pontificate on the triune nature of God.
What if you aren't baptised?
Baptism is an outward symbol of a changed life. Christians don't believe in salvation through baptism, they believe in salvation through faith in Christ.
The thief on the cross wasn't baptised when Jesus said "Today you'll be with me in paradise."
Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?
There are as many answers to that as there are denominations.
A lot of denominations have strong ties to the teachings and ministry of their founders.
A lot of denominations have extra-biblical teachings and traditions that are not recognized by other denominations.
Plus, consider that, given the sheer number of adherents to Christianity, it would be impossible for one denomination to meet the needs of everyone. Different denominations have different emphases on
Slashdot Mirror
Reportedly, the new version will have more action in it. And more humor. And more romance. And more puzzles. And they are going to give the protagonist a sidekick for more comic relief. Oh, and the pursuit of our heroes by the bad guys won't mysteriously drop off in the third act.
In fact, the pirate update has already been available for a while.
Sure looks like there's already a lot of questionable content on there...
I got the offer from Vonage, too, and I'm debating it. I haven't done the research on it yet. However, it's a common misconception that companies that are experiencing explosive growth should be rolling in the cash. Rapid growth is actually quite expensive, because the company is having to dramatically increase its size in order to keep pace.
Secondly, debt is not necessarily a bad thing for businesses; in fact, it's a positive. I won't go into all the details, but suffice to say that it increases the earning power of the money supplied by the shareholders.
Third, debt is a much cheaper form of financing than equity offerings. It's only natural to expect Vonage to use as much debt as is available to them before they launch an IPO. Think of this, also -- with an IPO, the current Vonage stakeholders are giving up a lot of control over their company. So really, the fact that they are conducting an IPO should really raise more questions than the fact that they have a lot of debt.
I started my career as a Mac guy, and held on to the Mac for as long as I could, but Apple hemmoraged so much blood in '97 that I had to eventually buy/build my first PC.
The great thing about it was all of the A-List PC games that never made it to the Mac, I finally had access to. There were a good ten years' worth of stuff that I wanted, and most of it was in the bargain bins (wahoo!). X-Com:UFO was just so mind-blowingly great that, ten years after it's release, it could still hold its own; there just was never anything like it on the Mac side, and it's a game that I still revisit from time to time.
This isn't about protecting their trademark... these lawsuits started back in the Apple II's heyday, LONG before anyone thought of personal digitized music. At the time, the Apple II was most famously known for Visicalc and playing games. And it had a tone generator that was only capable of beeps and boops. There wasn't ever the possibility of someone confusing Apple Computer with a rock music production company.
No, Apple's fortunes took off in the early 80's, and George Harrison saw an opportunity to seize some easy cash. THAT'S how this started.
Apple has sold many different series of computers over the years, of which the Mac is only one.
...am I missing anything?
Apple I
Apple II series
Lisa series
Macintosh series
Pippin
Newton series
iPod series (it has a HD and runs an OS)
Except that their largest audience is on the WINDOWS platform.
Naming products isn't the problem, since it's not called the "Apple Music Store" but the "iTunes Music Store"; the problem is Apple's ownership of it.
Feasibly, Apple Computer could spin off iTunes and the iPod into a separate business. Hovever, the Apple Computer brand is one of the most recognizable in the world, with many millions having been spent on building brand awareness, so it's worth fighting to keep it an Apple-branded product.
It also helps to position future Apple-branded products, because of the success associated with iTMS.
are that Apple Computer will not distribute music on physical media, which they've never done and probably have no intention or desire of doing so.
Steve Jobs is the Walrus.
The pink makeover must be for real.
Helloooo, Brokeback Website...
There's an interesting story today that says that 90% of women in Brittain still think that one night stands are immoral and deviant, and that younger respondents were more vocal with their opinions than older ones.
I never said that there weren't other religions 6,000 years ago.
Are you suggesting that Hebrew is some sort of sacred language? You'll have to give me proof why. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, parts of Daniel was written in Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
Languages generally don't "pop" into existence. The ancient Hebrew of the Bible is part of a family of semitic languages, but not the first. If Hebrew did not exist at the time then it's likely that the Ten Commandments were written in whatever language was common with the Hebrew people, and probably in a language that evolved into Hebrew.
Besides, being raised as a prince in Egypt, Moses was one of the most educated men of his day. Who is to say that Moses did not have a strong hand in crafting the Hebrew language, as Eliezer Ben Yehuda had in reviving it in modern day?
Excuse me, 6,000+ years of RECORDED human history. The earliest known writings only go back about 6,000 years.
Except, of course, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is of recent origin, an attempt to ridicule any theistic belief.
The Judeo-Christian God spans at least 6,000 years of oral and written history.
An attempt to compare the two is completely disingenuous.
I dare to say that the mechanism of evolution is a very well established fact. Two pieces of evidence. Firstly, you can simulate it on a computer, showing that the frequency of replicators which undergo small random changes is indeed subject to "environmental" pressure you impose on their "phenotypes" and that this can yield complexity without design. Secondly, breeding: mankind has very successfully altered species by artifically selecting small variations of animals and plants. (Breeding is actually the example used to introduce the idea of natural selection of variations by Darwin in his "On the Origin of Species"). So the mechanism is very well established.
Both examples are completely bogus. The parameters of the computer program are set up by the program's designers, and therefore do not reflect real world events. I also have a computer program that shows you are rewarded for eating blue dots in a maze and will advance in status if you can avoid being killed by the wandering ghosts. It doesn't prove anything, except how adept we've become at playing games.
Second, selective breeding, or what's known as "microevolution" has never been in dispute. Nobody has ever contested that there are wide variations within a species as a result of breeding. Macroevolution is where the division is. Show me the evidence that a frog became a horse. That's another story.
What one usually can not easily establish is how exactly a specific species evolved. One can invent some stories of why certain features of a phenotype helped to increase the frequency of the genes it carries. However, these always remain "just so stories", and the geological record is imperfect. Nevertheless we can observe evolution at work when it proceeds at a fast pace, for instance in the appearance of germs immune to antibiotics in hospitals.
Again, microevolution, not macroevolution. Also, survival of the fittest, which is also generally agreed upon.
You suggest that there is some symmetry between the concept of evolution and ID because neither can be proved definitively. In addition to my above argument, I think this gives ID far too much merit. The concept of evloution has greatly improved our understanding of how complexity can come about. It explains something. The invokation of a designer, on the other hand, explains nothing. It just raises the question where the designer came from in the first place.
Rubbish. What evolution has given us is a complex system as a starting point for critically evaluating the world around us. Whether or not its the correct one is a separate argument.
In similar fashion, mankind has almost always had some form of government. For many millenia, we've struggled to figure out the best way to manage societies and economies, and at no point along the path could we say, "We've arrived!" Rather, what we have are several millenia worth of experience in various systems of governing.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by the concept of removing God from scientific inquiry. Absolutely keep digging, keep searching, keep looking for answers. My problem is twofold: one, that the scientific method does not and cannot answer all of the questions of life, and therefore cannot be used in and of itself to rule out a discussion of God. Secondly, the belief in Darwin's theory is so firmly entrenched that to question it goes against a "scientific orthodoxy". What was found was a skull, nothing more. No bubblegum card was found alongside it saying, "This is missing link number 11... Collect all 24!" And yet, immediately the scientists want to shoehorn it into the geneology of mankind, as the link between man and ape.
Hey, scientists are people; they don't live in a vacuum. They want awards and accolades and recognition, just like the rest of us. They also have to prove their value in order to receive funding to continue their research work. So that puts pressure on them to actually discover something of great value. And I'm sure that the scientists truly believe in what they are doing and saying. But let's not kid ourselves; there's definitely a bias that's inherent in the system.
True, but SJG didn't break entirely from the mainstream, he was still defending Darwinism. Note the phrase in your Wiki link, "is mistakenly thought to oppose gradualism... though it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism."
Conflict from within and conflict from without are two separate things entirely. SJG was still able to make his case in the universities and in the scholarly journals, and was therefore able to engage a spirited debate. That's the ideal situation.
The reason that scientists don't attempt to disparage evolution is that the personal cost is quite high. The closest analogy I can think of would be going through a senate confirmation for a Supreme Court appointment; the politics are very high, the opponents are ruthless, and the effects can be career-ending. The major flaw with that analogy is that there is no two-party system in place to support dissent, there is only the one-party, Darwinists. When you go through the univesity system, evolution is taught as fact. If you're not a Darwinist, you most likely won't get published in the scientific journals because they treat evolution as fact.
And yes, there are some scientists who attempt to refute evolution, and they are mostly ostracized from the scientific community for doing so.
There is no way to definitively prove one that either evolution has occured or that God created everything. Both sides rest on circumstantial evidence, and have been mounting a lot of it for a long, long time. The main difference is that, in our current social and political climate, evolution has a voice and creationism does not. Ever notice how when the "evolution vs. creationism" debate comes up in the school system, the media never focuses on the "for vs. against" argument; rather, they always turn it into a First Amendment story. I'm not saying there's a grand conspiracy here; just saying that the current prevailing attitude is to give evolution the benefit of the doubt.
If I could disprove that this fossil was the "missing link," would the theory of evolution then collapse? Hardly. The scientific community would simply fall back to numerous other examples of circumstantial evidence and argue from those.
You say that nothing will sway the creationists; I say that BOTH sides are firmly entrenched on this issue, and it's going to take a lot more than circumstantial evidence to convince either side.
Your Windows PC is my other computer.
Sounds like a series of bumper stickers in the making.
"My kid got root on your honor student's PC"
"Root Happens"
"(I Love You) Stop the Hacking!"
that professional hackers always ignore challenges like these. First of all, the last thing they want is lots of publicity. Secondly, the last thing they want is for their exploits to be found.
But to get to your comment, the point of this is to expose security holes in a very public way so that they can be patched.
DAS is dead!
Long live Vindows!
How many movies came out last year with King Kong's budget? Just one.
The "average" cost of a movie is already far, far below $200 million... I would say that the "average" cost of movies is already in the $15-20 million range.
One of the biggest expenses of the movies is actors' salaries. Do anybody here actually believe that the studio execs LIKE paying $20 million to an actor for one film? Of course not, but they are paying the market rate for that actor. Actors draw audiences, so how does Lucas propose that the studios force the big name stars to take a lower salary?
Lindh voluntarily placed himself in Afghanistan fighting American forces. That's hardly kidnapping!
Is America not supposed to defend itself against acts of treason?
Besides, Lindh was never in Gitmo, AFAIK... he was tried and sentenced in the US.
The Akamai figures are the embellishment of the submitter... Cringely doesn't mention Akamai anywhere in the article.
It only opens the door for Skype's competitors to gain a foothold by not instituting such a silly restriction.
It also turns into bad PR for Skype for the tech community to find out that Skype intentionally hobbles their software.
Can a man live inside of a fish for three days?
Are you asking if the story is possible?
Here's an interesting fish story...
Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?
What's written is what's written. How it actually transpired, we can only imagine.
I think the point of the story is that Eve came from the same genetic material as Adam, as opposed to fixing Adam up with the local orangutan.
Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted.
Not quite sure what you're going after here... However, the Bible is neatly packaged as one book, but it is actually 66 separate books, with numerous authors with numerous styles.
Which bible do you read, and why?
I personally prefer either the NIV or the NKJV, but I have other translations. The biggest reason for so many translations is that languages don't neatly translate into other languages, one word for one word. So, every translation has to strike a balance somewhere between one of two extremes; either it's very literal (and loses the nuances of the language) or it's very descriptive (and loses the pacing of the stories, possibly embellishing too much).
Most conservative Christian scholars will tell you that the only inerrant version of the scriptures are the original autographs, which we don't have. The closest thing that we have are copies of copies.
Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics?
As in every other walk of life, rules are written down when a person or group violates what are the commonly accepted and understood beliefs and practices.
The church councils convened to deal with various attacks on the belief system, internal and external. Part of what they had to deal with was extra material being passed around as authentic scriptures, so they presented arguments on why each book did or did not have a place in the canon and took a vote on it.
The Christian view would be that God guided the process, and that the correct books were included in the canon.
Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?
The apostles intentionally switched worship from Saturday to Sunday, because the resurrection occured on Sunday. It was also a way of differentiating themselves from Judaism. The Ten Commandments were under the old covenant; the New Testament reaffirms nine of the Ten Commandments, but it does not specify that the sabbath has to be on Saturday.
If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell?
This trinitarian doesn't think so. However, I'm not God, so I don't go around making proclamations on who's going to heaven and who is not.
All I know is that Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father. He doesn't say anything about having a theology degree and being able to pontificate on the triune nature of God.
What if you aren't baptised?
Baptism is an outward symbol of a changed life. Christians don't believe in salvation through baptism, they believe in salvation through faith in Christ.
The thief on the cross wasn't baptised when Jesus said "Today you'll be with me in paradise."
Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?
There are as many answers to that as there are denominations.
A lot of denominations have strong ties to the teachings and ministry of their founders.
A lot of denominations have extra-biblical teachings and traditions that are not recognized by other denominations.
Plus, consider that, given the sheer number of adherents to Christianity, it would be impossible for one denomination to meet the needs of everyone. Different denominations have different emphases on