Ya, although that's kind of my point. Stealing is a crime, whether it is publically known or not. When considering threats, it absolutely does matter whether the person you intend to threaten does or can know about it. So yes, a crime is a crime, except when it is not a crime. It is not a crime for some kid to think about blowing a teachers head off with a gun. It is not a crime for him/her to write it in a private diary. It is a crime to make it public. So a public threat is a crime. Thought about anything is not a crime. In this particular case, him making the icon public constitutes an expressed threat, so it should be dealt with. Making a sketch at home of the same picture that is on the icon and pasting it under his pillow is not an expressed threat. So ya, getting caught is not the determining factor, but a threat per seis only a crime if it is expressed. Your analogy is flawed.
...but come on...hi-res shots? A little dissapointing. How about some more anti-aliasing? Everything looks like a box. It's like the old star wars trilogy and the new star wars trilogy. You can tell when stuff is drawn by a computer -- too sharp, not enough dust, grime, grit. That's the problem with all these new games with "beautiful" graphics. They look beautifully drawn, not starkly real. How about using more actual photography to cover those textures rather than generating everything.
did the school over react by suspending him for a semster? probably. but good grief. you don't make icons of blowing a teacher's brains out and think that's totally cool.
Well, it all comes down to the definition of what is or isn't a threat, what is or isn't acceptable. Where to draw the line? I'm willing to be that although laws specifically haven't changed, this sort of icon pre-Columbine probably wouldn't have resulted in suspension. So what has changed? The bar has changed. The problem is that the bar wasn't well defined in law, or even school rules. Is the IM icon OK if he doesn't use it to communicate with any other students or teachers, and doesn't use it at school? Is it OK if he just drew it at home, never brought it to school, never communicated its existence, yet someone found it anyway and reported him? Basically, are the administrators punishing only what they can see, what they know about? And what constitutes a threat? If I'm a pissed off student after getting detention or something and I'm grumbling to myself and mumbling under my breath that I wish the teacher would just be taken out back and shot, and someone heard me? How about if I mumbled that I wish the teacher would just jump off a cliff? How about if I mumbled I wish the teached would just get abducted by aliens and blasted to oblivion with a ray gun? Clearly, not a credible threat, merely because we haven't seen it happen yet, really. The problem is that speech is infinitely variable... we do our best and we can only say we're going to protect free speech or we're not. Then we have to clarify that and say free speech is only free as long as it per se does not represent a danger (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), etc. I really don't know where to draw the line, but it certainly seems the pendulum has swung in the direction of treating all students as potential Columbinites.
Your point is technically valid. But, let's consider an analogy. Volkswagen used to make a digital music system for their cars, called PhatNoise. It let you put your music into a VW harddrive for VW trunk-based player for VW receiver. Now, why should VW have to make that harddrive compatible with any reader? Or their player compatible with any receiver? Let's consider another analogy. IBM's PS/1 employed microchannel hardware -- only IBM expansion cards would work. That product pretty much tanked because it was too proprietary and it wasn't that good. Apple's products are also too proprietary, but they're pretty good. In either of the three cases, the company has done nothing illegal, and the market has sorted out what succeeded and failed. To sum up, this is a case of proprietary components, something which has never been illegal (yet has often led to failure). One time that a company succeeds with it and they get bitchslapped with a law. Go figure. I hope eventually France surrenders on this one...boy they really need to figure out which battles should be fought.
Another MA state senator has recently voiced his opposition to the state endorsement of an Open Document format, decrying its lack of neurotransmitter support for people who cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or feel.
Seriously though, even though we all know the "do it for the disabled" is a hoax in this case, when is the "lowest common denominator" mentality just too ridiculous? Law of diminishing returns... spend 20% of your resources to meet the needs of 80% of the people. Spend 80% of your resources to meet the needs of the remaining 20% of the people. The American's With Disabilities act must be one of the biggest scams of all time. Instead of treating people who have disabilities with respect, we've written patronizing and pity into law. Sue away...
It's quite cynical from a patent holder to invoke the right for free trade and the idea that in a free market the customer will settle the question which good is better.
He cannot.
Actually, the French decision IS the epitome of free trade: BOTH products, the iPod and iTunes have to succeed as the best platform. You can't have one product "tag along" with the other one. BOTH have to be successful to be the main player.
NO idea what you're talking about. Patents are fully compatible with free trade. In this case, there isn't really even a patent on the idea of listening to music in a digital format. All anyone has to do to get into this business is license the music from the copyright holder, and make your own damn online store and digital player. Oh wait, but you're not really going to be able to offer it at 99c, right? Thanks France, you just made it easier for the RIAA to anally probe us all. Itunes is a free software package. You can download music and play it on itunes. That is the purpose of the software package. A separate hardware package, the iPod, enables you to take that music onto a portable player. WTF is so hard to understand about that? Want an ipod, but not iTunes music? FINE!!! Get some mp3s. Want iTunes, but no iPod? FINE!!! What is the problem here?? You want neither, FINE!!! No one is shoving these products down our throats.
Your point is perfectly valid, but EVERYONE here will have some part of some post that will make no sense to them. I am a biologist, and would actually like to see more "accurate" posts on scientific research than "layman's" language, so to speak. But how would that go over with the tech geeks? Not very well, I suppose. The decisions have to be made at the editorial level to make the posts readable. Even the scientific journals I publish in and read, even those research articles that really will make the most sense to a small community of scientists, have to be written and published according to SOME standards that will make them readable to a broader audience. Most publishing venues know this, even CNET and WIRED can get it wrong, and Slashdot is no exception. Let's not kid ourselves that this site is just some blog. Even if you want to think of it this way, it never hurts to look at and accept some constructive criticism, so here it is -- define your acronyms as necessary. DNA is well known. RADAR is used idiomatically. OS is well known. WGA is a lot more esoteric. Why? Because enough people say it is. There's no common set of rules here, just listen to your audience.
I like the attitude here. Your computing cycles are really your own -- you've paid for the electricity, it's not like you're siphoning it for free. I kind of just like to save on money cuz my computer is a power hog, but I'm also a biologist, and I think Folding@home is a cool way to support biomedical research (especially since at work, our computers are always on, and 80% idle). SETI@home, I always thought was neat, but now I think it's a fool's errand, but if you want to do it, go for it. Now, if there was a distributed computing business model in which I could be paid for contributing my computing cycles (even enough just to cover the electricity and wear-and-tear on my computer), hell, I'd "donate" to any cause.
THANK YOU!! MOD PARENT UP!! Lame, misleading headlines with summaries that make no sense, and links that get slashdotted without a mirror offered upfront, and unbelievably ridiculous use of acronyms with no definition in sight -- any other publishing venue would fire the editors immediately.
Maybe that's exactly what they're gonna do;) Think about it... widely advertise that you've got a mind reading device, and people start spewing the truth just cuz they think you could actually tell if they're lying.
Remember in Aeon Flux, that mediocre movie, how they would swallow pills that would release something that would tap into their perceptions directly and could be used for instant messaging, so to speak? I wonder if a rudimentary version of that is really possible. Not the whole tapping-into-the-brain-through-neurotransmitters thing, but far cruder... A tingling sensation means the coast is clear; A belly-ache means go into hiding; Death means the CIA has chosen to consider you a liability that must be eliminated...
I think you're partly right, but their goals are not short term. They are mostly health/sustainability/stability related. I think other groups have the technological angle in mind, and that is an equally honorable effort in the long term.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is not there to help well off people develop software. One of its biggest aims is to stop the spread of HIV. The fact that Bill gates is also affiliated with M$ should not skew your views of his foundation, it is an independent entity. So to sum up, a funding request from FSF or EFF would be soundly rejected, as that nothing to do with HIV, or halting the development of nuclear weapons, etc.
If anything can rile up the conservative base, it's the thought of human-dolphin partnerships. I guess when he said "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully," GWB he conveniently left out aquatic mammals, leaving an issue open for election years!
Not sure why these companies feel they have to actively seek out foreign visa workers like that, so blatantly discriminating. There are far more legal ways to achieve the goal of a free-market style cheap labor economy. For example, the obvious, an American worker is not intrinsically "worth" more than a foreign worker, so why not just offer the same starting salary to any entry-level candidate? Chances are the foreign visa worker will still see that as a decent offering and take the job, whereas the American worker may not. It really seems like the goal was to get qualified workers without having to offer the inflated salaries that domestic workers expect. Couldn't this sort of be established de facto by offering every candidate a salary comparable to what a visa worker would get, rather then de jure by hiring only visa workers?
...and if the summer camps claim they want to help you out, that's their right to do so, and you can decide whether or not they are being overly bureaucratic/paranoid or not. What neither the summer camps nor the parents should be allowed to do, is sue MySpace, etc. because of their failings as parents. In the end, it's almost always inadequate parenting that causes their children to engage in risky behavior.
I think internet search is not so bad right now, for humans. One thing which could really use some improvement is making it easier for computers to search, i.e., the semantic web. As the wiki states, "Humans are capable of using the Web, say, to find the Swedish word for "car," to reserve a library book, or to search for the cheapest DVD and buy it. But if you asked a computer to do the same thing, it wouldn't know where to start." That sounds like a good plan to me. I often do lots of comparison shopping online, trying to find the best deal once I know which particular product I want. If an algorithm could do the same thing, all the better. Somehow those price comparison websites are just not adequate. That's only one application of course. Another is local searching while on the run (i.e. from a mobile). Again, there are searches that can do that, eventually, but there is room for improvement there. It seems like these are the sort of concrete problems the panel should have analysed, and came up with criteria for solutions.
Primera has started shipping the world's first Blu-ray disc duplication system, the Bravo XR-Blu Disc Publisher, able to burn up to 50 discs in one session. The core of the unit is actually Pioneer's recently announced BDR-101A Blu-ray burner, but it's backed up by some sweet built-in robotics to keep the discs moving (we hope -- we've heard this things are a little buggy) and full-color direct-to-disc inkjet printing to ensure a professional-looking job. This being the first unit of its kind, however, it should come as no surprise that it only uses single-layer discs, able to store a measly 25 GB, but Primera says an upgrade will be available "shortly" to allow for dual-layer burning. And if you thought regular, single-disc Blu-ray burners were expensive, you better look away now, 'cause this beast will set you back a whopping $5295.
Sounds like we'll be seeing surprisingly cheap Blu-ray movies on Ebay any day now.
From CNN article: The National Academy of Sciences expressed "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years", and in putting together a comprehensive report, concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." I think the parent post is putting a little too high a bar on what constitutes scientific "PROOF". At some point, the best hypothesis, supported by data, is elevated to theory. Most science ever hopes to achieve the level of theory, and I think global warming has just become a valid theory. One can really see the arguments of the "conservatives" or the "right" shifting from denying global warming to denying a link between man's activities and the warming. I, for one, as a scientist who respects the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, know that the kind of trend, being as unprecedented as it is, is very conclusively linkable to man and oil. The amount of carbon buried in the earth as fossil fuels that has now been released into the air is staggering. Face it, we did it. But it's not all that bad, and we can fix it. The first step, of course, is acceptance of the fact.
The National Academy of Sciences panel stated that ""recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia." Moreover they have "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years." What's the cause? The panel concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." This should help answer the critics that claim there is some controversy, even among scientists, that human activities affect global climate. Even more notably, this panel report appears to be endorsed by a bipartisan Congressional committee, headed by a Republican, Joe Barton, who said "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change." It seems the scientific community has finally spoken loudly enough for the politicians to begin listening. So, Bush has always said the research is inconclusive. Will he finally allow us to act on this comprehensive report from the NAS?
Ya, that's absolutely true -- I did read that, and I thought the "official" party line was that other mythologies would be not for planets and their moons, but for other solar system objects. Actually, if anyone knows what the official naming system is, I'd like to see it. One website is a little ambiguous on whether it has to be Roman/Greek mythology, as is wiki.
...against Microsoft. Look at the names: Apple, Novell, HP, Sun, SGI, IBM -- various combinations of these guys have bumped heads a few times also. And, not all of those names are exaclty pro-FOSS either, maybe they are just anti-M$.
This is really quite amazing, as spinal cord injuries are one of the things for which there really is good evidence for the involvement of stem cells in repair. To show that it can work is great news -- this is the sort of thing that people talk about when talking about "the promise of stem cells". Men are a different beast, and scientists know that it is generally easier to "cure" mice of cancer, viruses, injuries, and other diseases, than it is to cure people, so I look forward to additional work on how this research can be translated to primates, and finally people.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, although that's kind of my point. Stealing is a crime, whether it is publically known or not. When considering threats, it absolutely does matter whether the person you intend to threaten does or can know about it. So yes, a crime is a crime, except when it is not a crime. It is not a crime for some kid to think about blowing a teachers head off with a gun. It is not a crime for him/her to write it in a private diary. It is a crime to make it public. So a public threat is a crime. Thought about anything is not a crime. In this particular case, him making the icon public constitutes an expressed threat, so it should be dealt with. Making a sketch at home of the same picture that is on the icon and pasting it under his pillow is not an expressed threat. So ya, getting caught is not the determining factor, but a threat per seis only a crime if it is expressed. Your analogy is flawed.
...but come on...hi-res shots? A little dissapointing. How about some more anti-aliasing? Everything looks like a box. It's like the old star wars trilogy and the new star wars trilogy. You can tell when stuff is drawn by a computer -- too sharp, not enough dust, grime, grit. That's the problem with all these new games with "beautiful" graphics. They look beautifully drawn, not starkly real. How about using more actual photography to cover those textures rather than generating everything.
did the school over react by suspending him for a semster? probably. but good grief. you don't make icons of blowing a teacher's brains out and think that's totally cool.
Well, it all comes down to the definition of what is or isn't a threat, what is or isn't acceptable. Where to draw the line? I'm willing to be that although laws specifically haven't changed, this sort of icon pre-Columbine probably wouldn't have resulted in suspension. So what has changed? The bar has changed. The problem is that the bar wasn't well defined in law, or even school rules. Is the IM icon OK if he doesn't use it to communicate with any other students or teachers, and doesn't use it at school? Is it OK if he just drew it at home, never brought it to school, never communicated its existence, yet someone found it anyway and reported him? Basically, are the administrators punishing only what they can see, what they know about? And what constitutes a threat? If I'm a pissed off student after getting detention or something and I'm grumbling to myself and mumbling under my breath that I wish the teacher would just be taken out back and shot, and someone heard me? How about if I mumbled that I wish the teacher would just jump off a cliff? How about if I mumbled I wish the teached would just get abducted by aliens and blasted to oblivion with a ray gun? Clearly, not a credible threat, merely because we haven't seen it happen yet, really. The problem is that speech is infinitely variable... we do our best and we can only say we're going to protect free speech or we're not. Then we have to clarify that and say free speech is only free as long as it per se does not represent a danger (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), etc. I really don't know where to draw the line, but it certainly seems the pendulum has swung in the direction of treating all students as potential Columbinites.
Your point is technically valid. But, let's consider an analogy. Volkswagen used to make a digital music system for their cars, called PhatNoise. It let you put your music into a VW harddrive for VW trunk-based player for VW receiver. Now, why should VW have to make that harddrive compatible with any reader? Or their player compatible with any receiver? Let's consider another analogy. IBM's PS/1 employed microchannel hardware -- only IBM expansion cards would work. That product pretty much tanked because it was too proprietary and it wasn't that good. Apple's products are also too proprietary, but they're pretty good. In either of the three cases, the company has done nothing illegal, and the market has sorted out what succeeded and failed. To sum up, this is a case of proprietary components, something which has never been illegal (yet has often led to failure). One time that a company succeeds with it and they get bitchslapped with a law. Go figure. I hope eventually France surrenders on this one...boy they really need to figure out which battles should be fought.
Seriously though, even though we all know the "do it for the disabled" is a hoax in this case, when is the "lowest common denominator" mentality just too ridiculous? Law of diminishing returns... spend 20% of your resources to meet the needs of 80% of the people. Spend 80% of your resources to meet the needs of the remaining 20% of the people. The American's With Disabilities act must be one of the biggest scams of all time. Instead of treating people who have disabilities with respect, we've written patronizing and pity into law. Sue away...
It's quite cynical from a patent holder to invoke the right for free trade and the idea that in a free market the customer will settle the question which good is better. He cannot. Actually, the French decision IS the epitome of free trade: BOTH products, the iPod and iTunes have to succeed as the best platform. You can't have one product "tag along" with the other one. BOTH have to be successful to be the main player.
NO idea what you're talking about. Patents are fully compatible with free trade. In this case, there isn't really even a patent on the idea of listening to music in a digital format. All anyone has to do to get into this business is license the music from the copyright holder, and make your own damn online store and digital player. Oh wait, but you're not really going to be able to offer it at 99c, right? Thanks France, you just made it easier for the RIAA to anally probe us all. Itunes is a free software package. You can download music and play it on itunes. That is the purpose of the software package. A separate hardware package, the iPod, enables you to take that music onto a portable player. WTF is so hard to understand about that? Want an ipod, but not iTunes music? FINE!!! Get some mp3s. Want iTunes, but no iPod? FINE!!! What is the problem here?? You want neither, FINE!!! No one is shoving these products down our throats.
Your point is perfectly valid, but EVERYONE here will have some part of some post that will make no sense to them. I am a biologist, and would actually like to see more "accurate" posts on scientific research than "layman's" language, so to speak. But how would that go over with the tech geeks? Not very well, I suppose. The decisions have to be made at the editorial level to make the posts readable. Even the scientific journals I publish in and read, even those research articles that really will make the most sense to a small community of scientists, have to be written and published according to SOME standards that will make them readable to a broader audience. Most publishing venues know this, even CNET and WIRED can get it wrong, and Slashdot is no exception. Let's not kid ourselves that this site is just some blog. Even if you want to think of it this way, it never hurts to look at and accept some constructive criticism, so here it is -- define your acronyms as necessary. DNA is well known. RADAR is used idiomatically. OS is well known. WGA is a lot more esoteric. Why? Because enough people say it is. There's no common set of rules here, just listen to your audience.
I like the attitude here. Your computing cycles are really your own -- you've paid for the electricity, it's not like you're siphoning it for free. I kind of just like to save on money cuz my computer is a power hog, but I'm also a biologist, and I think Folding@home is a cool way to support biomedical research (especially since at work, our computers are always on, and 80% idle). SETI@home, I always thought was neat, but now I think it's a fool's errand, but if you want to do it, go for it. Now, if there was a distributed computing business model in which I could be paid for contributing my computing cycles (even enough just to cover the electricity and wear-and-tear on my computer), hell, I'd "donate" to any cause.
THANK YOU!! MOD PARENT UP!! Lame, misleading headlines with summaries that make no sense, and links that get slashdotted without a mirror offered upfront, and unbelievably ridiculous use of acronyms with no definition in sight -- any other publishing venue would fire the editors immediately.
...where NO means NO.
Maybe that's exactly what they're gonna do ;) Think about it... widely advertise that you've got a mind reading device, and people start spewing the truth just cuz they think you could actually tell if they're lying.
Remember in Aeon Flux, that mediocre movie, how they would swallow pills that would release something that would tap into their perceptions directly and could be used for instant messaging, so to speak? I wonder if a rudimentary version of that is really possible. Not the whole tapping-into-the-brain-through-neurotransmitters thing, but far cruder... A tingling sensation means the coast is clear; A belly-ache means go into hiding; Death means the CIA has chosen to consider you a liability that must be eliminated...
I think you're partly right, but their goals are not short term. They are mostly health/sustainability/stability related. I think other groups have the technological angle in mind, and that is an equally honorable effort in the long term.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is not there to help well off people develop software. One of its biggest aims is to stop the spread of HIV. The fact that Bill gates is also affiliated with M$ should not skew your views of his foundation, it is an independent entity. So to sum up, a funding request from FSF or EFF would be soundly rejected, as that nothing to do with HIV, or halting the development of nuclear weapons, etc.
If anything can rile up the conservative base, it's the thought of human-dolphin partnerships. I guess when he said "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully," GWB he conveniently left out aquatic mammals, leaving an issue open for election years!
Not sure why these companies feel they have to actively seek out foreign visa workers like that, so blatantly discriminating. There are far more legal ways to achieve the goal of a free-market style cheap labor economy. For example, the obvious, an American worker is not intrinsically "worth" more than a foreign worker, so why not just offer the same starting salary to any entry-level candidate? Chances are the foreign visa worker will still see that as a decent offering and take the job, whereas the American worker may not. It really seems like the goal was to get qualified workers without having to offer the inflated salaries that domestic workers expect. Couldn't this sort of be established de facto by offering every candidate a salary comparable to what a visa worker would get, rather then de jure by hiring only visa workers?
...and if the summer camps claim they want to help you out, that's their right to do so, and you can decide whether or not they are being overly bureaucratic/paranoid or not. What neither the summer camps nor the parents should be allowed to do, is sue MySpace, etc. because of their failings as parents. In the end, it's almost always inadequate parenting that causes their children to engage in risky behavior.
I think internet search is not so bad right now, for humans. One thing which could really use some improvement is making it easier for computers to search, i.e., the semantic web. As the wiki states, "Humans are capable of using the Web, say, to find the Swedish word for "car," to reserve a library book, or to search for the cheapest DVD and buy it. But if you asked a computer to do the same thing, it wouldn't know where to start." That sounds like a good plan to me. I often do lots of comparison shopping online, trying to find the best deal once I know which particular product I want. If an algorithm could do the same thing, all the better. Somehow those price comparison websites are just not adequate. That's only one application of course. Another is local searching while on the run (i.e. from a mobile). Again, there are searches that can do that, eventually, but there is room for improvement there. It seems like these are the sort of concrete problems the panel should have analysed, and came up with criteria for solutions.
...when you can set up your own distribution center: Engadget has a peek at Primera's mass Blu-ray duplication system
Primera has started shipping the world's first Blu-ray disc duplication system, the Bravo XR-Blu Disc Publisher, able to burn up to 50 discs in one session. The core of the unit is actually Pioneer's recently announced BDR-101A Blu-ray burner, but it's backed up by some sweet built-in robotics to keep the discs moving (we hope -- we've heard this things are a little buggy) and full-color direct-to-disc inkjet printing to ensure a professional-looking job. This being the first unit of its kind, however, it should come as no surprise that it only uses single-layer discs, able to store a measly 25 GB, but Primera says an upgrade will be available "shortly" to allow for dual-layer burning. And if you thought regular, single-disc Blu-ray burners were expensive, you better look away now, 'cause this beast will set you back a whopping $5295.
Sounds like we'll be seeing surprisingly cheap Blu-ray movies on Ebay any day now.
From CNN article: The National Academy of Sciences expressed "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years", and in putting together a comprehensive report, concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." I think the parent post is putting a little too high a bar on what constitutes scientific "PROOF". At some point, the best hypothesis, supported by data, is elevated to theory. Most science ever hopes to achieve the level of theory, and I think global warming has just become a valid theory. One can really see the arguments of the "conservatives" or the "right" shifting from denying global warming to denying a link between man's activities and the warming. I, for one, as a scientist who respects the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, know that the kind of trend, being as unprecedented as it is, is very conclusively linkable to man and oil. The amount of carbon buried in the earth as fossil fuels that has now been released into the air is staggering. Face it, we did it. But it's not all that bad, and we can fix it. The first step, of course, is acceptance of the fact.
The National Academy of Sciences panel stated that ""recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia." Moreover they have "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years." What's the cause? The panel concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." This should help answer the critics that claim there is some controversy, even among scientists, that human activities affect global climate. Even more notably, this panel report appears to be endorsed by a bipartisan Congressional committee, headed by a Republican, Joe Barton, who said "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change." It seems the scientific community has finally spoken loudly enough for the politicians to begin listening. So, Bush has always said the research is inconclusive. Will he finally allow us to act on this comprehensive report from the NAS?
Ya, that's absolutely true -- I did read that, and I thought the "official" party line was that other mythologies would be not for planets and their moons, but for other solar system objects. Actually, if anyone knows what the official naming system is, I'd like to see it. One website is a little ambiguous on whether it has to be Roman/Greek mythology, as is wiki.
...against Microsoft. Look at the names: Apple, Novell, HP, Sun, SGI, IBM -- various combinations of these guys have bumped heads a few times also. And, not all of those names are exaclty pro-FOSS either, maybe they are just anti-M$.
Ya, that's what I figured. Heck, gmail chat is probably better at this point.
This is really quite amazing, as spinal cord injuries are one of the things for which there really is good evidence for the involvement of stem cells in repair. To show that it can work is great news -- this is the sort of thing that people talk about when talking about "the promise of stem cells". Men are a different beast, and scientists know that it is generally easier to "cure" mice of cancer, viruses, injuries, and other diseases, than it is to cure people, so I look forward to additional work on how this research can be translated to primates, and finally people.