800000 "children reported missing" includes anyone under the age of 18 who runs away. (This is about 1% of the Children in the US in the 0 thru 17 age group).
Amber Alerts are specifically for kidnapped or abducted children usually less than 16.
An Amber alert will not be issued for your 14 yro daughter when she runs off with that creep she met on line.
Its not the same thing.
Nicely said, I just wanted to add one more little detail that whittles the numbers down a little more: The point of the Amber Alert is "this just happened, they're out and about right now, do you see them?" It's about getting the general public, mostly people on highways, to look around and see if they see the suspect vehicle.
I'm no Apple fan, but to be fair, when I hear "app store", I think of Apple. When I hear of another company's service being referred to as an "app store", I think of Apple.
Maybe, but you're not going to click on an 'App Store' icon on a Microsoft phone and think you're going to Apple's app store.
But if you think about how things change shape when they move, it's not that surprising, don't wanna lose track of what you're chasing or running from.
Yeah, I saw that episode. The guide (who, just to be clear, isn't a member of the QM staff but does freelance there to get a few bucks) said that in the original airing they blamed the lady that brought them in. (I vaguely remember something like that.) Then he went on to say that that sparked a defamation (slander?) lawsuit because, as he said, one of the SciFi crew admitted to doing the hoax. He said that the bit about them blaming here was edited out completely and you'll never see it again. Now I'm not 100% certain that they did blame her, but when I did watch it again on DVD shortly after they definitely did *not* say that.
so why would there be a difference between when the things move vs. don't move? there are always a mix of colors and brightnesses.
When you're a monkey moving through the forest, things are passing by as you're moving in and out of pools of light. Your eyes are trying to adjust to it. That's what the test they showed seem to be testing anyway.. the background was changing luminance while multi colored things roamed about.
I went on a 'ghost hunt' aboard the Queen Mary with a guy that claims to do work similar to what the TAPS team does. He genuinely shocked that only a fraction of the people that came in (including myself *SMUG!!*) brought a flashlight.
Just as a note on this, the TAPS team investigated the Queen Mary, and they determined that someone had tampered with their investigation.
Yeah that came up during our tour there. The guide was very unhappy with the TAPS team. He went the windy route explaining all of it, but he claims one of the unseen SciFi channel filming crew did it.
Fair enough. I've noticed the suspend mode works way better, too. I didn't mention it before because I doubt you're talking about a wide deployment of laptops.
Have you ever worked with non-technical people?
Yes, and that's why I think 7'd be better for them. The feedback is more visual and the windows don't get 'stuck' anymore. I'll concede that I can't really tell you if your group of people will find that interesting or not, you know more about that than I do.
Useful but not that much faster
Really? Is indexing on?
I bet you don't work in an administrative department. That again is totally irrelevant to an accountant or a secretary.
Sure, if they just have a spreadsheet, email, and a web browser all day. It has been a while since I've worked at an office where anybody had a job that simple. If it's as simple as that I'm not sure why this conversation's even happening, really.
There is no compelling reason for an organisation to go through all the expense and hassle of upgrading software and potentially hardware as well if what they have already works fine....
"It's not worth the upgrade if it isn't worth the upgrade!" Right, we get that.
I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.
I ask why because 1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert 2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35
My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.
Blu-Ray looks nicer and it has greater storage for more extras. Your tinfoil hat is reporting properly, but you are at least getting more detail in your picture.
Perhaps I missed something. Please tell me what. Also, what makes you think I want a serious clash of mind and will for a topic like this? Yes, I want a discussion. A casual one to boot.
Thank you. Seriously, this is what I wanted. See how there aren't any potshots at me in there? I really don't want to argue. All I do want is to be understood. That's not. Not right, not agreed with, simply understood.
Okay, done preaching. I'll explain this to you by writing to you the thoughts in my head as I read the article:
In a veritable Who's Who of Doctor Who, 10th Doctor David Tennant is marrying Georgia Moffett...
BFD.
"...the daughter of 5th Doctor Peter Davison..."
Heh. Weird... not long ago Peter Davison was in a Children in Need short... Hah I bet that's related to it! Dang, he was a neat guy. Haha I bet Doctor #5 wouldn't have found her attractive at all, he seemed more impressed with chicks that could fly the Tardis!
"...who played the Doctor's daughter in an episode of Doctor Who."
Wait.. what... really? When did that happen? The only one I can think of is back in the 60's...
"Except that the Doctor's daughter was a clone of the Doctor, which meant that she really was Who."
Oh... right... that dumbshit episode. Haha that's funny tho... she's the Doctor's daughter and also the Doctor's Daughter! But not really.. it's like we have a daughter and no daughter... Oh, hey, maybe I can score a +3 Funny by making a HitchHiker's reference!
" So a newer Doctor is marrying an older Doctor's daughter, who is a clone of the newer doctor, but only has half the DNA of the older Doctor"
Wow... We should all thank Russel Davies for kicking off events in such a way that this sentence would actually have been uttered. Good thing my fanboyish knowledge of the show made this sentence understandable... barely.
So how's this different from other celebrity gossip? For starters.... well really, that last line doesn't utterly cover it? Seriously, you really need to be a Doctor Who nerd to fully appreciate what was said there. That bit with Nana Visitor, you wouldn't need to explain nothin. She got pregnant and they worked it into the show. You can't explain the significance of "The Doctor's Daughter" without losing people's interest by getting into the details to make it an accurate statement. Even if you explain it, you're still missing the Doctor's reaction to her throughout the entire episode. I'll give you an idea, he named her "Jen".. short for "Genetic clone". That's how legitimately he thought of her.
Like I said, you'll notice the lack of other stories like this on Slashdot. It's all about the last line.
So, this slashdot article is more meaningful than two actors simply making a funny couple due to the characters they played?
Yup.
Then please, spell it out. You've been dancing around this topic choosing instead to constantly insist I just don't understand.
Ah... again I am to blame for your behaviour. Like I said before, I'm just waiting for you to ask so we can have a discussion and not a debate. It's a bit hard to do that when the tone you're putting forward is "I'm unconvinced no matter what you say."
Finally, yes the fact that you insisted on reading everything I write in a negative light is your fault. I've hurled no insults at you.
Uh, no. First there's the bit about the unwashed masses. Since I found the story amusing, that includes me. Then there's the continual oversimplification of what it is, then intentionally dodging any understanding of it. Then there's the attempt to darken my character to distract from your own behaviour. Etc, etc, etc.
Not my fault.
Anyway, getting past all that...
I'm doing this because you've misinterpreted a lot of what I wrote.
I went on a 'ghost hunt' aboard the Queen Mary with a guy that claims to do work similar to what the TAPS team does. He genuinely shocked that only a fraction of the people that came in (including myself *SMUG!!*) brought a flashlight.
What, does the fact that I don't find much value in this little joke that bothersome?
What's bothersome? Attributing it to the wrong reason... with a dash of elitism thrown in. There's also the "I don't wanna keep this going but every period I use is intended to keep it aflame" debate tactic. But, also, there's the entertainment value of going around the drain over and over again but pushing your head above water a bit and claiming you're on higher ground. It's a laugh.
It's I totally don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't feel like debating it for whatever reason.
Really? You're asking this? Blimey. Look, it's real simple: "I respect your point, can't say I can hop aboard it." As opposed to: "I demonstratably don't understand your point, but you're wrong, so we agree to disagree so I can get the last word in."
What? I've responded to everything you've written so far.
With the intention of 'winning', sure. There's more I could put here, you'll find it scattered amongst my previous comments. Keyword: "question".
What was it you said about asking questions, and rereading things? Physician, heal thyself...
Oh look, your (in)actions are my fault again. Heh. Good thing ol' Doc Zimmerman gave your comment a little added ammo for dramatic effect, mm?
So here's a summary of where you still are: Slashdot should have had a story about Doctor Who hidden away in the Idle section because it is purely celebrity gossip and you are sure of this even though you don't watch the show and Slashdot hasn't covered anything like this before so it must be as simple as you've stated it and it's all happening through a fault of mine.
casinos exploiting human failings to make millions and millions of dollars is legal. People exploiting casino failings to make millions and millions of dollars is illegal.
Notice what people do in casinos is called gambling?
Why do you think celebrities who work together (or worked in the same show) and date/marry are so much juicer than two random celebrities dating?
I dunno, never got into gossip. Whatever the reason, it doesn't explain why this story made the front page but Nana Visitor getting married didn't.
Well, least I know why you're pissed.
Nah, not pissed. Just have a little extra time due to rendering combined with general bafflement of why you're so stuck on it. Oh.. I suppose there's some annoyance in there, too. I mean, I've explained myself 3 times and you still keep boiling it down to 'celebrity gossip'. 'Heated' and 'pissed' do not accurately reflect my intended tone.
And how is a difference in opinion whining?
Because the whole point of the thread is that this story shouldn't have been visible.
I added that line because when folks start repeating themselves it's generally time to end the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
I think you added it because you weren't interested in being proven wrong. I mean, really, your responses do not add up to 'agree to disagree'.
We can start debating it, or end this discussion... I leave it up to you.
Ah yes, the old "I leave it up to you" debate tactic that conveniently leaves out the option of 'discussion'. Sorry, no, not my responsibility. I already offered to explain.
Incidentally, I find life is a bit easier if one doesn't automatically assume the person they're talking to is attacking them. Better to ask for clarification first. It's just a thought.
Ah, while we're trading tips and tricks I've picked up when talking to other people: Are people acting insanely? They have a non-sensical opinion? Are they repeating themselves over and over again? Ask questions. Try reading their post and seeing if you missed the point of what they're saying. If you take a little time to understand why their behaving in such an odd way, you may discover that they're not crazy at all! Remember back in the olden days when you first started turning into a nerd... you were inquisitive and had a desire to learn? Start nurturing that desire again. The world won't seem so wacky, you'll grow as a person, and you won't go around the bush over and over again because you're too thick to understand a critical bit of nuance.
My original post stated this piece is celebrity gossip which you haven't disagreed with.
Uh yes I did. I disagreed twice. You said 'just celebrity gossip'.
Where pray tell did I whine?
Right at the spot you had just pointed out. The whole bit about geeks and the unwashed masses was an attempt to encourage the point that this story shouldn't have been front page.
What on earth is so important about understanding the desire for celebrity gossip, that you should care whether or not I remain ignorant?
Because it's not about a desire for celebrity gossip.
You certainly chastised me enough for not asking it.
I 'chastised' you because in the same post you wanted to remain ignorant. You clearly didn't want the answer to that question, you were using it to make your point about how you didn't care. So tell me, are you truly interested in understanding it or are you just trying to be defeat me in debate, here?
I mentioned it to note I'm well aware of fandom's desire to talk about their stars.
Sure, and it still worked against your point. The 'nerds' obviously don't care about the goings on of celebrity lives.
Let me know when you actually want to understand. And I really mean 'want to understand' not 'get me to write more you can attempt to argue with'.
Can someone please explain to me why all these OSS projects are able to turn around security updates so fast and Microsoft cannot?
Sure: - This isn't a security update, it's a bug fix.
- It was probably a very simple bug fix.
- No liability.
- The nature of the bug is "it's broke" as opposed to "It's behaving differently". So it's not like a million people are going to complain when their random applications lock up.
What would I have gotten had I liked Dr. Who?... And I believe I'll continue to remain ignorant on this topic. But thanks for trying to enlighten me.
The sad thing is that it took you this long to ask the right question to cure you of your ignorance, then you said you didn't want to de-ignorantify yourself. I don't really get this. I mean, you're confused about something, so instead of asking questions about it, you'd rather whinge about it then defend your decision to remain ignorant. Why is this? Are you trying to look smart? Is it because you think the original point should be defended and you don't want to take the time to consider that maybe you joined the wrong side of it? Am I just way off the mark, here?
I didn't care when I learned two actors in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (Alexander Siddig and Nana Visitor) were married.
That also story didn't (and wouldn't have) make it to Slashdot.
It's not so much me arguing, but being baffled how a group who's so against following celebrity lives either think this is kewl, or are remaining silent about the news story.
It's not baffling at all, the coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way.
And just to note, I don't watch Doctor Who. After watching some of the new episodes, I felt it was too campy.
Well gee shit, no wonder you don't get it. You should be asking questions instead of making statements.
I would also be worried about the possibility of Apple closing off software sales outside of the App Store, which has been the primary policy regarding iOS applications since it's initial release.
Heh. Sorry, just amused at the thought of Apple taking on the task of rendering OSX unable to execute scripts or 'unauthorized code'.
Slashdot Mirror
800000 "children reported missing" includes anyone under the age of 18 who runs away. (This is about 1% of the Children in the US in the 0 thru 17 age group).
Amber Alerts are specifically for kidnapped or abducted children usually less than 16.
An Amber alert will not be issued for your 14 yro daughter when she runs off with that creep she met on line.
Its not the same thing.
Nicely said, I just wanted to add one more little detail that whittles the numbers down a little more: The point of the Amber Alert is "this just happened, they're out and about right now, do you see them?" It's about getting the general public, mostly people on highways, to look around and see if they see the suspect vehicle.
I'm no Apple fan, but to be fair, when I hear "app store", I think of Apple. When I hear of another company's service being referred to as an "app store", I think of Apple.
Maybe, but you're not going to click on an 'App Store' icon on a Microsoft phone and think you're going to Apple's app store.
I wasn't trying to explain that.
But if you think about how things change shape when they move, it's not that surprising, don't wanna lose track of what you're chasing or running from.
Yeah, I saw that episode. The guide (who, just to be clear, isn't a member of the QM staff but does freelance there to get a few bucks) said that in the original airing they blamed the lady that brought them in. (I vaguely remember something like that.) Then he went on to say that that sparked a defamation (slander?) lawsuit because, as he said, one of the SciFi crew admitted to doing the hoax. He said that the bit about them blaming here was edited out completely and you'll never see it again. Now I'm not 100% certain that they did blame her, but when I did watch it again on DVD shortly after they definitely did *not* say that.
He was rather wrapped up in this whole ordeal.
so why would there be a difference between when the things move vs. don't move? there are always a mix of colors and brightnesses.
When you're a monkey moving through the forest, things are passing by as you're moving in and out of pools of light. Your eyes are trying to adjust to it. That's what the test they showed seem to be testing anyway.. the background was changing luminance while multi colored things roamed about.
I went on a 'ghost hunt' aboard the Queen Mary with a guy that claims to do work similar to what the TAPS team does. He genuinely shocked that only a fraction of the people that came in (including myself *SMUG!!*) brought a flashlight.
Just as a note on this, the TAPS team investigated the Queen Mary, and they determined that someone had tampered with their investigation.
Yeah that came up during our tour there. The guide was very unhappy with the TAPS team. He went the windy route explaining all of it, but he claims one of the unseen SciFi channel filming crew did it.
It's been a while since I've seen an XP PC crash.
Fair enough. I've noticed the suspend mode works way better, too. I didn't mention it before because I doubt you're talking about a wide deployment of laptops.
Have you ever worked with non-technical people?
Yes, and that's why I think 7'd be better for them. The feedback is more visual and the windows don't get 'stuck' anymore. I'll concede that I can't really tell you if your group of people will find that interesting or not, you know more about that than I do.
Useful but not that much faster
Really? Is indexing on?
I bet you don't work in an administrative department. That again is totally irrelevant to an accountant or a secretary.
Sure, if they just have a spreadsheet, email, and a web browser all day. It has been a while since I've worked at an office where anybody had a job that simple. If it's as simple as that I'm not sure why this conversation's even happening, really.
There is no compelling reason for an organisation to go through all the expense and hassle of upgrading software and potentially hardware as well if what they have already works fine....
"It's not worth the upgrade if it isn't worth the upgrade!" Right, we get that.
"Scientists at Harvard have found that people are remarkably bad at noticing when moving objects change in brightness, color, size, or shape..."
That may be because our eyes are exposed to so many different lighting conditions that our auto-white-balance is kicking in.
I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.
I ask why because
1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35
My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.
Blu-Ray looks nicer and it has greater storage for more extras. Your tinfoil hat is reporting properly, but you are at least getting more detail in your picture.
Perhaps I missed something. Please tell me what. Also, what makes you think I want a serious clash of mind and will for a topic like this? Yes, I want a discussion. A casual one to boot.
Thank you. Seriously, this is what I wanted. See how there aren't any potshots at me in there? I really don't want to argue. All I do want is to be understood. That's not. Not right, not agreed with, simply understood.
Okay, done preaching. I'll explain this to you by writing to you the thoughts in my head as I read the article:
In a veritable Who's Who of Doctor Who, 10th Doctor David Tennant is marrying Georgia Moffett...
BFD.
"...the daughter of 5th Doctor Peter Davison..."
Heh. Weird... not long ago Peter Davison was in a Children in Need short... Hah I bet that's related to it! Dang, he was a neat guy. Haha I bet Doctor #5 wouldn't have found her attractive at all, he seemed more impressed with chicks that could fly the Tardis!
"...who played the Doctor's daughter in an episode of Doctor Who."
Wait.. what... really? When did that happen? The only one I can think of is back in the 60's...
"Except that the Doctor's daughter was a clone of the Doctor, which meant that she really was Who."
Oh... right... that dumbshit episode. Haha that's funny tho... she's the Doctor's daughter and also the Doctor's Daughter! But not really.. it's like we have a daughter and no daughter... Oh, hey, maybe I can score a +3 Funny by making a HitchHiker's reference!
" So a newer Doctor is marrying an older Doctor's daughter, who is a clone of the newer doctor, but only has half the DNA of the older Doctor"
Wow... We should all thank Russel Davies for kicking off events in such a way that this sentence would actually have been uttered. Good thing my fanboyish knowledge of the show made this sentence understandable... barely.
So how's this different from other celebrity gossip? For starters.... well really, that last line doesn't utterly cover it? Seriously, you really need to be a Doctor Who nerd to fully appreciate what was said there. That bit with Nana Visitor, you wouldn't need to explain nothin. She got pregnant and they worked it into the show. You can't explain the significance of "The Doctor's Daughter" without losing people's interest by getting into the details to make it an accurate statement. Even if you explain it, you're still missing the Doctor's reaction to her throughout the entire episode. I'll give you an idea, he named her "Jen".. short for "Genetic clone". That's how legitimately he thought of her.
Like I said, you'll notice the lack of other stories like this on Slashdot. It's all about the last line.
So, this slashdot article is more meaningful than two actors simply making a funny couple due to the characters they played?
Yup.
Then please, spell it out. You've been dancing around this topic choosing instead to constantly insist I just don't understand.
Ah... again I am to blame for your behaviour. Like I said before, I'm just waiting for you to ask so we can have a discussion and not a debate. It's a bit hard to do that when the tone you're putting forward is "I'm unconvinced no matter what you say."
So the dead bodies are gone, yes? They're still here. You're made of the same atoms.
So... what you're saying is the more we learn via investigation, the more can be explained. Right?
Finally, yes the fact that you insisted on reading everything I write in a negative light is your fault. I've hurled no insults at you.
Uh, no. First there's the bit about the unwashed masses. Since I found the story amusing, that includes me. Then there's the continual oversimplification of what it is, then intentionally dodging any understanding of it. Then there's the attempt to darken my character to distract from your own behaviour. Etc, etc, etc.
Not my fault.
Anyway, getting past all that...
I'm doing this because you've misinterpreted a lot of what I wrote.
Okay. What did I misinterpret?
With the billions of people who have by now inhabited Earth and died here, we'd by up to our armpits in protoplasm if they really did exist.
Heh yeah that's why the surface of the Earth is covered in dead bodies.
I went on a 'ghost hunt' aboard the Queen Mary with a guy that claims to do work similar to what the TAPS team does. He genuinely shocked that only a fraction of the people that came in (including myself *SMUG!!*) brought a flashlight.
As opposed to what the casinos do?
That'd be business, so yes, quite opposed.
What, does the fact that I don't find much value in this little joke that bothersome?
What's bothersome? Attributing it to the wrong reason... with a dash of elitism thrown in. There's also the "I don't wanna keep this going but every period I use is intended to keep it aflame" debate tactic. But, also, there's the entertainment value of going around the drain over and over again but pushing your head above water a bit and claiming you're on higher ground. It's a laugh.
It's I totally don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't feel like debating it for whatever reason.
Really? You're asking this? Blimey. Look, it's real simple: "I respect your point, can't say I can hop aboard it." As opposed to: "I demonstratably don't understand your point, but you're wrong, so we agree to disagree so I can get the last word in."
What? I've responded to everything you've written so far.
With the intention of 'winning', sure. There's more I could put here, you'll find it scattered amongst my previous comments. Keyword: "question".
What was it you said about asking questions, and rereading things? Physician, heal thyself...
Oh look, your (in)actions are my fault again. Heh. Good thing ol' Doc Zimmerman gave your comment a little added ammo for dramatic effect, mm?
So here's a summary of where you still are: Slashdot should have had a story about Doctor Who hidden away in the Idle section because it is purely celebrity gossip and you are sure of this even though you don't watch the show and Slashdot hasn't covered anything like this before so it must be as simple as you've stated it and it's all happening through a fault of mine.
casinos exploiting human failings to make millions and millions of dollars is legal. People exploiting casino failings to make millions and millions of dollars is illegal.
Notice what people do in casinos is called gambling?
Why do you think celebrities who work together (or worked in the same show) and date/marry are so much juicer than two random celebrities dating?
I dunno, never got into gossip. Whatever the reason, it doesn't explain why this story made the front page but Nana Visitor getting married didn't.
Well, least I know why you're pissed.
Nah, not pissed. Just have a little extra time due to rendering combined with general bafflement of why you're so stuck on it. Oh.. I suppose there's some annoyance in there, too. I mean, I've explained myself 3 times and you still keep boiling it down to 'celebrity gossip'. 'Heated' and 'pissed' do not accurately reflect my intended tone.
And how is a difference in opinion whining?
Because the whole point of the thread is that this story shouldn't have been visible.
I added that line because when folks start repeating themselves it's generally time to end the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
I think you added it because you weren't interested in being proven wrong. I mean, really, your responses do not add up to 'agree to disagree'.
We can start debating it, or end this discussion ... I leave it up to you.
Ah yes, the old "I leave it up to you" debate tactic that conveniently leaves out the option of 'discussion'. Sorry, no, not my responsibility. I already offered to explain.
Incidentally, I find life is a bit easier if one doesn't automatically assume the person they're talking to is attacking them. Better to ask for clarification first. It's just a thought.
Ah, while we're trading tips and tricks I've picked up when talking to other people: Are people acting insanely? They have a non-sensical opinion? Are they repeating themselves over and over again? Ask questions. Try reading their post and seeing if you missed the point of what they're saying. If you take a little time to understand why their behaving in such an odd way, you may discover that they're not crazy at all! Remember back in the olden days when you first started turning into a nerd... you were inquisitive and had a desire to learn? Start nurturing that desire again. The world won't seem so wacky, you'll grow as a person, and you won't go around the bush over and over again because you're too thick to understand a critical bit of nuance.
My original post stated this piece is celebrity gossip which you haven't disagreed with.
Uh yes I did. I disagreed twice. You said 'just celebrity gossip'.
Where pray tell did I whine?
Right at the spot you had just pointed out. The whole bit about geeks and the unwashed masses was an attempt to encourage the point that this story shouldn't have been front page.
What on earth is so important about understanding the desire for celebrity gossip, that you should care whether or not I remain ignorant?
Because it's not about a desire for celebrity gossip.
You certainly chastised me enough for not asking it.
I 'chastised' you because in the same post you wanted to remain ignorant. You clearly didn't want the answer to that question, you were using it to make your point about how you didn't care. So tell me, are you truly interested in understanding it or are you just trying to be defeat me in debate, here?
I mentioned it to note I'm well aware of fandom's desire to talk about their stars.
Sure, and it still worked against your point. The 'nerds' obviously don't care about the goings on of celebrity lives.
Let me know when you actually want to understand. And I really mean 'want to understand' not 'get me to write more you can attempt to argue with'.
Can someone please explain to me why all these OSS projects are able to turn around security updates so fast and Microsoft cannot?
Sure:
- This isn't a security update, it's a bug fix.
- It was probably a very simple bug fix.
- No liability.
- The nature of the bug is "it's broke" as opposed to "It's behaving differently". So it's not like a million people are going to complain when their random applications lock up.
What would I have gotten had I liked Dr. Who? ... And I believe I'll continue to remain ignorant on this topic. But thanks for trying to enlighten me.
The sad thing is that it took you this long to ask the right question to cure you of your ignorance, then you said you didn't want to de-ignorantify yourself. I don't really get this. I mean, you're confused about something, so instead of asking questions about it, you'd rather whinge about it then defend your decision to remain ignorant. Why is this? Are you trying to look smart? Is it because you think the original point should be defended and you don't want to take the time to consider that maybe you joined the wrong side of it? Am I just way off the mark, here?
I didn't care when I learned two actors in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (Alexander Siddig and Nana Visitor) were married.
That also story didn't (and wouldn't have) make it to Slashdot.
It's not so much me arguing, but being baffled how a group who's so against following celebrity lives either think this is kewl, or are remaining silent about the news story.
It's not baffling at all, the coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way.
And just to note, I don't watch Doctor Who. After watching some of the new episodes, I felt it was too campy.
Well gee shit, no wonder you don't get it. You should be asking questions instead of making statements.
iOS 4 doesn't support iPhone 2g and has limited support on iPhone 3G and iPod Touch 2G.
F R A G M E N T A T I O N
"But on Android that's choice!"
This is why you guys gotta settle on your terms. ;)
I would also be worried about the possibility of Apple closing off software sales outside of the App Store, which has been the primary policy regarding iOS applications since it's initial release.
Heh. Sorry, just amused at the thought of Apple taking on the task of rendering OSX unable to execute scripts or 'unauthorized code'.