Macs running OS X have built-in Windows file sharing -- you can share files from the Mac and you can connect to Windows network-shares. Windows Active Directory and VPN might complicate things a bit, but offer no more problems from a Mac than they do from the average Windows PC.
As for sharing an external hard drive, while Macs only read NTFS volumes, they can both read and write to FAT32 volumes which are compatible with Windows as well. There are, however, limitations to FAT32 such as the 2GB maximum file-size which might make that a less-than-optimum solution.
Another alternative is to purchase a commercial product such as MacDrive, which allows Windows PC's to access hard drives that have been initialized with the Mac (HFS+) file system.
The story that was cited neither states nor implies that 3rd party applications will not be permitted on the iPhone.
The relevant quote...
But it's not like the walled garden has gone away. "You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
Still, since the iPhone runs a full version of OS X, the operating system of the Macintosh computer, it's reasonable to expect the device to take advantage of that power by running lots of applications, even if Apple has to vet them to make sure they won't compromise the integrity of the network. In the version we saw last week, there aren't a whole lot--the notable ones include SMS text messaging, the Safari Web browser, e-mail, iPhoto, Google maps and two mini-applications (known as widgets) for weather and stock prices. Jobs says we can expect more apps on the phone by the time it ships in June. (For instance, one might expect the iPhone to allow users to view Word documents, something that the prototype doesn't do today.)
In other words, the reporter doesn't know squat about the actual circumstances regarding third-party apps and is blowing farts in the wind, making speculative and general statements in the hope that someone will imagine that he's right when something he says turns out to vaguely resemble the truth.
How exactly are we supposed to get bosses who are technically competent?
Who hires the bosses? HR people and veeps. What do they know about hiring competent people? On average, somewhat less than a flea knows about special relativity.
My favorite pointy-haired boss was an architectural engineer who was put in charge of a tv IT department because his degree had "engineer" in the title.
He frequently commented that his engineering background gave him a special perspective on the television production engineers and computer tech's who worked under him. Inside of a year, almost all of his employees quit.
Thereafter, he got promoted to head a new department, incorporating previously separate IT departments from all over the company.
Incompetence rises to the top. There's no stopping it.
> What is your view of recording all classroom discussion for review by parents?
I think that all classroom discussions should be recorded for review by _students_. I suppose that parents could listen to the recordings as well.
I think that whatever the other curriculum, kids in public schools should also be learning study skills. Those rare kids entering college with good study skills have an immense advantage.
One of those study skills should involve writing a class-outline to study from. Listening to the recording from a given day's class is particularly helpful in making outlines. And it certainly would help those kids who have an occasional absence.
That's my favorite question. I don't "know" for sure. Do you?
But I'm literate. I have a decent education. I inquire and I form opinions. And my informed opinion is that it would suck to live in the dark ages when compared to the modern age.
I can't tell whether you're really so stupid as to believe otherwise or whether you were attempting rhetoric. I hope it's the latter because I don't want to waste my time explaining to a fool.
> And let me challenge an assumption that was made by almost > every poster on this topic. Progress. Is technology progress?
Is that more stupidity or poor rhetoric again?
Participatory government? Hey -- is that progress I smell? Individual land ownership? Progress. Belief in the value of a human life? Progress. Courts that are open to the public and which make decisions that can be appealed to higher courts? That's progress. Civil liberties and natural rights? Progress. Toilets are progress. Sewage systems (also a previously-lost art of the Romans) are progress. Water purification? Progress. Food quality control? Progress. Mass-literacy? Progress. World-wide commerce is progress. Geriatrics and elder-care? Progress. Curing disease? Progress. Freedom of speech and religion? Progress. Separation of church and state? Progressing. I suspect that this list is far from comprehensive...
So, yes. We've got progress. Lots of it. An abundance of progress since the dark ages. Yep.
Lots of stuff can be "progress" without being specifically technology-driven. The word can mean a lot of things. But yeah, technology is intimately involved in social progress and certainly one way of looking at the social progress of the last few centuries is to look at it alongside the march of technological advancement.
I mean, it's a little easier to read and learn under an electric light than it is by moonlight and it's a lot easier to learn when you have no hunger and both leisure time and a society that condones independent thought.
While you clearly do not agree, I think that having a nice house with a working toilet IS an improvement over chucking my family's waste into the street, feeding it to pigs or burning it as the major source of warmth in a house made largely of mud, grass and even more feces (the huddled mass of people, pigs, sheep and decomposing garbage might provide some warmth, too). So yeah, I'd call that progress.
But if you really think that technology has nothing to do with progress, go ahead and stop using it. Go wallow in your own filth. Please. Go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.
> If you listen to the tape, it's a frank and open discussion, > and he welcomes objections from the class.
When the kid asks about how we are supposed to know what happened in the days before God created man, Paszkiewicz repeats "Do you get it?" at him. It's a common brainwashing technique -- treat the person in a humiliating manner as an infant when he strays from the path that you want him to follow. There are lots of examples like that.
Another example: Paszkiewicz encouraged other students to jump in and attack every idea that challenged the literal biblical story. You can hear many points where a girl interrupts to provide her own interpretations of the "right" answers. Whenever someone interrupted to provide "right" answers Paszkiewicz let them speak, but where they tried to jump in with probing questions or said anything contrary to Paszkiewicz' literal interpretation of the bible he interrupted them. That was indoctrination.
> Why, exactly, was a recording of the class necessary then?
Clearly it WAS necessary. Paszkiewicz seems to have been on some kind of power trip and when one dared to speak out, Paszkiewicz denied what he had done -- which surely would have gotten the kid in deep trouble for "falsely" accusing the teacher.
Whatever his motives, he behaved like a scumbag and if he's not fired, the school board and principal should be fired.
> I hope he gets to keep his job - part of a teacher's job is > to get engage students' minds, and he was doing this to get > them to think critically, rather than "brainwash" them.
This was not engaging their minds. This was promotion of his own religion to the exclusion of others. If he took a half hour or even a day to talk about it and if he, himself, offered up competing ideas and gave them equal shrift then perhaps you'd have a point. He did nothing of the sort. That was not teaching. It was preaching.
Your excuses that he's simply "engaging minds" overlook one important fact: He's engaging them along just one path and it's the path to his own religion. That's NOT teaching.
HE SUSPENDED THE CURRICULUM TO PREACH in a PUBLIC SCHOOL at a bunch of impressionable SIXTEEN YEAR OLD KIDS.
Do you GET THAT? He had them ALONE in a classroom preaching at them FOR A WEEK.
Just because one kid had enough of an inquiring mind to see through the BS and stood up to him doesn't mean that the other 30 kids in that classroom weren't affected by the experience. This was an indoctrination. It was a gross abuse of authority.
People in New Jersey were not paying him to tell students that the big bang was a firecracker and that the Christian bible is better than science because biblical prophesies are true. While you are making excuses for him, you proffer that good teachers sometimes get facts wrong -- BUT HE KNEW THAT WHAT HE SAID WAS NOT ACCURATE SCIENCE. When good teachers get facts wrong, it's an honest mistake. HE KNOWINGLY DECEIVED THEM.
And if he had done it to my kids I would would be furious. Do you really think that the poor Muslim girl who was told to be quiet during the discussion and told that she was going to hell felt "engaged"...? That you even used that word in this context is disgusting.
Obviously, you disagree. That's fine. Pretend that there's some room for "debate." Pretend he's done nothing wrong. But don't bitch at me that he's getting a bum deal. Because outside of your pretend world what he did was very VERY wrong.
> They're trying to openly discuss ideas. They're not being tested on this.
He did, in fact, say that they would be tested on it. If it makes you feel better, he did say they'd just be tested on the "topic" not an understanding of it.
> The guy wasn't telling his class that they would go to hell.
He told the students that they each would go to hell -- that even HE could go to hell -- if they did not each believe that god was crucified for them.
He pointed to Mel Gibson's Passion movie and called it history.
He ridiculed evolution and the big bang as unscientific and said that the Judeo-Christian bible differed from evolution-science because the bible included prophecies that came true and was therefore "reasonable" whereas science must be taken on faith.
He insisted that the old testament was the literal word of god through Moses, that prophets could impose their style, but in substance "the accuracy is assured." That Noah in fact rescued two of each animal on the ark and Noah's son spoke to Abraham. He seemed to say that at least one of Noah's sons is still alive today, but he might have meant that Noah's son was still alive in the time of Moses.
He said that the big bang could not have happened because explosions cause disorder while in contrast God created order and he compared the big bang to the detonation of a firecracker.
> This guy is getting a harsh deal
He suspended lessons for a week to teach his religion in a public school. He had exclusive access to children as an authority figure for a significant amount of time each and every day. He used that authority to try and brainwash a bunch of gullible young kids. He was paid by the state to teach secular history and instead he attempted to indoctrinate the children in his belief system. He ridiculed and intimidated at least one non-Christian in his class. He lied about it when confronted by the principal and one child's parents.
It has been several months since the incident. He hasn't been punished. He's STILL TEACHING PUBLIC SCHOOL. How exactly is he getting a harsh deal?
> I have no problem with this kind of discussion in schools.
And it's people with that attitude who are driving the U.S. educational system into the toilet.
> Science was progressing, albiet more slowly, and for different reasons. Many "natural > philosophers" made scientific discoveries while they were looking to prove the bible, or learn > more about the nature of God and creation.
And then they were excommunicated, stoned, burnt, quartered, dipped in boiling tar and otherwise tortured or murdered.
The progress of mankind was set back by perhaps a thousand years. Many of the "discoveries" that kick-started the industrial revolution were inventions that had already been made by the Greeks and Romans, among them glassworks, pigments, clockworks, aqueducts and related farming techniques and the steam engine.
It was a bad time for Western civilization. Men lived in ignorance, fear and squalor. Romanticize it if you'd like. Go back to that kind of life if you'd like. I'd rather not.
"Well, sir... I notice that you were in a bar on nine occasions last month, including two visits on one night... we recommend no more than one beer per day for your health and infer that you had two drinks on that night. Your premiums are going up."
Or...
"Well, sir... we noticed that you entered a pub in the mission district last month, which we consider to be a dangerous naeighborhood... if we find that you've been drinking there again, we're going to have to raise your rates or drop your policy."
Or how about...
"Well sir, we have evidence that you may have been drinking on the night when somebody smashed your rear fender and as a result, we refuse to pay for the damage on the suspicion that you were drunk when the incident happened."
And...
"Well, kid... I'm sorry, but we have to let you go. We've been informed that you had a drink at lunch last week and if we continue to employ you our insurance premiums will go up."
> Why fear the MPAA when merely exercising your rights?
Because in the US, fair use is an "affirmative defense," not an "absolute justification."
An absolute justification precludes legal action because of a supervening event (or right) which means that when it's proffered in response to a pleading a judge makes an evaluation and if it's been raised properly, the case is dismissed.
In contrast, fair use must be raised as a defense, which can only be resolved by proceeding with a long and expensive trial. You may take pride in the fact that it's an *affirmative* defense, which undermines the legal basis for their case, but your ultimate victory will be Pyrrhic as you wallow in poverty thereafter.
So why fear the MPAA? Because they're a faceless, soulless organization that can threaten and browbeat you and make your life miserable with an expensive lawsuit that will plague you for years, if not for the rest of your life. And it will cost them such a tiny insignificant amount of their war-chest that they will pursue you to your death without nary a thought on the part of a law clerk or accountant.
> Beta was far better than vhs but lost in the price war > Vhs being cheaper of course.
Beta also lost in the capacity war. And in the convenience war.
The first Betamax tapes recorded less than an hour's worth of content and Sony initally refused to enter into license agreements to distribute movies without highly restrictive terms that had the effect of pushing studios to VHS as the only way to make a profit in the home video market.
Later, Sony introduced tapes that could hold more at different quality settings, but then they also released a bunch of players that were only compatible with tapes at one speed or another and not all speeds.
Put yourself in the position of a consumer who wants to buy commercial movies on tape or to record movies and sports from tv... why would you commit to a product that requires you to switch tapes in the middle of a movie or which has tapes that you can't play on your neighbor's set when there's a cheaper alternative format that does everything you want?
Betamax had superior video quality, but it was fatally flawed in many other ways than price.
The anouncement is supposed to be "how dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily energetic collision." So somebody is suggesting that dark matter moved, collided with non-dark matter and was forced away, releasing measurable energy in the process.
If nobody knows what dark matter is and if it can't be directly measured or detected then how does one go about measuring its motion and the energy released and know therefrom that it was dark matter that collided with the non-dark matter and not an altogether different unknown substance?
And if it was dark matter that collided with the non-dark matter then does this mean that it's no longer dark matter because it has now produced measurable energy?
So now in addition to my name, address, phone number, credit card number, purchase history, favorites, wish list and a list of every product that I've ever looked at on Amazon, every Amazon partner will have info about my "religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and income."
Put a couple of part time programmers on the project, tie it in with my Google search history and the gov't's various Total Information Awareness databases and you hardly need me in the loop anymore.
> any evidence obtained from this ill gotten booty would not be usable in court, this > in turn makes convicting the terrorist that much more difficult
You get it now?
THAT's why our government imprisons people without a trial.
It's a lot easier than arguing that silly "civil-liberties" and "rules of evidence" stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Macs running OS X have built-in Windows file sharing -- you can share files from the Mac and you can connect to Windows network-shares. Windows Active Directory and VPN might complicate things a bit, but offer no more problems from a Mac than they do from the average Windows PC.
As for sharing an external hard drive, while Macs only read NTFS volumes, they can both read and write to FAT32 volumes which are compatible with Windows as well. There are, however, limitations to FAT32 such as the 2GB maximum file-size which might make that a less-than-optimum solution.
Another alternative is to purchase a commercial product such as MacDrive, which allows Windows PC's to access hard drives that have been initialized with the Mac (HFS+) file system.
Didn't you know?
There's a quad-core G5 in the iPhone.
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher,"
i siting_professor
Yes, he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore%2C_Jr.#V
The relevant quote...
In other words, the reporter doesn't know squat about the actual circumstances regarding third-party apps and is blowing farts in the wind, making speculative and general statements in the hope that someone will imagine that he's right when something he says turns out to vaguely resemble the truth.
How exactly are we supposed to get bosses who are technically competent? Who hires the bosses? HR people and veeps. What do they know about hiring competent people? On average, somewhat less than a flea knows about special relativity. My favorite pointy-haired boss was an architectural engineer who was put in charge of a tv IT department because his degree had "engineer" in the title. He frequently commented that his engineering background gave him a special perspective on the television production engineers and computer tech's who worked under him. Inside of a year, almost all of his employees quit. Thereafter, he got promoted to head a new department, incorporating previously separate IT departments from all over the company. Incompetence rises to the top. There's no stopping it.
> I am certain I have read more books about and primary sources
> from the "Dark Ages" than you. So who has a more informed opinion?
To all appearances, I do.
> What is your view of recording all classroom discussion for review by parents?
I think that all classroom discussions should be recorded for review by _students_. I suppose that parents could listen to the recordings as well.
I think that whatever the other curriculum, kids in public schools should also be learning study skills. Those rare kids entering college with good study skills have an immense advantage.
One of those study skills should involve writing a class-outline to study from. Listening to the recording from a given day's class is particularly helpful in making outlines. And it certainly would help those kids who have an occasional absence.
> How do you know?
That's my favorite question. I don't "know" for sure. Do you?
But I'm literate. I have a decent education. I inquire and I form opinions. And my informed opinion is that it would suck to live in the dark ages when compared to the modern age.
I can't tell whether you're really so stupid as to believe otherwise or whether you were attempting rhetoric. I hope it's the latter because I don't want to waste my time explaining to a fool.
> And let me challenge an assumption that was made by almost
> every poster on this topic. Progress. Is technology progress?
Is that more stupidity or poor rhetoric again?
Participatory government? Hey -- is that progress I smell? Individual land ownership? Progress. Belief in the value of a human life? Progress. Courts that are open to the public and which make decisions that can be appealed to higher courts? That's progress. Civil liberties and natural rights? Progress. Toilets are progress. Sewage systems (also a previously-lost art of the Romans) are progress. Water purification? Progress. Food quality control? Progress. Mass-literacy? Progress. World-wide commerce is progress. Geriatrics and elder-care? Progress. Curing disease? Progress. Freedom of speech and religion? Progress. Separation of church and state? Progressing. I suspect that this list is far from comprehensive...
So, yes. We've got progress. Lots of it. An abundance of progress since the dark ages. Yep.
Lots of stuff can be "progress" without being specifically technology-driven. The word can mean a lot of things. But yeah, technology is intimately involved in social progress and certainly one way of looking at the social progress of the last few centuries is to look at it alongside the march of technological advancement.
I mean, it's a little easier to read and learn under an electric light than it is by moonlight and it's a lot easier to learn when you have no hunger and both leisure time and a society that condones independent thought.
While you clearly do not agree, I think that having a nice house with a working toilet IS an improvement over chucking my family's waste into the street, feeding it to pigs or burning it as the major source of warmth in a house made largely of mud, grass and even more feces (the huddled mass of people, pigs, sheep and decomposing garbage might provide some warmth, too). So yeah, I'd call that progress.
But if you really think that technology has nothing to do with progress, go ahead and stop using it. Go wallow in your own filth. Please. Go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.
> If you listen to the tape, it's a frank and open discussion,
...? That you even used that word in this context is disgusting.
> and he welcomes objections from the class.
When the kid asks about how we are supposed to know what happened in the days before God created man, Paszkiewicz repeats "Do you get it?" at him. It's a common brainwashing technique -- treat the person in a humiliating manner as an infant when he strays from the path that you want him to follow. There are lots of examples like that.
Another example: Paszkiewicz encouraged other students to jump in and attack every idea that challenged the literal biblical story. You can hear many points where a girl interrupts to provide her own interpretations of the "right" answers. Whenever someone interrupted to provide "right" answers Paszkiewicz let them speak, but where they tried to jump in with probing questions or said anything contrary to Paszkiewicz' literal interpretation of the bible he interrupted them. That was indoctrination.
> Why, exactly, was a recording of the class necessary then?
Clearly it WAS necessary. Paszkiewicz seems to have been on some kind of power trip and when one dared to speak out, Paszkiewicz denied what he had done -- which surely would have gotten the kid in deep trouble for "falsely" accusing the teacher.
Whatever his motives, he behaved like a scumbag and if he's not fired, the school board and principal should be fired.
> I hope he gets to keep his job - part of a teacher's job is
> to get engage students' minds, and he was doing this to get
> them to think critically, rather than "brainwash" them.
This was not engaging their minds. This was promotion of his own religion to the exclusion of others. If he took a half hour or even a day to talk about it and if he, himself, offered up competing ideas and gave them equal shrift then perhaps you'd have a point. He did nothing of the sort. That was not teaching. It was preaching.
Your excuses that he's simply "engaging minds" overlook one important fact: He's engaging them along just one path and it's the path to his own religion. That's NOT teaching.
HE SUSPENDED THE CURRICULUM TO PREACH in a PUBLIC SCHOOL at a bunch of impressionable SIXTEEN YEAR OLD KIDS.
Do you GET THAT? He had them ALONE in a classroom preaching at them FOR A WEEK.
Just because one kid had enough of an inquiring mind to see through the BS and stood up to him doesn't mean that the other 30 kids in that classroom weren't affected by the experience. This was an indoctrination. It was a gross abuse of authority.
People in New Jersey were not paying him to tell students that the big bang was a firecracker and that the Christian bible is better than science because biblical prophesies are true. While you are making excuses for him, you proffer that good teachers sometimes get facts wrong -- BUT HE KNEW THAT WHAT HE SAID WAS NOT ACCURATE SCIENCE. When good teachers get facts wrong, it's an honest mistake. HE KNOWINGLY DECEIVED THEM.
And if he had done it to my kids I would would be furious. Do you really think that the poor Muslim girl who was told to be quiet during the discussion and told that she was going to hell felt "engaged"
Obviously, you disagree. That's fine. Pretend that there's some room for "debate." Pretend he's done nothing wrong. But don't bitch at me that he's getting a bum deal. Because outside of your pretend world what he did was very VERY wrong.
Throw the bum out.
> Go listen to this tape before you say anything.
I did listen to it.
Clearly you did not.
> They're trying to openly discuss ideas. They're not being tested on this.
He did, in fact, say that they would be tested on it. If it makes you feel better, he did say they'd just be tested on the "topic" not an understanding of it.
> The guy wasn't telling his class that they would go to hell.
He told the students that they each would go to hell -- that even HE could go to hell -- if they did not each believe that god was crucified for them.
He pointed to Mel Gibson's Passion movie and called it history.
He ridiculed evolution and the big bang as unscientific and said that the Judeo-Christian bible differed from evolution-science because the bible included prophecies that came true and was therefore "reasonable" whereas science must be taken on faith.
He insisted that the old testament was the literal word of god through Moses, that prophets could impose their style, but in substance "the accuracy is assured." That Noah in fact rescued two of each animal on the ark and Noah's son spoke to Abraham. He seemed to say that at least one of Noah's sons is still alive today, but he might have meant that Noah's son was still alive in the time of Moses.
He said that the big bang could not have happened because explosions cause disorder while in contrast God created order and he compared the big bang to the detonation of a firecracker.
> This guy is getting a harsh deal
He suspended lessons for a week to teach his religion in a public school. He had exclusive access to children as an authority figure for a significant amount of time each and every day. He used that authority to try and brainwash a bunch of gullible young kids. He was paid by the state to teach secular history and instead he attempted to indoctrinate the children in his belief system. He ridiculed and intimidated at least one non-Christian in his class. He lied about it when confronted by the principal and one child's parents.
It has been several months since the incident. He hasn't been punished. He's STILL TEACHING PUBLIC SCHOOL. How exactly is he getting a harsh deal?
> I have no problem with this kind of discussion in schools.
And it's people with that attitude who are driving the U.S. educational system into the toilet.
> Science was progressing, albiet more slowly, and for different reasons. Many "natural
> philosophers" made scientific discoveries while they were looking to prove the bible, or learn
> more about the nature of God and creation.
And then they were excommunicated, stoned, burnt, quartered, dipped in boiling tar and otherwise tortured or murdered.
The progress of mankind was set back by perhaps a thousand years. Many of the "discoveries" that kick-started the industrial revolution were inventions that had already been made by the Greeks and Romans, among them glassworks, pigments, clockworks, aqueducts and related farming techniques and the steam engine.
It was a bad time for Western civilization. Men lived in ignorance, fear and squalor. Romanticize it if you'd like. Go back to that kind of life if you'd like. I'd rather not.
Anything under SPF 15 is almost utterly useless. And was 20 years ago as well.
'Not going into the rest of your post.
So if the bar posts a sign that they share the information then it can be used anywhere?
Some data protection that is.
"Well, sir... I notice that you were in a bar on nine occasions last month, including two visits on one night... we recommend no more than one beer per day for your health and infer that you had two drinks on that night. Your premiums are going up."
Or...
"Well, sir... we noticed that you entered a pub in the mission district last month, which we consider to be a dangerous naeighborhood... if we find that you've been drinking there again, we're going to have to raise your rates or drop your policy."
Or how about...
"Well sir, we have evidence that you may have been drinking on the night when somebody smashed your rear fender and as a result, we refuse to pay for the damage on the suspicion that you were drunk when the incident happened."
And...
"Well, kid... I'm sorry, but we have to let you go. We've been informed that you had a drink at lunch last week and if we continue to employ you our insurance premiums will go up."
> Why fear the MPAA when merely exercising your rights?
Because in the US, fair use is an "affirmative defense," not an "absolute justification."
An absolute justification precludes legal action because of a supervening event (or right) which means that when it's proffered in response to a pleading a judge makes an evaluation and if it's been raised properly, the case is dismissed.
In contrast, fair use must be raised as a defense, which can only be resolved by proceeding with a long and expensive trial. You may take pride in the fact that it's an *affirmative* defense, which undermines the legal basis for their case, but your ultimate victory will be Pyrrhic as you wallow in poverty thereafter.
So why fear the MPAA? Because they're a faceless, soulless organization that can threaten and browbeat you and make your life miserable with an expensive lawsuit that will plague you for years, if not for the rest of your life. And it will cost them such a tiny insignificant amount of their war-chest that they will pursue you to your death without nary a thought on the part of a law clerk or accountant.
'You sure you're not a teensy bit afraid of them?
Are you really sure?
Or his autistic brother.
Personally, I'd like to see this progress to the point where we can grow Shakey's Pizza restaurants without the use of embryonic stem cells.
C'mon -- that post shoulda' been modded up for humor, not down for trolling!
Unless the scorer was from Kentucky or Georgia.
In which case, I'm very glad to see that somebody taught you basic computing skills.
'Too bad nobody helped with that sense of humor.
Last time I checked, it was illegal to test on 11 year old girls.
In all states, but Kentucky and Georgia.
> I own all of the seasons on DVD and never saw any nudity
Episode 1, "Children of the Gods."
...couldn't they have cancelled Atlantis, too?!!
> Beta was far better than vhs but lost in the price war
> Vhs being cheaper of course.
Beta also lost in the capacity war. And in the convenience war.
The first Betamax tapes recorded less than an hour's worth of content and Sony initally refused to enter into license agreements to distribute movies without highly restrictive terms that had the effect of pushing studios to VHS as the only way to make a profit in the home video market.
Later, Sony introduced tapes that could hold more at different quality settings, but then they also released a bunch of players that were only compatible with tapes at one speed or another and not all speeds.
Put yourself in the position of a consumer who wants to buy commercial movies on tape or to record movies and sports from tv... why would you commit to a product that requires you to switch tapes in the middle of a movie or which has tapes that you can't play on your neighbor's set when there's a cheaper alternative format that does everything you want?
Betamax had superior video quality, but it was fatally flawed in many other ways than price.
The anouncement is supposed to be "how dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily energetic collision." So somebody is suggesting that dark matter moved, collided with non-dark matter and was forced away, releasing measurable energy in the process.
If nobody knows what dark matter is and if it can't be directly measured or detected then how does one go about measuring its motion and the energy released and know therefrom that it was dark matter that collided with the non-dark matter and not an altogether different unknown substance?
And if it was dark matter that collided with the non-dark matter then does this mean that it's no longer dark matter because it has now produced measurable energy?
So now in addition to my name, address, phone number, credit card number, purchase history, favorites, wish list and a list of every product that I've ever looked at on Amazon, every Amazon partner will have info about my "religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and income."
Put a couple of part time programmers on the project, tie it in with my Google search history and the gov't's various Total Information Awareness databases and you hardly need me in the loop anymore.
> any evidence obtained from this ill gotten booty would not be usable in court, this
> in turn makes convicting the terrorist that much more difficult
You get it now?
THAT's why our government imprisons people without a trial.
It's a lot easier than arguing that silly "civil-liberties" and "rules of evidence" stuff.