Now if Milo threatens their plans for world domination, they can just slip a little peanutbutter into his sourcecode, end of problem.

Lying until people believe something seems to be a trend with companies getting caught with their pants down. Look at Apple, the explanations were:

1. There is no problem!
2. You're holding it wrong!
3. The bars are wrong!

Based on what I see Apple has done two major mistakes with the phone; Creating an antennae setup that is VERY "error" prone (yes, more even than the competitors who use similar setups with their antennae). And "faking" a superior signal via extra bars displayed. The latter was obviously done to make their phone look that much cooler.

But you can't fault Apple for lying.. after all, all the fanboys are looking for is some excuse to hang on to prove everything is alright in their little world.

Not to forget the fact that every time there's a problem with Apple devices (not just iPhone4), the guys who say "We buy Apple because that means we don't have to experts in the device for them to work". turn into a Wozniak-wannabe with an in-depth technical analysis why said "problem" is not a bug but a feature. Seriously, I've never seen so many technically ignorant people turn into technowizards than when Apple products need a defender.

I think the following video, even though it's in Finnish so no-one can understand it, illustrates the depth of belief some people have in Apple. Check it out here.

Scientists invent new storage format -> New player is created for it -> **IA puts new *UNBREAKABLE* copy protection on it -> Consumers re-buy their movie libraries -> Copy protection gets cracked -> **IA drills disk full of holes to "prevent copying" -> Disks stop working on consumer devices -> Consumers switch to pirate copies -> **IA ask scientists to come up with a new storage format....

The article describes the Nokia Apple patent suit/countersuit situation as a mexican standoff. This has been discussed ad nauseum already here on slashdot and I think it's hardly that. Unless you call one person pointing a water pistol and another aiming a cannon a mexican standoff.

Assuming both sides claims are deemed to have merit and both refuse to pay licensing fees, Nokia has to think of another implementation for some GUI elements, hardly a gargantuan task. However, if Nokia wins, Apple has to reinvent mobile technology, then get all the networks to support their new implementation.

Umh.. didn't have the firepower or mechanized armor? Ok, granted T34's were few and far between, as were KVs when the germans attacked. I'll even grant you that the BT models they had were inferior to the better german armor. However, the problem didn't really lie with not having enough mechanization. The russians had enough heavy tanks (KV) and good mediums (early T34) to give the german Mk.IIIs and Mk.IVs a run for their money. While BTs were clearly superior to older german armor, such as Mk.IIs or captured Czech stuff. The armor just was never used in a concentrated manner, allowing germans to destroy them piecemeal.

The problem the russians had on the tactical level was lack of/poor quality training for personnel and lack of experienced leadership due to Stalin's purges. Plus initiate of the officers was heavily curtailed by the dual command system, in which the Politruk had to approve all command decisions.

On the strategic level they suffered from Stalin's "Not one step back" type policies, which led to encirclements, which led to suicidal breakout attempts of mass surrenders (which led to mass deaths by starvation, etc). This in the beginning of the war.

Later on in the war the russians had a clear quantative lead and only a minor technical handicap in both airplanes and tanks, also with less restrictions from the political apparatus. Plus throughout the war they enjoyed massive amounts of artillery firepower, which has always been the unsung hero of the Red Army. Why did they still suffer huge casualties when they clearly had an edge in mechanization (not just in numbers, but in available ammo/fuel) compared to the germans and more experienced crews? Because the leadership simply didn't care about the human casualties as long as they gained the results Stalin was expecting of them. Men were simply thrown away in futile assaults, which then later had to be done "properly", just to see if they could break through without bothering to stop to build up.

Why the rush? Berlin.. Stalin wanted it for himself and feared the allies would get there first, despite promises that they wouldn't even try.

It's a long rant.. but the gist of it is: The Soviets had many chances to save lives during the war, they just chose not to.

It worked though, I agree with you there.

All the horror movie jokes aside. SCO is on the losing side of proving they even own the Unix rights, which *might* by some legal trickery and well placed campaign funds only allow them to sue IBM & all for (c) violation. That trial would then have to prove the stealing of code, which has already been debated in court to SCOs detriment. The court cases might go on one way or another, but any "linux liability scare factor" has long since disappeared from any reasonably savvy IT-Manager's mind. But far be it from me to deny the jokes and gloating people derive from any SCO related lawreports, knock yourselves out.

Your argument makes sense. I am willing to accept that USA might have less prisoners per capita than North Korea. Once again you demonstrate why you are the land of the free, congratulations!

Well, looking at all the recent articles of Paypal shutting down accounts one-sidedly, I would say the Piratebay founders have a much better track record of doing exactly what they say they would.

No, I think we should reserve the laser for mosquitos, human or insect. For PETA I am planning a humanoid robot that undresses, oils up and spanks PETA members.. and it will not stop spanking until the the member in question admits "Yes, I am a naughty girl and I deserve to be punished"... no wait, that's the script for my new "movie".

We wont go extinct as long as stocks of Soylent Green last.

I think it's a great idea, it allows you to control how much you give. Sure, there may be cases where your donation may be 1cent, but it's a MICROpayment system. And if you run a decent site with a dedicated following, it'd be easy for people to click on your "Flattr" button to say "Thanks", which in turn creates a much bigger revenue stream than single donations would.

For example: If you have 5000 people a month visiting you and you get Flattr revenues from 1/4 of them between the amounts of $0.01 and $2, with the average being $0,25 you would net $312,5 each month. That's a decent help with the server & hosting bills. How many sites with Paypal donate buttons can claim similar figures? (I agree, my figures are just random figures, but not entirely unrealistic, given the proposed system)

Another counter argument I guess is "Will people use it?" .. that is anyone's guess, but I would totally put some money into the account and whenever I saw something interesting or worth supporting, I could put my money where my mouth is. This instead of saying "If only paypal wasn't so much of a hassle and require so big an investment to donate, I would help these guys". Imagine what this'll do to small pieces of free software, many of which die of neglect because of lack of incentive.

Lots of popular sites right now run on good will of the owner, some individual donations and ads. And in many cases ads that are not very benign in nature. This Flattr system seems to offer a way out of this. Hell, it could probably be expanded to be a payment system for fixed-size payments.. like "Click here to pay $1.99" -> Goto Flattr site to confirm -> Get authenticated as paid customer.

I guess it remains to be seen if this system is any good. But I don't expect it to fail on the willingness of people to pay.. if it fails it probably fails on lack of participating sites or problems on making a deposit. I will sure as hell give it a whirl.

What's wrong with donkey porn?

I know this is slightly off topic, but in my opinion the words "Milky Way" and "Slim" should not be used in the same sentence.