Let me put it a little bit differently. Is there a general lack of controversy around adult stem cells because of the name? Note, I am referring only to public opinion, which is composed mostly those who are not knowledgeable on the subject and have not thought more than five seconds about the subject. It is a completely different story when we talk about those who actively debate, ponder upon, and inform themselves with information on the topic. Semantic differences are relatively unimportant to them (regardless of their opinion on the matter).

While, I welcome any and all advances in the field of stem cells, I often wonder if the controversy around embryonic stem cells is mostly a product of language. As I understand it, the names "embryonic" and "adult" refers to where in the life-cycle of the stem cell it is in. It does not describe the source of the cells. Notice that even babies can have adult stem cells.

In cloud physics, there is a concept of a embryonic cloud drop. It is merely a label for a cloud droplet at the beginning of its life cycle, before it grows or evaporates.

So, are many people having problems with embryonic stem cells because they believe that it comes from an embryo instead of a zygote? Would public opinion be different if people understood this distinction? Would they care?

Why not use ImageMagick for your converter? They support all sorts of formats and have a powerful command-line arguments that allows you to specify all sorts of conversion options. I am sure they will quickly pick up WebP.

He said "wonderful" things with vegetables... so, not Neelix.

Normally, I would agree with that sentiment, but then there is LibreOffice coming from OpenOffice.org... so, who knows?

ah, but we all know that python doesn't exist in the land of slashdot. No, they have been replaced by perl scripts. And nobody can figure out how to make it stop!

Dammit, where is the 'hurts brain' moderation?

Well, if you put water on it, I am sure it would short out and drown...

Dude, have you ever had double-decadent chocolate cake? It's so good, but so wrong...

I hate EULAs... so, to make them more palatable, I pronounce it like ULA and then recall the scene from "The Producers"

Ahhh, much better...

I believe Fedora 13 now has that.

This is one reason I like Github. So long as people *fork* a repository, Github can then track and network together the individual forks. Github can show you in a graph which repo is getting which patches (and from who) and see how the forks compare with each other in terms of maintenance.

Is it only for certain video cards? I would be curious to see the nouveau drivers support this soon. I have a card that nVidia does not support for CUDA, and I don't know enough about hardware to know if there is an inherent limitation that prevents me from using it for CUDA/OpenCL.

I think you might be mis characterizing a bit. With DRM, a hacker only needs to make a single binary patch and post it onto the web for others to apply. Plus, the DRM doesn't get updated frequently, so the binary patch can probably remain valid for quite a while. Lastly, there is usually some sort of very well-defined goal to achieve for a proper hack of DRM (e.g., flip a bit, apply key, etc.).

For graphics cards, the bugs are more vague and without the proper source code, the root causes are more difficult to find. The problems and goals aren't nearly as well-defined as they are for DRM. In addition, there are plenty of hardware hackers who have found the exact cause of bugs and reported them to the respective companies, only to have them ignored. Maybe the debate between closed vs. open wouldn't be as much of an issue if the companies had a better workflow procedure for external trouble reports?