I noticed a bunch of low (even 4 digit)/. user ids in this thread -- like the guy who got the CP/M box off craigslist. I think it would be quite interesting to do a correlation between low /. user IDs and opinion on the subject. The hypothesis is that older people will have a softer spot for older machines.

Myself? I think learning to program in older machines is a great idea. But then again I learned to program in Sinclair ZX-81's BASIC language -- back when 16kb was a memory expansion...

:-))

I'd mod this up: funny.

> in the rest of the world, the iPhone has tethering as a basic non-jailbreak feature

Not in the whole rest of the world. Not here with Claro in Brazil, at least.

Is it a coincidence that I read that Adobe is losing the grip on PDF just a few days after I read Job's "Thoughts on Flash", essentially dumping Flash from iPhones/iPads, and burning it at a stake? Or is Adobe's strategy really failing spectacularly before our own eyes?

I should've seen it coming -- I haven't used Acrobat Reader for years. PDF Xchange Viewer is my current favorite, though Foxit was my first off-Adobe alternative, back when.

Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it: google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better. Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville, at the moment.

Even if facebook had twice traffic, it still is an easy bet that google has more reach (as a greater % of internet users access it). Just think about age/professional profiles: you know everyone uses google. You know lots of people don't use and don't care for facebook.

Regarding the Birthday Problem,
Here goes the link to an online spreadsheet with the formulas and calculation above, if anyone wants to check and play with other inputs and scenarios:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AudbAcMEpS4ZdFcyek85bW5JZXduOUV1VlRyMEhRcHc&hl=en

Your math is perfect, I just checked the calculation. However, I think the Birthday Paradox is not the right angle here. Rather, look at it this way:

If Jack commited a crime, what are the chances that there is someone innocent with a match for Jack's DNA out there?

Well, using your same numbers, the probability is 0,0043%, or 1 in 23,300. So there is a very good (99,9957%) chance that no one in the same (town?) will have the same DNA. And even if there's a DNA match, then there's also a fairly good chance that Jack and his match will have enough of a different profile (race, age, profession, education, criminal history, etc.) that will differentiate them -- or that Jack's Match will have a solid, pristine alibi...

Keep in mind a DNA match should not be an automatic conviction. It can't work like that. Reflect on the "DNA planted at the scene" scenario...

...sage to the trunks: long vigorous, strokes, growing up in a crescendo. Golly! It was as enjoyable to them as mas...

"Is that cloning or theft? Should clones be welcomed or abhorred?"

Easy. Clones should be welcomed.

1) They put innovation pressure on the original, benefiting everybody.
2) They put price pressure on the original, benefiting everybody.
3) They may create a better platform, a better product than the original, benefiting everybody.

Everybody wins. Except when you look at the motivation to create original products in the first place. Will the clones lower the reward and make it less beneficial to be original?

Hardly.

1) A truly original and inovative product will take some time to clone -- there will be a lead, in which user base/fan base/multiplayer communities should create critical mass.
2) Playing it right, the original *will* have goodwill. In other words, all things being fairly equal, people will likely stay with the original.
3) Originality is a scale, not a binary concept. Games are more or less original. Per (2) above, clones will need to compete in originality just like their inspiration did. When each clone out of many tries to be a little more original than the next, they may arrive at a quite original game, per Darwin. This could happen even though they started off at a lower plateau of originality than the concept originator. Think StarCraft.
4) In this sense, everyone is (or must be) original to be relevant. Originality is not at risk.

I hope that didn't sound too confusing :-)

> It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones.

No, I don't think you got the point. The point is that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to wait to watch the new release in their most preferred format.

I propose the following:
(1) People have only one chance to have a first impression of a movie.
(2) They can chose what that first impression is.
(3) They will chose the one that best satisfies them, within their cost/convenience/quality/social mix (for the occasion).

Therefore, they will pass the chance to watch a movie in a format that robs them the full experience it can give. You know what I am talking about. Any /. reader knows very well how to DL a free copy of a movie, right now, at this moment. He/she can pick between a quick download that will be trasfered to (an can be watched on) their cellphone screen. Or they can get the PSP version. Or the VCD version. Or the DVD version. Or the HD version. Yet... how many /.ers have stopped going to movie theaters because of that?

Myself, I don't have time to watch every movie. And the limited time I have, I will use to watch the best movies in the grandest way (at a movie theater, or at least in HD). I will not be wasting time with bad movies, nor wasting great movies with a tiny screen...

Seems to me you are not working from a definition of a cult, and trying to see if it differentiates Judaico-Christian mainstream religious groups from Scientology. Rather, you are going in the oppostite direction: looking at scientology, trying to find how it is different, and then creating a definition of "cult" based on that.

If you are going to procede like that, might as well say that "Scientology is based on the works of contemporary writer L. Ron Hubbard, while Judaico Christian religions are based on texts which are over 1,000 years old". Or any of several trivial observations like that. But you will be missing the point. Go look at the definition of cult in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with how popular/widespread a religion is, or how old the texts are, or how possessive they are with said texts/revelations.

"Your coach wasn't telling you that some of you stretchers were good, some of you were bad, and little Timmy in the back is the anti-Pele because he can't half-volley from 18."

LOL

Wish I could mod you up as funny.

All these stupid animal names that people are adopting.
Karmic Koala? Are you serious?

Then I guess it should be called a Karma-Killer Koala, nickname KKK...