...When I need them ? You deserve at least "+6 insightful" on this one.

Not so bleak ?! Sir are you kidding ? 1/3 of the student have a proper scientific education, about 2/3 are taught that science and religion competes for truth, which is absolutely wrong at least from a scientific point of view, but also from a real religious point of view I suspect, and goes to Sunday school everyday. How can that be positive ?

Science and religion do not compete for truth, they don't oppose, they are completely orthogonal :

• Science, because "it just works, bitch !" don't care for fairy tales and has no patience nor reason to bend to the will of every loon out there. A science teacher should not either, or else lets change the job description to "philosophy teacher", but then, think about including every other cosmological mythologies from other nations in the curriculum for equity.
• Religion, on the other hand, is indeed very weak in the heart of those that can be unsettled by the beauty of the universe as it is unveiled every day by scientists. True believers I'm sure worship the creation even more when they understand the true depth and beauty of it : Self generating code, yeah baby !

Don't touch anything ! I love it !

I did a couple of anaglyphs myself for the thrill. Some landscapes in color, and some still lifes in black and white. Very easy with either Gimp or Photoshop : take 2 pictures slightly apart, decompose each into RGB, discard red layer of left picture and compose back with left pic GB + right pic red. Watch b&w anaglyphs through red and green color lens filters (which you must already have if you're half serious about b&w photography making anyway). Use blue filter instead of green if you have one, or you're watching some color pictures.

As a novelty, it's quite funny and interesting. But as a photographic device, it's way too formulaic to get mainstream. When I want to drive the onlooker eye to whatever I was interested in when I took the picture, I use depth of field and an opened diaphragm. A very narrow plane of focus going straight through the point of interest of the image with everything else ever so slightly blurred is much, much more easy on the eye and powerful on the mind.

3D still pictures are boring because they display almost unlimited sharpness and in the process the viewer gets lost into many uninteresting background details instead of feeling sympathy between his vision and the photographer's intent.

At first glance, I could understand our fellow english speakers being uneasy about the way to handle this french (and spanish) word, but I then I realized the proper french pronunciation is extremely close to the zodiacal sign "libra" ; one just need to cut short of the 'a' and jump straight into the 'O' of office, like 'librOffice' (in french, terminal 'e' are muted).

Not much to fuss about. And face it, the world of F(L)OSS software is not as much US centered as the computing world generally is. Europe contributes as much as north america to it, and the countries expanding the more rapidly upon FOSS softwares are in south america.

I'm personally quite happy for once to be given a software name I can understand, write and speak about without feeling a bit awkward.

You're thinking of Lavoisier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier ). To paint him as a mere "tax collector" is mild understatement. He was one of the 26 shareholders of the french (partially private) "IRS", making him one of the wealthiest noble in France before the Revolution. This lead him to his tragic fate after the fall of the monarchy.

Right. Let's talk about gravity, now, shall we ? A little, easily reproduced experiment involving an apple, without much purpose except launching rockets in outer space and missiles on terrorists.

I'd really wish to hear your opinion on the physical cause of that little phenomenon.

It wouldn't have saved them, because as far as I understood what I read, stuxnet used usb keys to replicate and target the systems. Air gap was already a well known practice, but it is based on the assumption no one will leak anything inside the protected part. But the (short) history of social engineering shows plentifully that's seldom the case. There are many ways to entice an accredited human being into breaking that kind of security. You can plant an operative, corrupt an operator, deceit a worker into plugging a "found" key, etc.

It may very well be that the lack of proper cloaking was intentional, for at least two reasons : on the one hand, as long as the aim was reached, there was no need to reveal the full scope of expertise put behind it. Better keep still unknown cloaking techniques in case they may come handy in the future. On the second hand, stuxnet is certainly as much a psychological weapon as it is a technological one. What would be the interest to disrupt Iran's nuclear program if nobody knew what happened ? As such, it's a very good deterrent : any would be rogue third world country willing to go nuclear knows "someone" will take offense and knows that this "someone" has the abilities to bring their program down. But at this point, nobody can pinpoint who this "someone" may be with plausible certainty.

It makes sense because google owns youtube, admittedly the largest video provider on the web today.

Once they turn distribution to WebM only content, if you want to watch videos, it ensures every browser can access it.

But google knows users are also producers, and logically bets they will want to use WebM for making their own videos available. They certainly expect to increase WebM dominance through their users that way.

Fugly.
'nuff said.

I miss a "Most useful comment ever" button to click on. But this is /. so consider yourself happy if you achieve "+4 funny".

Pick a good look at something modern like Gambas. All Basic goodies, in a GUI-friendly package.

It's absolutely spot on. (living in Paris, I totally confirm this).

It's the other way round on linux. Chrome font rendering is hopelessly riddled with bugs, and breaks at every minor upgrade.