As with any back-to-base monitored system, this DRM model is vulnerable to a basic DDoS attack. By changing to this model they are effectively selling a service, rather than a product, so disrupting the service would completely cripple the product. Effective DRM, but a risky business model.

Not that I'm suggesting you should DDoS their servers or anything...

So what would you use to define and protect software innovations?

Copyright doesn't work as it only protects the expression, and does nothing to protect the same code in another language. Trade marks only protect against use as a brand identifier (paraphrased to avoid a recursive definition). Free market only protects the biggest fish to push the idea, or in some cases the first to market. Open source allows no guaranteed reward (and little to no investment). Software as a Service only works for unique business needs, with the same problems as free market.

Software patents do stretch the definition of patent, but without a new sui generis system of IP they are the best way to guarantee some measure of reward for the inventor. They have massive problems, but they are the best tool we have.

"Depends on who's picking the facts ... "

Atheist: "I'll believe it when I see it, unless it involves the supernatural."

Deist: "I believe it because I see it, although it involves the supernatural."

Trying to explain to the hyena that there is gold buried in the sand is a waste of time as it is pretty damn hard to understand something you are trying to tread on.

---
Agnostic: "meh."

Teaching logic is vital to any form of critical reasoning or argument construction. It would have been an excellent idea except that it doesn't fit with the current 'teach you what we want you to believe' curriculum. Be it the current 'science is everything' position, or pastafarianism, the approach fails when it attempts to dictate what to think.

Logic itself is insufficient as it can only confirm the logical validity of an opinion, never its accuracy. I'll illustrate by following your reasoning: you hypothesise that we can improve reasoning by examining bias; you assert that humans can come to conclusions without bias; you assume the rules of mathematics apply (reasonable I agree); you apply those rules to a mathematical problem to propose that a statement is 'simply true'; you extrapolate that we therefore can devise statements that are incontrovertible (that is, 'not false'); thus you prove your assertion; then extrapolate to prove your hypothesis for all statements made without bias.

Logic demonstrates the validity of your reasoning, showing each progression. It does not demonstrate that the final position itself is correct, only that it is not incorrect. Logic may demonstrate that I am not incorrect in believing evolution, pastafarianism, or love, but not that the statement 'all should worship his noodleage' is correct.

I think that if people knew how to think, you would have more of the PETA etc groups as everyone would have their own, logically valid positions on every issue. The issue isn't the logical process (although that weeds out some pseudo-scientific positions), but that logic requires a final position that is either true or false, and we have chosen to reject the idea that any source may dictate or define absolute truth. This requires us to 'prove' the absolute truth on any issue, which is only possible by testing every hypothesis - which is impossible.

Improving logic skills would be excellent, but until there is proven absolute truth (currently only possible in maths), all logic can show is that you are validly uncertain.

II - FAIL... no that is just two 1s - proceed.

No random number generator can survive creative interpretation.

For law school I use both - I take notes by hand, while following the lecture material on the laptop with the ability to look up statutes or cases and quickly search to the point we are discussing. I like to be able to rearrange notes as you can on a computer, but printing them out to read, and having no fast diagram or sketch ability is a real annoyance.

Primarily though, I write out my notes because I can keep my hand-writing speed just fast enough to get down a decent answer (~12 pages) in a 2 hour exam. I can type much faster, but until my university (Bond) moves to online exams I just can't afford not to keep up the hand-writing.

They did... but were removed by your ISP following a flurry of DMCA takedown notices.

Easy enough in Java:

Wet_Paper_Bag.escape();

Format c:/

Solved.

Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie? The movie did end the story, as it was meant to.

Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events before those of the movie. Further explore the link between book and the alliance. Keep unpacking River. Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.

The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot (think Train). You can always chuck in more bad guys (who aren't really bad) and allies (who don't really help) to keep the gritty, everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable.