You have a hint of the truth there. Once again, as I have said in previous comments on earlier stories about HMD and virtual reality, this body illusion has absolutely nothing to do with the "power" of virtual reality, and still, so far, no tech company has any idea what they have (and I still hope to scoop them all with my subsequent patents, invalidating theirs, and make a fortune suing them... because their patents incorrectly describe the invention, or how it works). Don't bother replying, I'm not going to give it away.

I'm pretty sure swapping the space as a time-share with a new and adventurous Japanese family of 3 from Tokyo would be more financially secure and lucrative.

No. It isn't. Its always been there, always been there in every workplace and every industry, and always will be... it may fluxuate in popularity within certain parameters, but it is nothing new and it is not "growing." Never heard of it? Clue: illicit and illegal drugs are hush hush; loose lips sink ships. "Do not share with Brad... that guy will not shut up. Who is that guy he's talking to... is that a damn reporter?!"

I find the idea that Sherpas have a gene that helps them breathe at high altitude a little hard to accept. How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers? Sure, they adapted to their environment... but couldn't this be a non-genetic adaptation? Have you seen how fast high-school and college swimmers can swim? Where does their fast swimming gene come from? Fish? Did high school and college students interbreed with fish a whole bunch of semesters ago?

You think bandwidth just grows on trees? Quite obviously, there is a bandwidth crisis. Bandwidth manufacturers are desperately trying to meet the demand with current processses, but they're falling short, which is why we so often have bandwidth outages. This high-profile push button topic inversely correlates to another well known problem no one can figure out how to even begin to solve, the data glut we've been in since our sensory organs evolved.

There is one. Bookmark this in Chrome, same thing.

Some how I doubt that.

I have downloaded before a full version, non-evaluation, fully working copy of RHEL before.... I believe this option still exists for those seeking it, but it is one of those well kept secrets and the link is burried deep somewhere at Red Hat's site. i.e. RHEL can be used for free, without support. It is possible Red Hat may have discontinued this for the "30 day evaluation" variety of free download, and that download link is gone forever, but regardless, Red Hat does not sell operating systems, they sell support, and that is what you pay for that costs. However, CentOS is identical to RHEL and is free to download and use, i.e. costs nothing. Oracle Linux is also RHEL, and also free to download and use, I believe. So no, if you don't pay for the support, using RHEL will cost you nothing.

That's not dumb or anything, but superfluous, considering this exists.

But if you ask the typical user of OS X that never questions anything and always insists on new shiney, any OS older than 2 years old is "obsolete." So this OS is obsolete 10x over!!

disclaimer: I am a UNIX/Linux Windows & OS X systems admin, and prefer OS X for desktop, and even I can't stand the moronic whiney bullshit that the self-proclaimed "expert" mac users puke out... please see comments here to see what I mean, as if you didn't know already.

I see. So if I sell you my Mac and all the software therein, that contains an Aperture install, you could never use it. And being as you post on Slashdot, you are very respectful of software licensing, and you've never heard of The Pirate Bay.

Oh? then wtf is this?

Ok, its another terrible idea from Apple made with absolutely no regard to their very supportive and loyal user base, but you're exaggerating tremendously.

Let me remind you that, although most users seem to be compulsive in how they click "update" whenever there is one available, its is a really dumb thing to do blindly and unnecessary except for three reasons and only three reasons: 1) you have security concerns and the update patches security holes; 2) the update has bug fixes of bugs you keep bumping into 3) the update has new features that you want. If you update for any other reason, or for no reason, you should have your head examined.

Abandoning development on Aperture does not mean that you can't continue to use it until the end of time. If you're happy with how it works now, rest assured, it will continue to work that way forever.

So bash Apple when you get a chance, but ffs relax. Apple is not going to come into your computer and disable Aperture! Its going to keep working for you if its working for you now. And if you were hoping to use it, and are afraid it will disappear forever, well, again, relax, that is impossible. But if you'd like an alternative that has just as much functionality as Lightroom or Aperture, take a look at Darktable, which is Open Source and is not going anywhere.

Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.

Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...

...very obviously, he has gone insane.

click for multimedia

Your mission is to proceed down the San Francisco Bay in a Blue Navy petrol boat, pick up Sir Ive's path at Cupertino, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the officer, infiltrate his team by (ahem-hem) whatever means available, and terminate the executive's position.

...terminate the executive...

...terminate with extreme prejudice.

Perhaps. But I suspect Orion will carry men back from space long before anyone ever figures out what happened to Dragon and its crew.

I'm not saying I like it, and in fact I said I don't like it... but the case law is pretty clear and you're welcome to see for yourself:

Smith v. Maryland - 442 U.S. 735 (1979) AND here's the wiki

It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.

Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.