No, as a dozen people have posted before you, they decided to pull a book because of a technical typesetting error (Unicode minus signs in place of hyphens) that would screw up page formatting (hyphens are significant to text-wrapping and auto-hyphenation algorithms) and text-to-speech (or should I say 'textminustominusspeech'?)

That's exactly what a decent copy editor would look at (as well as knowing when to use an m-dash, a minus sign or a hyphen) and would be a valuable service to self-publishing authors. Bring it on.

...and words in sentences communicate ideas more effectively when they are properly spelled, punctuated and typeset. That doesn't affect the message.

Nostalgia blinders are a big issue. TOS wasn't that good. These fan shows do tend to get most of it the same. But it has been close to half century sence TOS.
Of course the big issue that happens is the urge to bring in TNG universe into the mix. There seems to be this crazy attempt to tie cannon together.

Not sure how you can "assess demand" for something like this with a limited trial. The "demand" would be for a substantial network of swap stations that allowed people to treat EVs like gas cars and not have to plan long trips around meal breaks at superchargers. They might expand the market to customers who have currently rejected EVs because of the charging problem: if you already have a Tesla you probably looked into the charging situation and decided that it fits your motoring needs, so you're not going to be falling over yourself to pay for a battery swap instead.

Then, the battery replacement needs to be integrated with some sort of lease scheme whereby you don't actually own the battery which (some EVs use this approach anyway) which would make sense in many ways, but if you've already bought your car, complete with battery, are you going to want to swap it out?

The other issue is the long-term scalability of the "free supercharge" model - its fine with the current level of Tesla ownership, but if EVs go mainstream provision will have to ramp up dramatically (think: whole parking lots wired up for charging) or it will be common to turn up at a station and find all the bays occupied by fully-charged cars waiting for their owners to drift back from their leisurely lunches and shopping trips. A battery-swap system might be the only way to turn round enough customers. "Free charging" certainly isn't going to be long-term sustainable - but while its there, its going to be hard to persuade people to pay for battery-swaps.

Random samples of people.
Classify them in groups of similar genetic attributes.
Track development of these groups over time, record environmental differences.

Correlate the environmental differences with final outcome.

No it is a Nurture in the Nature vs Nurture debate is still very creditable.

A lot of people like to put a lot of effort into Nature, because it means stuff that you are good at is because you yourself are unique enough to have such attributes, and any fault isn't your fault it was because you got the short straw in the gene pool.

We don't like Nurture because it means we are responsible for ourselves and others. I am smart because I had good parents and teachers, and I choose to work hard at it. Not that I got the smart gene. Or I have a few extra pounds on me because I chose to eat that cupcake when I should have picked an Apple, or decided not to go to the gym. It is easier to say I have the Fat gene.

I personally think Nurture is a larger influence in nature. Sure some factors my natural colors, gender, height and perhaps chances to get some generic conditions. I may not control, but if I went out more my skin would be darker, or stayed in more it may be lighter. When growing up if I exercised a different amount or had a different diet I may an inch taller or shorter.

Well people want their opinions to be stated in a positive light, while those with opposing opinions should be worded negatively.
Why do you think for Abortion they are Pro-Choice and Pro-Life while the other side calls them Anti-Life and Anti-Choice.
You are not going to convince someone who will not believe in man made global climate change to call themselfs climate deniers. In their mind they are right, and those who think otherwise are just mindless sheep following all the liberal dribble that comes out of the internets.

I am sure if the media starts calling them Climate Deniers, the media (**Cough**FOX NEWS**Cough**) who support the other side will then probably calling climate scientist. Liberal Communist Hippies.

You don't question the science by simply asking arbitrary nonsensical questions or pushing long debunked theories though. You have to actually do science and come up with some results that bring into question the pre-existing science.

If you believe your college taught you that you can defeat an established scientific theory by repeatedly asking arbitrary questions about it then you either weren't listening or your college was shit and you need a refund.

I know it's hard, I know it means that to question the science means you'd have to actually put some effort into investigating it to come up with a question that actually has some merit to it rather than sitting as a little armchair troll that simply detests the idea that humanity might not be perfect and may in fact cause some problems in the world after all, but tough shit, it is what it is.

Because it is a documentary.
Today's documentaries are based on the following logic.
1. I have a point of view on something.
2. Dig into the details and cherry pick the select items that enforce my view.
3. Use only the lamest rebuttals to make it seem like I am impartial.
3.a. I will find the busiest person to ask and post his non-comment as a proof he is up to something undesirable.
4. Mix it together and make profit from the others who had the same idea as me.

How you use a device is personal to you.
For some the smart watch will add little to no value. For others they will wonder how they ever lived without it.
I don't Have any plans for a smart watch in my future, I feel my phone is good enough. But the market is new and l want to see what will become of it.

Slashdot is generally a bad place to post this type of comments. The population is filled with people still bitter that most of the mainframes they worked on have been retired.

There is fake threats and there are the trolls. But some of them have crossed the line, tracking their opponents, sending pictures of them where they are located and posting threats.
To make the point I don't like you but I am sticking you.

This was my first thought when I read about this yesterday too. Why oh why isn't such an important system air gapped from the rest of the general drones in ICANN's offices?

I mean seriously? Can the fucking receptionist communicate directly with these core servers for example?

I know it's hard for many IT workers, but sometimes you just need to get off your fat arse and walk over to the system you need to administer to maintain security. Anyone working somewhere important like ICANN that puts convenience of being able to remain on their arse over security needs to be fired. If they want a job where they can put convenience over security then they can go work in 99% of other organisations that don't need that level of security.

"It's a bit too much to go just to get a movie off the screen."

This is the country that's detonated nuclear bombs, sunk warships with torpedos, and fired artillery barrages at it's neighbours civilian villages, and leaked lists of thousands of civilian bank customers details just because it hasn't been given enough attention for a week like a petulent little child.

Nothing is a bit much for North Korea, if the Kim dynasty's fragile little egos are upset then you can expect an extreme reaction. This is the fat little man-child who had his own uncle executed - the guy is basically a living incarnation of Eric Cartman.

Honestly, Marc Rogers' analysis is fucking awful. It's entirely speculation - it's no different to your average Slashdot post where someone is just stating their opinion and passing it off as fact. Examples:

"1. The broken English looks deliberately bad and doesnâ(TM)t exhibit any of the classic comprehension mistakes you actually expect to see in âoeKonglishâ. i.e it reads to me like an English speaker pretending to be bad at writing English."

Really? Please expand on that. Please give examples. To me it looks like just about every other piece of broken English I've seen online. Simply declare it not such without explaining why is not an argument.

"2. The fact that the code was written on a PC with Korean locale & language actually makes it less likely to be North Korea. Not least because they donâ(TM)t speak traditional âoeKoreanâ in North Korea, they speak their own dialect and traditional Korean is forbidden."

Interesting, but hardly stone cold evidence. If it was a North Korean spy that's trained in South Korean because they were behind the past hacks on South Korea then they may find that this is the easiest configuration for them. Is the North Korean dialect even a configuration option? If not then what else could they use? English? I'd guess not given how broken their English is.

"3. Itâ(TM)s clear from the hard-coded paths and passwords in the malware that whoever wrote it had extensive knowledge of Sonyâ(TM)s internal architecture and access to key passwords. While itâ(TM)s plausible that an attacker could have built up this knowledge over time and then used it to make the malware, Occamâ(TM)s razor suggests the simpler explanation of an insider. It also fits with the pure revenge tact that this started out as."

Again, entirely just speculation, poor use of Occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't suggest it was an insider out to get Sony any more than it suggests the attackers simply spent a bit of time surveilling their target before following through with the hack. This argument again adds nothing.

"4. Whoever did this is in it for revenge. The info and access they had could have easily been used to cash out, yet, instead, they are making every effort to burn Sony down."

Isn't this an argument FOR it being North Korea rather than against given that North Korea has vocally made it clear that they're unhappy with Sony over the film? If anything this is an argument in favour of it being North Korea.

"5. The attackers only latched onto âoeThe Interviewâ after the media did â" the film was never mentioned by GOP right at the start of their campaign."

Sure and North Korea spent a few days figuring out whether to admit responsibility or not rather than outright denying it. It's now becoming the defining point of their campaign which seemed to be something North Korea was keen on - if it was the internal employee theory then why has Rogers' now changed his mind about maximising damage? Simply making Sony cancel a $42million film is small fry damage - an inside job would focus on continuing to be far more damaging than that. But to follow on this same point:

"After all, if everyone believes itâ(TM)s a nation state, then the criminal investigation will likely die."

What? Why? The FBI will just give up if it's thought to be a nation state? No, on the contrary it'll be escalated to the CIA and NSA. This point doesn't even make sense.

"6. Whoever is doing this is VERY net and social media savvy. That, and the sophistication of the operation, do not match with the profile of DPRK up until now."

Um, you mean they can use Twitter? So can half the child population of this world. Unless there's a suggestion that North Koreans are inferior people with IQ's less than your average child and who couldn't possibly look at what's worked for other succesful hacker groups like anonymous then this point is monumentally stupid.

"7. Finally, blaming North Korea is the easy way out for a number of folks, including the security vendors and Sony management who are under the microscope for this."

How the fuck is turning this into something where it turns from a corporate problem un-associated with the US government to threats of mass terrorist attacks on US soil requiring intervention by the US government including the president an easy way out exactly? Getting the NSA/CIA et. al. involved isn't an easy way out for anyone.

"8. It probably also suits a number of political agendas to have something that justifies sabre-rattling at North Korea"

Yes because it's not like there's been any reason to sabre-rattle at North Korea up until now is there? I mean it's not like they threatened to nuke the mainland US not so long ago or anything is it.

"9. Itâ(TM)s clear from the leaked data that Sony has a culture which doesnâ(TM)t take security very seriously."

This is a valid statement of fact but I don't really see what relevance it has to whodunnit.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone is giving this guy time of day. It reads like a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog post - 99% speculation, 1% bullshit, and some of his points even just outright contradict each other.

Am I saying it's North Korea? Not for certain, I personally think it probably is with odds of maybe 60% or so, but I'm open to the idea to a reasonable degree that it's not. Posts like Rogers' don't add anything even though they purport to be great insights - his comments are no better than anything you or I can string together, he has no great insight, he's not even close to finding some groundbreaking evidence that shatters the NK theory and on the contrary, even strengthens it in some cases.

His is another perspective, and one or two bits are interesting considerations, but it really does nothing to debunk the possibility of it being NK. His case is incredibly weak, and IMO weaker than the arguments for it being NK in the first place.

Long story short, thanks for your opinion Marc, but you've not argued your case anything close to well or consistently enough.

If North Korea bombed Sony in Japan, It would be US responsibility.
The bigger issue here is that there is an other country fighting to prevent free speech. By taking down and *Threatening* them. This isn't some small set of wackos but an actual government. So it is a big deal.

I didn't want to see the movie, but now I do just to make a point.