I guess I don't see the brilliance of a interactive timeline with LoD changes as you zoom.

I've seen a few of these projects in the past and to be honest it runs fairly slow and the fonts were fuzy on this machine at least. My guess would be that the reason this is news is because that Redmond's marketing team is behind it. I really can't understand for a moment why this took 25 people to make.

"That’s when Microsoft Research committed resources to support 25 researchers – including eight current and former UC Berkeley students – in an intense, six-month project to create an entirely new piece of software, also called ChronoZoom, that makes it easy to update the cosmic timeline with more specialized timelines, videos, images and even research papers. ChronoZoom 2.0 is based on Microsoft Azure, a platform that lets developers create applications that manipulate data across a “cloud” of datacenters, and HTML5, the newest — though still evolving — language for displaying content on the Web."

Agreed,

Its not that impressive to generate some base logic and strip down your variable names to cram it in to a small character space. Personally, I was more impressed with.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/04/04/15/1239203/first-person-shooter---under-100kbs-of-code

I find the default dock position should be on the left of the screen on OS X. You can switch this in a few seconds by right clicking on the divider line between applications and stacks and clicking Position Screen ->Left you can also turn on hiding, magnification, but you can't adjust magnification.

My point is it takes a lot longer then 10 minutes to download cygwin and the default font and terminal is cmd.exe which is fairly weak. (others might not care). It takes a minute to change the dock and POSIX is installed by default.

OS X can dumb down apps I don't use all they want. As long as its certified UNIX I will use it any day of the week over windows.

AIDS is a much bigger problem for underdeveloped countries. Look at the rates in Africa compared to the US and like it or not lowering the transmission rates through proper education drastically reduces the transmission rates through transfusions and other methods. No reason not to research a vaccine and a cure, but when you compare AIDS to something like Malaria or Small Pocks things that are passed through the air or by insects that are virtually impossible to avoid I don't find it so hard to understand why a person would rather donate to other causes.

Forced and accidental transmission are a problem with any STD, but really want to lower the incident rate which will require a combination of treatments, vaccines and preventive treatment. Weather you want to admit it or not for all STDs this involves both protective measures during and before engaging in sex and saying its not in our nature isn't really the answer.

First version of windows not to be exploitable by Virus at launch... at least until the recompile.

I haven't seen a plant for an Xbox, but the last time I looked at motherboard assembly a surprising amount of it was done by hand. The board is printed and cut, then workers attach all the sockets and connectors.

We might as well link the third article on Slashdot to an RSS feed or Mozilla releases. Its starting to get an article every 5 days or so.

It is odd that by advocating the removal of choice to , with out affecting you at all, cover images deemed inappropriate ( a feature already part of wiki just to manual see moonbook.js filters ) You advocate complete censorship of information in text form on subjects that might have these images attached to them. I find the opposing argument to this completely intolerant and ignorant on multiple levels. Besides, depending on your level of education a ton of medical textbooks do have drawn images. The silly labeled vagina image on wiki is no more useful compared to a clear diagram. Combined they are great reference aids and should both be available, but which you see at the top of an article should be decided by use choice not the random editors of the internet.

Everyone here is really advocating choice here and the only viewpoint I see that limits what the opposing side can do in their wiki time is yours.

Actually, we we go through on this site often is usless arguments who don't know what censorship is and mistake it for choice, moderation, or reason In general censorship is deletion or refusal to publish. It shouldn't be confused with warnings, or choice. Its just as invasive to prevent someone from choosing not to be part of something as it is to refuse for them to participate. Free Speech is about letting opinions be heard and viewed and I don't see how allowing people to click a check box that covers up images they choose not to see, while still letting them view it because it was never deleted or removed is censorship by any definition.

You know "For the children" Has to be the worst possible way to think about these things. You either offer an opt-in filter for people who have a problem with it or you don't and in general it doesn't hurt the pro I want the raw reality people to allow the people who don't want to see it have an opportunity to turn it off. If you insist everyone agree with you your just a zealot like the people on the other side of the fence your yelling about. Almost all censorship in modern times is the result of backlash when both sides meet in the middle so avoiding the subject matter is as easy as consuming it, then the censorship arguments loose ground quickly.

You really have to ask yourself. Is it so bad for moderate-search to be the default on google even though I always click do not filter my images. I think any resonable person would say that it isn't a problem and if we don't want to rip down safe-search why should we scream about safe-wiki