What if you were a cherry flavored Popsicle?
Everyone's always concerned with the brain. No one ever stops to think that if you're alive and kicking what about your junk. Does your junk still work after being re-animated?
Correction: NNSA not NISA.
So...further checking reveals: - TFA states: National Security Administration instead of NISA (which was already noted earlier) which is more likely the actual Administration that is being stated in the article. - Still a long leap from
/. assigning a new word to an Acronym that is notorious in the public eye.
- Seeing as the NSA (National Security Agency) isn't even mentioned in TFA.
A simple mistake?
sensationalist in the slightest. Not that I'd expect editing or fact checking prior to a
/. post; that was a fad that died out decades ago.
I fully expect this to get flame-baited.
See...you're looking at this as a one off. That isn't the case. Capcom is using this as a test bed for future games/DRM choices. The industry as a whole would love nothing more than to kill Gamestop because they don't get a piece of the pie even though their greedy fingers already charge $60 for a game title (which nets the publisher well over what it cost to make the game initially). Not only that once a game is made they can re-use pieces of code in future games (reducing time to market); see COD games...if you look at the server configs that are allowed many of the old variables from the original COD series still exists. I mean Axis and Allies in MW? WTF?! If you find the right app you can even open up the main game files and dink around the code to see what they've re-used from past games. The crux of the issue is that if they succeed in stamping out GameStop it effectively means we as consumers should be disallowed from resell of our property. You're not profiting from the code in the game, your profiting from the hard merchandise (ie: physical item) that you want off your shelf. Outlawing game re-sales would effectively make selling games at garage sales illegal. Frankly this is idiotic and obscenely greedy.
But why? Fox has some pretty good looking women doing their news. I can't say the same for MSNBC or any of the others. I mean why *wouldn't* I want to watch Katie Couric give the nightly news. I mean she does a bang up job. Btw, Fox News is mostly filled with *Shows* not f'ing news. They state that over and over again before the start of whatever show it is. They aren't journalists, they're entertainers. Hell Bill O'Reilly has said that many times. However, I stopped watching all but local news. ALL of the networks grease their news (even local), so you better watch it with a grain of salt and take from it what you can. Then go over multiple sources (who probably got their stuff from the same central source that was also tainted). But yeah, if you read the last sentence the poster states "let the flame war begin". So they obviously were looking to start something. And seeing as their is a minority of conservative people that actually post on
/. it's going to be a one-sided battle. Its kind of funny actually since the left knows they're going to win here and anywhere else they have a majority. Sort of pointless unless it gives you feel good points. I mean if you need a hug I'll give you a hug. If that makes you feel better. Wow, I better watch out or I'll turn into a hippie.
If you want to fund this study I also have a bridge I'd like to show you...
While you disagree with the other side at least you see that there is a disagreement and are ok with it being that way. Others would rather force their side, regardless of which it is on the other. And I'd disagree; here in the US you'll find that both sides can equally be prudes which is where this conversation was heading. I may disagree how you'd raise your kids but I sure as hell won't be telling you how to raise them. However, if there is some tool I could use to keep mine away from things I deem as unnecessary for them to get involved in that is my prerogative and I'll use it. Just because another tool becomes available doesn't mean that *everyone* has to use it. The bigger issue I see with this is if we start to segment the internet due to one sector this will give governments, private companies, etc to effectively do what China does and remove things that those in charge don't deem "fit" for anyone or will use it as a propaganda machine. I think if it was done on the ISP end it would encourage competition since not all ISPs would have to have adhere. And ISPs DO have the ability to do this. Whether it is legal or not is another issue, as you'll have those that don't want it. Although if it were opt-in it wouldn't be a huge deal; they'd have to use static IPs most likely. Or just put certain subnets on it and make sure that those that opt-in only pull IPs from that pool. If it's not hurting your liberties I don't see the issue in the end. Keep in mind your liberties don't extend into raising my child for me which is why I disagreed with her. However, I don't see giving the option she suggests is infringing on anyone viewing the internet since it is opt-in not opt-out. It does put a burden on the ISP, but I'd suggest they just opt some policy of "if your kids sees porn on the net we're not responsible" deal. Since ultimately it is up to the parent to supervise their kid. A while back I had a mother ask me how to supervise her teen on the net and I basically told her to stick the computer in a room where everyone is normally and to just monitor usage when the kid is on the net. Beyond that I basically left it in her hands to do her job as a mother. Oh and I suggested removing power from the machine while she wasn't home; unless the kid went to buy another power cord or something.
TravisTR writes "The treatment suggests that the approach could be used to treat more common disorders."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Research is set to reveal more information about an operating system that it thinks will run better on multicore and many-core processors. Richard Black, a researcher with Microsoft Research Cambridge, is due to present a paper on the Barrelfish OS at the Intel European Research and Innovation Conference (Intel-ERIC) being held in Germany Sept. 21 and 22, according to this EE Times' article. Barrelfish is an open-source research operating system for which the source code is available. It runs on 64-bit x86 but with a port to ARM in the works, the article says."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
While that may be true citizens should have some sort of integrity about themselves. There was a time when, regardless of the abilities people had, that privacy was respected. This "Its the internet age you have no privacy" is bunk. We only have privacy regardless of whether its digital or not if people kept some sort of respect and integrity about themselves. However we live in an age where people are selfish as hell and could care less about smearing or stabbing someone in the back to get ahead or just watch the fires burn around them. Sad days.
I'd hope it wouldn't be useful at all. This is plain cockamamie crap. I don't care if my food tells you I was in Bangladesh. It isn't foolproof enough to use in any court of law. This is paramount to saying "We should have Thought Police like in Minority Report." Total BS. Technology should only be used in court battles to a point otherwise we're going to start putting more innocent people in jail than there already are and I'm sure that number is too high as it is even if we can't properly calculate; everyone in jail is innocent. / sarcasm I love IT/science, but using it unabashedly without 2nd guessing its uses or even the outcome is foolish. This issue is just like with the science freaks that think some day some special break through is going to happen that explains the entire universe. Not only is that foolish thinking its ridiculous thinking. Everyone knows the answer already. 42.
That was iron buddy.
Only if he can find a Johnson.