Depends on what you mean by the terms. If you're talking about destructive sham cults vs. non-destructive, non-sham cults ("legitimate religions"), a few of the notable differences are:

• Cults will typically require you to sign up or pay a fee in order to learn their teaching. Legitimate religions are up-front about all their beliefs.
• Cults typically isolate their members from "non-believing" friends and family members, requiring you to break ties with "unbelievers."
• Cults require you to believe precisely what the leaders tell you to believe; dissension is not allowed. Legitimate religions have congregations where you may experience a great variety of opinions, sometimes with only a handful of topics where you could find everyone agreeing.
• Legitimate religions tend to expect their clergy and leadership to be held to a higher standard of behavior than their members, while cult leaders are not to be questioned ever.
• Cults typically make it difficult, if not impossible, to leave; with religions, you just stop.
• Cults will typically demand that you give up your "material wealth" to the founders. Religions may point out the value of tithing or pass the hat around, but they'll never kick you out if you show up every week and never contribute a thing.

The above looks almost like a point-by-point rebuttal of Scientology, but that's just an odd coincidence; Scientology is far from the first or only destructive cult to fit that definition. You can find mainline Christian churches that fit into both categories, although I think you'll find that most of them don't.

By "pseudo-religion" you could also mean something that has all the trappings of religion but claims to be anti-religion, e.g. Maoism in China.

"Faux-G?" I get legit 3.5Mbps downloads at work on this "faux" G network. I'm pretty happy with that.

I have a soft spot in my heart for FT, because when I was growing up, FT was vastly superior to anything Lego made. I had a lot of fun using FT robotics on my Apple //e. They also had the pneumatics kit, electromechanics, and a whole bunch of things that were far beyond what Lego offered then.

But...

It's not so much that FT has faded as that Lego has caught up in the areas where it was weak and remained strong in the areas where it had FT beat. Modern Lego models are a lot better at showing you how to put pieces together, and not just how to build the thing, than they used to be. The piece selection is more diverse, and the piece -quality- has improved greatly; they hold together better and come apart more easily. The new robotics kits, power functions kits and other stuff in the Technics line give Lego a lot of the things that came with FT (although not all).

The old FT that I kept for my son, and the new FT I bought for him, largely sits in a bin collecting dust while he discovers and builds entire new worlds with Lego. Even when I was a kid, Lego somehow was an every-day kind of toy, while FT was more a once-in-a-while kind of thing.

So... while I have admiration for FT and an emotional attachment to it, Lego is what dominates my 7-year-old's playtime. Maybe when he's older, FT will be a new challenge...

Didn't Pioneer 10 do this a while back? Is Voyager 1 really the first to leave?

This is one of those times where the comments section in /. is more valuable than the article itself; in response to one person's opinion, here you get everyone else's, and in this case the audience is passionate and knowledgeable about the topic.

Right now, on over half of the plays, this is what you see: Quarterback drops back to pass. He's looking downfield, which is off-screen. He sees something, and makes the decision to throw/hold on to the ball/dump the ball off/run for it.

We, the viewers, have no idea what just happened. Now that passing dominates the game, without All-22, you can't even tell what's happening in the game any more.

The objections of current NFL folks, and your objections, are heedless of this simple fact, and this overrules all objections. Without seeing what's happening downfield, we might as well not be watching the game at all.

Fortunately, these objections don't translate to the college game (which passes just as much as the NFL does; the Big XII throws the ball even more). You can get All-22 footage in college. And I'd bet good money that a big reason for college football's growing popularity has everything to do with that.

In summary: I haven't posted on Slashdot in a while, and I just came here to say you shut your damn whore mouth. It's about time someone shone a spotlight on this problem, because as a fan of the game, this issue is ruining it for me. I hardly even bother watching the NFL any more because of it. Is that what the league wants? Confusion leading to disinterest?

Probably because these people think that Xemu is real....

TimeOut by Dejal is an app that I use that simply grays out the screen for 15 seconds every ten minutes, and for ten minutes every hour. It reminds you to look away from the screen, stretch, get up and walk, etc. I've found that while the timing of the screen-blanks is annoying (it does give you a way to "snooze" the breaks), the overall effect is that I'm happier and healthier at work.

As for a keyboard, I use one of the new black USB Model M designs now made by Unicomp. The extra muscular effort and tactile response somehow has been the best for keeping from having repetitive motion injuries.

I'd also recommend making sure your fonts are large enough to read easily. Small fonts are bad.

I was raised the same way. What I recall, however, was that there was a strong regression back into Fundamentalism during the 1990s, even in mainline and "left-wing" denominations. Fortunately, the pendulum seems to be swinging back the other way, with e.g. Rob Bell's "Love Wins" popularizing some of the more progressive theologies.

The argument within the church is ancient, predating Darwin; in the 4th century, St. Augustine of Hippo wrote an entire treatise, De Genesi ad Litteram, arguing that Genesis should not be interpreted literally, and his commentary on the matter sounds like something from the 20th century, not 1600 years prior:

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

So... it's gone back and forth over time, even as the science behind it has changed.

The "average" engineer, yes.

But the GOOD and experienced engineers I know recognize and understand the value of sales, management, QA, Tech Support, IT, accounting and PR, and understand how all of these together make a healthy, functioning organization.

The same can be said for the "average" salesman vs. the GOOD salesman, the "average" accountant vs. the GOOD accountant, the "average" IT guy vs. the GOOD IT guy, the "average" PR person vs. the GOOD PR person, etc.

Lutz isn't suggesting you put any old engineer into these roles. He's saying to put the ones who understand the basics of business –which one needs no degree or formal training to learn – in charge. And Lutz would know, more than most.