Share all of your anonymous statistics collected by Sync with /b/ and see if they can figure out who you are. Or better yet, Reddit. A string identifying your client is simply to weed out duplicate or fake data, not to tie your sync information to YOU.

... and take my money!

Did.. you actually read anything about it? This has nothing to do with motion of the player. The Kinect is used as a 3D camera in order to determine the shape of your room and the objects in it, so the image produced by the projector can then be altered to provide a "seamless" (subject to position of the player) continuous image, or movement which interacts with the room. About the only thing NOT moving in this is the player, although that would be a logical extension of it.

Or Linux PCs or Apple PCs.. The sales on all PCs is down, and the articles of the last few days blaming Windows 8 are simply FUD. Windows 7 is still available for sale, and will be available to OEMs to the next few years even after retail sales stop.

The reason PC sales are down is down to two quite simple reasons -

1) Tablet buying is way up. More people are choosing tablets as their second PCs rather than PCs. Most people still have PCs in their house, but often a tablet is preferred as the entertainment machine as it's portable, people can take it to bed with them (ie, great for lazy people, and people are getting lazier every year ;)), it's relatively cheap, and it can do most of what normal people do. The thing is, most tablets do NOT run Windows - they run a dedicated smart-phone/tablet OS such as iOS or Android (or one of a few other varieties). As such, these not counted as PCs in anyone's stats.

2) PCs are much, much better than they used to be. The component manufacturer's are kinda to blame here. As Moore's Law trudges on, PCs have now become more powerful than the average user requires. You know, the ones reading email and using Facebook, not the ones rendering 3D scenes. The processing bottleneck in a new PC is generally the user's brain response time. In the early 2000s, for example, I would be buying a new PC every year, to keep the PC up with my usage needs. By 2006 or so, that was down to every couple of years, and maybe some component upgrades. Now, a new PC can last me 4-5 years with no component upgrades besides maybe adding some extra hard drive space. People are buying less PCs because they don't need to buy them as often.

And likewise speaking of components, MTBF figures are up much higher than they used to be. Hard drives no longer magically crash the days after the warranty expiration. They genuinely last years. I'm running some HDDs I've had for 8 years through 3 machines. Now, when an HDD does die, we nerds replace the HDD and restore from backup (right? Right!). Average Joes buy a new PC. Couple failures occurring less often, with tablets replacing PCs as secondary (and sometimes even primary) machines, and you understand why PC sales are down.

There's no Windows exodus. We all knew at some time we'd reach a tipping point where tablet sales (well into the hundreds of millions, crossing a billion this year, devices) would start to reduce PC sales. There's not even a PC "exodus". Just as many people use PCs as did 5 years ago. Millions more in fact. It's simply that less people have bought NEW PCs.

Unfortunately, copyright law (not just the courts findings) don't agree with your interpretation of First Sale in this regard. Quite specifically, the reproduced file (even if you don't have the original anymore) is not subject to First Sale doctrine. Only the original file you downloaded is. While we can quite rightly say "but there's no way to transfer a digital file WITHOUT copying it", that is a matter for copyright reform, not for an appeal. Capitol didn't even contest your right to upload a song to a cloud service for personal access. They just jumped on the fact that when you then try to sell that copy (and it is technically a reproduction, even if the original file no longer exists) then the user is violating copyright as First Sale doesn't apply to that copy.

No it doesn't. Read the finding. It addresses first sale doctrine extensively. The finding is that the reproduced version that is present on ReDigi's servers is not the original, thus the doctrine doesn't apply. It states that while ReDigi argued fair use extends to the copy on their servers, and Capitol didn't choose to contest that, once the user then tried to sell that copy, it violated fair use.

An equivalency you might understand is that if you purchase a CD, make a copy of that CD for personal backup (fair use), destroy the original CD and then try to sell the copy - that's a violation of copyright. First Sale Doctrine doesn't extend to the copy you made. And for good cause, otherwise there'd be shops out there stocked entirely with bootleg CDs, saying "oh yeah, we destroyed the originals.....".

The only technicality here is the nature of the copy being a reproduction even though the original no longer exists. The courts finding were consistent with copyright law in this regard. The law needs to be updated, but if you read the finding in full, you'll find it quite technically accurate.

I spent some time yesterday reading the findings in full, and the courts ruling is compliant with copyright law. The issue is that copyright law is out of date, but that's not the courts responsibility, necessarily. Take that to the Supreme Court. You're allowed to make a copy to use it (fair use) such as loading into memory, putting onto your MP3 player, etc. In fact, Capitol Records didn't even contest that a user is allowed to upload a copy to a third party service in order to access it for personal use (ie, a cloud storage locker). What they contested was that if you then try to sell that reproduced version of the file (which, under copyright law, it is - it's a reproduced version even if the original doesn't remain anymore), then that copy falls outside the bounds of fair use and becomes an illegal copy at which stage it can't be sold. In other words, it's the act of trying to sell it which makes it an illegal copy.

This is clearly a case where copyright law needs to be updated. Under the ruling, the only way to sell an MP3 is to sell the computer you first downloaded it on, and include the MP3 with it. According to the ruling, technically, even putting it onto a disk and selling the disk is a breach, although it'd be very difficult for anyone to prove you didn't first download it to the disk - although if they had reason to believe you didn't (ie, sitting in a stall selling CDs with MP3s that you say you purchased legally) a warrant would quickly sort that out.

It feels like what's needed is an open, distributed form of DRM which doesn't rely on static servers, and where the rights assigned to the file can be changed at the whim of the user, not a third party. And copyright law updated to reflect the nature of our digital world.

1. If anybody "in the science crowd" states that science can explain everything, they're not in the science crowd.

2. Science is putting no effort whatsoever into attempting to "come up with something that contradict Biblical truth". The fact science contradicts it is incidental only. This guy is ASKING for someone to try and put in that effort, but that's not how science works. That's not how logic works.

3. There is evidence that science is more "true" than the Bible. The fact that planes fly, is evidence science works. The fact that combustion engines combust, is evidence science works. The fact that we've got space probes that are now floating along outside our solar system, still sending us back signals, is evidence science works. Science is a voyage of discovery, with everything new we learn adding to the mix. If science didn't work, we wouldn't have these things. On the other hand, the Bible is a story book, with no self-proving. All of its "prophecies" conveniently were either completed before it was written, or are to be completed at "some time" in the future. There's nothing intermediary and no evidence. While there's proof that science works, there's no more evidence for God than the flying spaghetti monster.

4. You don't require any faith that science works. If anything, it's a lack of faith in other peoples opinions that keep science going. You don't require faith because it can be demonstrated as working. If what you're claiming is "but you can't PROVE the big bang theory", yes we can. See CMB. If you're claiming "but you can't prove what CAUSED the big bang", that's true. We can't. No scientist will claim we can, besides offering various theories. We weren't there to measure and observe it. But that doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tales are common in the part of the world you're born in. Oh, you can choose to do so, just don't pretend it reflects reality.

5. "After seeing the output of man over the years, I'd rather place my faith in God." Really? Because what I've seen is that almost every human conflict of a large scale over the previous three thousand years has been about one religion repressing another. That's the contribution of "God" to our legacy. The contribution of man is that you're typing on a computer at the moment instead of scratching on a cave wall. Sorry, I prefer something tangent which ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Unfortunately he's set the rules so that he can't lose. He's not saying he'll prove Genesis is true. He's saying you have to prove it isn't. It's virtually impossible to disprove things the previously didn't happen. "Prove the sun wasn't originally a giant marshmellow", etc. You can prove it *isn't*, but there's no manner of proving it *wasn't*. He's aware of the fact that science is all about discovering new knowledge, and the language is science is about proving things. Unlike the popular opinion amongst religous folk that "scientists think they know everything", the facts couldn't be further from the truth. It's them who think they know the answers to everything, where science is saying "we don't know, but we'll keep on discovering more."

It's because scientists aren't fraudsters like this guy, that the only response to such a marshmellow statement is "We can't prove the sun wasn't ever a giant marshmellow, but there's no evidence to suggest that is the case." However, to nuts like this guy, to them that's practically an admission that "you can't prove the sun wasn't a giant marshmellow, and this book I've got here says it was.. so it must have been!". Replace "giant marshmellow" with every claim in Genesis. It's exceedingly difficult to prove a prior negative. So difficult in fact, that he's $10k confident that nobody can disprove the non-events.

It'd be nice if someone put up a counter-offer of "$10 million to anyone who can PROVE a deity exists". While equally unprovable, as none exist, the issue we run into is the "judges". See, the people arguing "for" a deity would fall back on exactly the acknowledgement of science that we can't know everything, and don't. They'd say "how did the Universe come into creation?". "We don't know, we have nothing provable, but we have some good theories". "If you by your own admission you don't know, then you can't explain where all the wonder of the universe comes from.. we can.. blah blah blah". Judges: "Those theists make some good points, and the atheists don't have any solid ground to stand on." This is one of the fundamental flaws with the majority of the population - they want to have an answer for everything, to make sense of everything, and can't take "we don't know" as an answer. When presented with "We don't know.. yet" or "An all-loving zombie did it!!!", they'll go with the zombie.

Not even a cluster - a meteor this size occurs several times a day naturally. The Russian one was more notable as it only occurs a few times a year. That being spotted was, in itself, fairly rare as most of the planet is unpopulated.

If this had occurred during daylight (when, approximately half do) it wouldn't have been spotted. As bright as the moon is not, generally, bright enough to see in sunlight, unless you happen to be looking at the right spot (that's not to say you can't see it during the day sometimes, but when the moon is in full light, that means the sun is at a fairly low angle - it's not that 'bright' yet). For it to happen at night, in a populated area, makes it uncommon, but as these occur several times a day, not that amazing. The fact that it occurred over the East Coast of America simply means ZOMG MEDIA FRENZY.

I've been lucky enough to see 6 or 7 large fireballs in my lifetime, most recently including this one over Sydney (not my video - at least I believe that's the one I saw, it was around that time of the year, had some minimal media coverage) and this one over New Zealand which (again, presuming thats the same one I'm thinking of) exploded into several pieces and was accompanied by a great series of sonic booms. I'll usually see at least one regular meteor (ie, shooting star) a night just gazing at the sky. (Smoking ciggies leads to a lot of time spent outside in evenings.)

Don't worry - not a cluster. An everyday occurrence for planet earth. Just not an everyday occurrence for each of us. :)

He's trying to do a parody of Time Cube. www.timecube.com It's a relatively good impression in places, but it'd be better in a more appropriate article.

He didn't say "illegal boat arrivals". He said "illegal immigration". Immigrating without fulfilling the legal requirements of the nation you're moving into, is illegal. Simply visiting or arriving isn't, but he never said that did he? The fact you reached a race-driven conclusion of a statement that was never made says more about the likelihood that you're racist than he is. Generally, non-racists don't apply racial connotations to statements which have nothing to do with race. Racists do.

However, back on topic - despite arrivals being perfectly legal, if you appear to be immigrating illegally, you'll still be turned away. Thus, those people without the means to convey themselves away from the port of arrival, and are denied entry, are de facto illegal immigrants simply by the fact that they can't go anywhere else. They're trying to enter.

Really? Comparing it to Windows 95? You know that was almost 20 years ago, right? It'd getting kinda old. A more apt comparison (considering Solaris 9's x86 release) would be "WoW! That is 2940 days more than Windows Server 20003 could stay up!" ;)

Only those where the the prints were being directly blasted by burning fuel. No atmosphere so no billowing clouds of dust or anything. Any particles blasted up by the rocket would be dispersed in a fairly even wide radius.