Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Slashback: New E3, Archimedes Webcast, Dell Wildfires 199

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the yet-another-lap-close-call dept.
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: a victory for evolution in Kansas, the Stardust Program launched, Lego Mindstorms goes live, continued backlash on the new E3, Archimedes gets a webcast, another Dell bursts into flame, and a possible RIAA silver bullet Read on for details.

A Victory for Evolution in Kansas. SatanicPuppy writes "Yesterday, elections in Kansas saw four of six pro-Creationism school board members replaced by pro-Evolution candidates in a one issue election. Interestingly, it didn't go by party lines; at least one of the conservative Republicans who supported Creationism failed to make it past their party primary. Ken Willard and John Bacon are the two remaining pro-Creationism incumbents."

Stardust Program Launched. lee1 writes "Anyone with an internet connection now has the the chance to find microscopic grains of dust from beyond the solar system. The project, called Stardust@home, is patterned on projects like SETI@home. But rather than exploiting idle processor time, it will ask volunteers to search through millions of microscope images on their computer screens, exploiting spare time in general as well as ego: 'People get very competitive,' explains the project director. The first volunteer to spot an actual interstellar dust grain will get to name it and will be listed as a co-author on any resulting research papers. The images come from a NASA project called Stardust, whose primary mission was to collect samples of dust from the tail of Comet Wild 2, but might also have captured some interstellar dust that could reveal the physics of the stars that produced it. To minimize false positives and to ensure that all the grains are found, each participant will go through an online training and testing process before starting their search. They will be scored on how well they distinguish real dust grain impacts from fakes."

Lego Mindstorms goes live. MicroBerto writes "As of August 1, 2006, the next generation of Lego Mindstorms is now available for sale in North America. Mindstorms NXT is a robotics toolset that allows you to build and program robots for various purposes. It combines the power of the Lego technic building system and an all new intuitive software environment powered by National Instruments LabVIEW."

Continued backlash on the new E3. Anonymous Howard writes "Angry Gamer reacts badly to the news of the Electronic Entertainment Expo's demise. They see it as a major blow for small game developers who are having enough of a hard time getting noticed by press and retailers as it is. From the article: 'This is a win only for the EAs, Sonys and IGNs of the world. Everyone else has to fend for themselves.' It seems like the days of smaller developers getting noticed by 'drive by traffic' at E3 are over." Relatedly The Escapist Lounge has an interview with the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences president, Joseph Olin, on what is actually happening to E3. As Joseph Olin responds: 'So it's going to take a couple of months until the world knows what the scope of E3 2007 will be, and how it will be structured. The opportunity to make material changes to improve it shouldn't be snap judgments. The rhetorical question I might pose is: "You know you have a problem. You know you need to make changes. How do you make changes and convey it and announce it, and to whom, and when?" There's never a good time. Whenever you make significant change, there's no way to introduce that change without detractors. The challenge is that without being able to announce the exact implementation of change it leaves that gray area for ignorance to fill the void.'"

Archimedes gets a webcast. jd writes "Some time ago, Slashdot covered the story of the rediscovery of several lost writings of Archimedes by means of X-Ray fluorescence. Well, they're still scanning the book and at 11pm GMT (4pm PDT) on August 4th will be putting on a live webcast as they scan and interpret pages not seen by human eyes for over a thousand years."

Another Dell bursts into flame. starwindsurfer writes "A Dell laptop's battery caught on fire in a company's IT department this week, burning a hole right through the casing. Nearby techs used fire extinguishers to put out the blaze. Employee Henrik took pictures to document the affair and uploaded them to the Toms Hardware message boards. From the writeup: 'The police department showed up. The entire lower floor was allowed to leave early and as we stood there in front of the building we simply couldn't resist... we jokingly called the engineer a terrorist as he was being asked a few questions by the friendly officer.'"

An RIAA silver bullet? Chris Fairman writes "TechDirt is running a story about how the RIAA seems to be dropping cases where the defense includes (or hinges on) an IP address as the means to identify the source of criminal activity. Essentially the defense argues that all an IP address can prove is who was paying for the net access at a particular time. Having a wide open WiFi router on your network seems to be currently the most effective means of getting the RIAA to drop all charges. Essentially the activity originating from one IP, only proves that illegal file sharing behavior is coming from one network, and not necessarily from any one specific computer or user. More importantly, it seems that the legal system is beginning to catch on to more complex technology concepts. Such concepts play a large part in how future legal cases are argued, and contribute ultimately to the foundation of complex technology legal precedents."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashback: New E3, Archimedes Webcast, Dell Wildfires More

Slashback: New E3, Archimedes Webcast, Dell Wildfires

Comments Filter:
  • I view Evolution as God's tool. The days in the Genesis account were days of God, and not days of man. It's said in other places in the bible that a day of God is longer than a day of man. Besides what is a day when the sun isn't even in existance? I envision God sculpting the species over billions of years by using Evolution as a tool. God gave a small account of how he created the universe, but its also eloquent. Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but t

    • Re:I believe in Evolution and God (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @07:14PM (#15836237) Homepage
      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

      And that, in one sentence, summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion as a means of understanding the world.

      • Re:I believe in Evolution and God (Score:5, Insightful)

        by anothy ( 83176 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @07:48PM (#15836364) Homepage
        no, it doesn't. it summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion to replace science. religion's a very useful tool for understanding some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology, even if you don't believe it's a useful or true description of the metaphysical. it's just not a replacement for science, nor a good means for understanding, say, physical phenomenon. don't confuse arguments against using religion to teach science with arguments against religion in general.
        • "religion's a very useful tool for understanding some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology,"

          no.

          religion is a very useful tool for observing some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology.

          it offers no understanding at all.
          • you are all wrong.

            Religion is a very useful tool for controling the masses. (like tv reality shows and news groups (esp. but not limited to china))

            it offers neither understanding or observation
            • I gather you're referring to what Mark Twain wrote in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?
            • Any sentence of the form "Religion is X", where X is some simple, monovalent role in some schematic view of "everything" is bound to be twaddle. Religion is definitely a natural product of the human condition: the interaction of human biology, psychology, and sociology. Say anything definite beyond that and you're on shaky grounds.

              It might also be a product of God trying to sneak into our thick skulls. But be that as it may, I've never seen a simple theory of what religion is, positing that religion exist

            • Religion is a very useful tool for controling the masses. (like tv reality shows and news groups (esp. but not limited to china))

              it offers neither understanding or observation

              Horse-pucky!!!

              While I agree that religious dogmatism and the like doesn't provide any useful understanding or observation, there is a lot in some religious traditions which actually do offer some insights.

              I would claim that Buddism and Hinduism offer a lot of understanding and insight. And, further, I would claim that most relgions of

        • I'd say that the Genesis accounts won't change, even in the face of huge scientific changes. What will change is our perception of it.

          Just like people today may embrace Science AND God concurrently (and I'm among them) to perceive what the parent-poster described as "days of God", we may get, through science, new understanding and meaning to the words in Genesis.
          • I'd say that the Genesis accounts won't change, even in the face of huge scientific changes. What will change is our perception of it.

            Actually, probably not. The perception of the Genesis creation story used to be that it was God's Revealed Truth. Scientific research has change this; now it's viewed as just one of many charming creation myths of a primitive society, with a few ignorant religious nuts still insisting that it's Truth. This situation probably won't change in the future.
          • the bible (including Genesis) changes over time, just phenomenally slowly. look at the scholarship around the J, P, E, and other authors in the torah. or the book selection process during the protestant reformation, or the fact that the roman and orthodox churches use different sets of books in "the" bible. and that's to say nothing of translation and editing issues, which make the biggest difference in the modern world (for christians, anyway; jews are affected much less by current translation issues, musl

      • Re:I believe in Evolution and God (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Synonymous Bosch ( 957964 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:19PM (#15836505)
        Religion isn't intended to be a means of understanding the world - it's a means of understanding yourself and in turn, understanding God.

        It's a shame most religions (or their followers) have lost sight of that point.

      • Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

        And that, in one sentence, summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion as a means of understanding the world.

        How so? Remember, that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like "magic" to a sufficiently undeveloped mind. Are you really so bold as to believe that we've already advanced to the point of being capable of understanding every possible notion in existence?

        Ant

        • Actually, a theory (or theorem) is a provable statement. Postulates are unprovable, but widely accepted as fact. Theories can be disproven, but many widely accepted theories are so because of all the attempts at discreditting them failing.
          • Actually, a theory (or theorem) is a provable statement.

            I suppose you are indeed correct. A theorem can be proven, but the theories that are germane to this discussion are still nothing more than unproven theories.

      • Actually, now that I have a better understanding of the big bang and evolution, (after attending a speech given by Steven Hawkings and reading the first half of Darwin's "Origin of Species,") I have a significant amount of respect for the insight in the book of Genisis.

        Specifically, I find that Genisis gives insight and opinion that science can not. It tells us that the human race is the keeper of the planet, and it helps explain what makes man different from other animals. (Hint: we wear clothes!) Thes

    • So, yes to evolution, and yes to the account of creation given in the first chapter of Genesis, and yes to the account of creation given in the second chapter of Genesis.

      ... um, mods, how is self-contradiction "interesting"? OK, well I suppose it's interesting in the sense that it's a very, very peculiar way to think. Or rather, I suppose, doublethink, since that is literally what it is.

      Even the craziest sentence in this post --

      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the univ

      • Re:I believe in Evolution and God (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Teach ( 29386 ) * <grahamNO@SPAMgrahammitchell.com> on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @09:12PM (#15836758) Homepage
        But just because it's possible to re-encode something in your head in such a way that it makes some kind of sense....

        But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

        • God existed before anything and created everything.
        • Things appeared in a certain order: the universe, later plants, later sea creatures & birds, then land creatures and finally mankind.
        • Men are a special act of creation, unique from animals in that they're in "God's own image."

        So far, I've never learned any science that contradicts these fundamentals. Society at large used to think God created each variety of animal ex-nihilo; now the evolutionary process is commonly accepted, even by quite a lot of Christians. This "change" doesn't affect the above tenets.

        This is my viewpoint, anyway, and based on what the OP said, it's his, too. I hate to add to the offtopic-ness, but I felt like clarifying.

        • But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

          It must be very nice, just happening to be the person who knows which claims are crucial and which ones aren't.

          • It must be very nice, just happening to be the person who knows which claims are crucial and which ones aren't.

            I should confess that I think most people would only consider claims 1 & 3 to be crucial. It's just a personal belief of mine that eventually science will vindicate the order of things mentioned in the biblical creation account (claim 2), much in the same way that archaeologists finally found evidence of the existence of the Hebrew king David after centuries of claiming that no such evidence

            • It's actually not very hard to know what's important and what isn't, if you're intelligent. Can you read one of Paul Graham's essays and then of all his points, tell me which ones are crucial to his argument and which ones aren't? Sure you could.

              This is a fair point, and I owe it to you to accept it and point out that I see this as the really crucial thing in your own post. But I don't accept your claim that "there are rules for literary criticism". Within limits it holds water, yes, but it looks like yo

              • Well, bonus points for correctly using the word "exegesis". I basically agree quite a bit with your post. Here's where I take things further:

                • God (allegedly) told the Israelites to study the Scriptures. To remember them. To teach them to their children.
                • Jesus obviously knew the Scriptures very well.
                • The apostles continued to validate the importance of studying the "Old Testament", even as they wrote the new.

                So, since I believe the claims of Christianity, I must also abide by that tradition. Thus I

        • I think you need to re-read your bible.

          In the first creation story of Genesis, things occur in the order you listed.

          In the second creation story of Genesis, Man was created before the plants and animals

          So which one is it?

          • I have "re-read" the Bible. I've read it cover to cover three times, in multiple translations.

            In Genesis chapter 2, it does not say that man was created before the plants and animals. There's not much chronological language in Genesis 2, in fact. It says that "the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." (emphasis mine), which is just a reminder of the creation detailed in chapter 1.

            Which version of the Bible are you reading where Genesis 2 states or even implies that man

            • The New American Bible.

              I've also read it in other versions of the bible as well.

              If you are going off of the King James Bible, James in his infinite wisdom had it re-worded to make both creation stories consistent.

              http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis 2 .htm [nccbuscc.org]

              "Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God ha

              • The New American Bible dates from the 40s. I wouldn't consider it an extremely accurate modern translation.

                [King] James in his infinite wisdom had it re-worded to make both creation stories consistent.

                That's an interesting theory. Too bad the phrase "had formed" doesn't appear in the King James in verse 19. The verb "formed" is in the qal imperfect tense but also has the waw prefix, which mean the prefix functions grammatically as "the waw consecutive". "If two verbs are referring to the past in one

    • New King James Bible
      In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

      New International Version
      • No, that's one version in 1611 English and one in 20th century English. You'll notice that they say the same thing, just in the vernacular of the times.
        • Actually, that is incorrect also, because the older king james version did NOT use the term *water* - they used "firmament" whose meaning has been changed to indicate water. The firmament was not actually water as we see it in a pool or out of our faucet, it was water in the form of frozen ice particulates surrounding the earth, helping to isolate the earth from the rest of the universe. Light, could only come through at the poles, due to the magnetic poles and radiation belts helping to form natural hol
      • 1:1 | Daq the tagh joH'a' { Note: After "
        joH'a'," the Hebrew ghajtaH the cha'
        letters "Aleph Tav" (the wa'Dich je
        last letters vo' the
        1:1 Hebrew alphabet) as a grammatical marker. }
        created the chal je the tera'.
        1:2 | DaH the tera' ghaHta' formless
        je empty. HurghtaHghach ghaHta'
        Daq the surface vo' the de
    • More power to you, Jim. I have no problem with people of faith when they're actually using their brain. That, to me is real faith, not the pseudo faith of the fundamentalist. The kind of faith you seem to have is more of a creative mental act, much like imagination. Faith gets a bad name because of the many people who claim to have faith, when really it's a matter of being brainwashed by a dogma.

      I was going to disagree with your contention that:

      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notio

    • I think God rather play in turns just like Civilization.
    • Now stop and think a moment...

      When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

      We understood the concept of god. We understood creating something. We knew simple numbers. We understood simple concepts for measuring time, days, seasons, etc...

      If the story of creation were handed down today, I'm positive it would read differently. For one thing, we'd
      • A technical note:

        "... Thus instead of an original XY for man and XX for woman, we originally had an X and Y with a half leg extending out the lower right quadrant. When that piece was removed from the original man, and combined with another to form the first XX chromosome..."

        The "Y" chromosome is also X-shaped - and then only when the cell is dividing. The chromosomes double themselves, coagulate, and are linked to their doubles in the "middle", giving them an X-shape. When the cell is going about i

      • Thus we have the stories of the bible written in the simplistic terms of the day, instead of the meticulous scientific detail we'd like today.

        So why do some moden day people insist that a story told to Moses over 2700yrs ago is the literal truth?

        I know some people struggle to reconcile modern day science with "divinely inspired" truth, but those aren't the ones I'm talking about.

        P.S. Since the sun/moon/stars weren't created till day 4, how can anyone claim to know how long it took? It isn't like the sun was

      • Isn't god, like, all mighty? Why didn't he just make people understand instead of dumbing everything down to the point where it became pure stupidity?

      • When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

        Tell me, who "shared" the information with man? Your statement assumes a superior, or supreme, being handing out knowledge. Where did this being come from? How did that being get the information?

        Sound to me like another stupid death cult ploy. Yes, christianity is a death cult.

        • This supreme being was always there, always will be.

          If you take the hard scientific route, then nothing ever should have been.

          You can't create something out of nothing, where'd the something come from?

          Sounds to me like another stupid "science has all the answers and there is no god" ploy.

          Yes adhering to only what you can see and comprehend is stupidity in the extreme.
      • When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

        Most of us, actually. All the evidence is that humans 5000 or 40000 years ago were every bit as intelligent as we are today. They were merely ignorant, not stupid. If God had wanted them to understand, He could very well have set up a few courses in physics and explained how it all really works. Many
    • Well, the Genesis account has probably changed countless number of times. One more more times per each translation. Every translation puts someone else's spin on it, deliberately or otherwise. It only goes to show a lack of understanding of the history of religous (at least Judeo Christian) documents.

      This certainly doesn't mean that God/Jehovah/Allah doesn't exist...

      • I would like to point out that the Hebrew version hasn't changed in at least about 1,000 years, and I think the Latin and Greek are at least 800 years and 900 years respectively. These versions are still available, the reasons translations change is because the vernacular changes (and one of the reasons that the Catholic Church didn't want the Bible translated).
  • ...for the ability to reason! Go Kansas! (Until the next election that is...they've flipped their so-called standards virtually every 2 years).
  • I hope they translate it before the webcast (at least provisionally), or it's going to be rather limited interest to most people...
  • Re: the RIAA "silver bullet"....are there any /. lawyers or legal students (no armchair lawyers please) who can weigh in on the effectiveness of it, and any potential limitations it might have due to state laws?

    If this really is as big a solution as they are making it sound, then work should be done to ensure that the information gets distributed to the mainstream college students and high school students who are the main people at risk and who are the least prepared for legal problems both in knowledge and

    • Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rophuine ( 946411 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:20PM (#15836508) Homepage
      One bit of FUD being spread around is the whole "They'll be able to prove it was you when they seize your computer" crap. I haven't seen it hit /. but I've certainly seen it around the place. This isn't a criminal matter. The police aren't going to be getting search warrants and raiding your place for MP3 sharing. If the RIAA turn up at your place and try to take your laptop, call the police and have them arrested for Unauthorised Entry and Attempted Theft. The best the RIAA can do is subpoena your stuff, at which point you are required by law to provide them with copies (or possibly access to the real thing) at an actual court hearing. They can also demand copies of records you have during disclosure, if it makes it to a hearing. At the end of the day, they are going to have to be satisfied with the access YOU give them, under the terms of a court order. While I'm not suggesting you should falsify evidence (which would be a serious crime), hard drives crash all the time. Who makes regular backups, really? Do you save and keep all the logs from your wireless router? The data doesn't need to be missing. If they subpoenaed me for a list of all the MP3s on my desktop, I would happily give it to them. I keep all my MP3s on my MP3 player, not my desktop. What about all the P2P software which has ever been installed on my laptop? I have an old laptop sitting downstairs running as a router. That's the laptop they mean, right? Ultimately, the infringement they're chasing you about, and the potential gain to them, is not worth the cost of a serious investigation. Especially not when it's weighed against the potential loss of actually losing a case and setting a precedent. I say: Fight the good fight. I never used to buy music; it was burned CDs for me. I was a poor high school student. Now that I work as an engineer, I buy CDs all the time (not from Sony anymore, though). If the RIAA had bent me over and spanked me as a student, though, I'd have to wonder why I should go legit now that I can. Ultimately, the RIAA is alienating today's P2Pers who would have been tomorrow's customers. They would have ended up buying their own music, CDs as gifts, gift vouchers, iPods... But once they've been grounded for a month and banned from the internet for three because their parents had to pay a settlement to the RIAA, FORGET IT. On that note, wouldn't it be nice if America could stage a large-scale music boycott over this issue?
      • I never used to buy music; it was burned CDs for me. I was a poor high school student. Now that I work as an engineer, I buy CDs all the time...

        A college student doesn't have a whole lot to loose (a few thousand dollars of debt is just another semester of classes). A professional who has a reputation to worry about and likely has dollars in the bank has a bit more on the line. Not trying to knock down the poster of the parent, but one has to wonder: even though a lot of posters spout similar lines to the

        • what kind of habits would they have now if the RIAA never started taking action? After all, free beer is free beer.

          I would say there is _more_ chance of me infringing copyright now than there used to be, coz now I might have to download illegal copies of things that I can't buy a CD for (because they have started selling corrupt optical discs instead of CDs).
      • One bit of FUD being spread around is the whole "They'll be able to prove it was you when they seize your computer" crap. I haven't seen it hit /. but I've certainly seen it around the place. This isn't a criminal matter. The police aren't going to be getting search warrants and raiding your place for MP3 sharing. If the RIAA turn up at your place and try to take your laptop, call the police and have them arrested for Unauthorised Entry and Attempted Theft. The best the RIAA can do is subpoena your stuff...
      • I tried that same "let's boycott the entire industry" arguement once. Result? Some dick shooting down my dreams on /. with the proper use of logic: "See, your honor? All these people downloading music ARE hurting our sales." ... "The court rules in favor of the plaintiff. Court is adjourned." New precident is set: Downloading an MP3 is now in the same class of felonies as punching somebody in the face [iirc, that is a felony, right?]. Why? It 'injures' the corporate entity. (Coporations have the same rights
        • Punching someone in the face when they don't want you to is battery. Doesn't take a law degree to know that (so I'm not noting I'm not anal).
      • The fact that it isn't a criminal case isn't going to save you. When the Clams (Church of $cientology) have gone after their critics for alleged copyright infringement, they have obtained court orders to search and seize their critics' computers for infringing material.

        See http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci691.htm [skeptictank.org] for an article on the subject.

  • Wifi Routers not needed. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @07:25PM (#15836277) Homepage Journal
    Its even more common then most, since most every laptop ( and many desktops ) come with wifi built in.

    At least the courts are starting to come to their senses ( I hope ). But how does one prove you had open wifi during the time they think you did something wrong? I know personally i have mine wide open for my neighbors, but that still doesnt PROVE it.... ( i sit here now with my macmini with internet sharing going on the airport )
    • Well that's actually a great question for the legal types (you know them they preface everything with IANAL).

      If it were a criminal case (as I understand US law) you SHOULDN'T have to prove it was someone else, just introduce the reasonable doubt that it was actually you. A dynamically assigned address and an open wifi introduce a lot of doubt.

      It's up to them to prove you did it.
      This unfortunately isn't a criminal case (yet!).
      • Reasonable doubt is not the required weight of evidence in a civil matter. In civil matters, only the less strict "preponderance of evidence" is required. Therefore, the RIAA only has to show that it was likely you, not you beyond a reasonable doubt.
        • "Likely" is not the precise standard of proof that the RIAA would be required to show. Actually, a preponderance of evidence requires the plaintiff to prove that it was more probable that not that the defendant is liable. By pointing to a wide-open network IP address, the RIAA will face difficulty in proving by a preponderence that a particular user of that network was the infringer. As the plaintiff, the RIAA has both the burden of production and persuasion. Only after both of those are met is the defe
      • You can always countersue the **AA and the attorneys who filed the suit.
        Say it was a frivilous lawsuit or barratry [wikipedia.org]
        (move to get your lawsuit certified as a class action)

        Then (refuse to?) settle.

        Depending on what state you're in, claim that they intentionally inflected emotional distress [wikipedia.org] upon you. "The intent of the act need not be to bring about emotional distress. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient."

        I think that girl who got told "drop out of college to pay u

  • Tubes (Score:5, Funny)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @07:39PM (#15836332) Journal
    this comment [techdirt.com]on the page about the RIAA is a must read for those with a sense of humor. I would just copy the text, but that might be copyright infringment.
    • Aah, but according to the RIAA linking to copyrighted material (that's like when you give directions to lost souls in the tubes) is copyright infringement, you pirate, you.
  • I mentioned it a couple times [slashdot.org] since last year [slashdot.org] so I don't need to repeat myself, but I agree with that view about the small developers and media receiving a big blow out of this new E3.

    A more intimate event will weed out most of the people that didn't have any business there, but it will also pull out of the radar all those really innovative games that don't come from the big players, and the media interested in them.

    It certainly looks bad, but now look at Hollywood, there's no place for small indie films in
    • At least we can hope that with a more low key e3, we'll see a return of the booth babes. Relegating them to the private suites for "private demos" was pretty cool for the lucky few, but not fair to the rest of the poor stiffs. =)

  • PAX (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alizarin Erythrosin ( 457981 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:12PM (#15836474)
    'This is a win only for the EAs, Sonys and IGNs of the world. Everyone else has to fend for themselves.' It seems like the days of smaller developers getting noticed by 'drive by traffic' at E3 are over.

    I guess there's always the Penny Arcade Expo...

  • Root of All Evil? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rolman ( 120909 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:28PM (#15836543)
    Last year, Richard Dawkins [richarddawkins.com], of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?" [channel4.com], where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

    One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

    He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"

    Quite controversial, I recommend it very much.
    • A site that has a lot of embedded videos of material which are in the public domain happens to have the first episode of Root of All Evil? [jonhs.net]. (Thouch, since it is recent, I do wonder the copyright status of this.)

    • Re:Root of All Evil? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @10:38PM (#15837146) Journal
      Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

      In any group, whether religous or not, you will find nutjobs trying to usurp the group for their own purposes.

      The issues with Jews and Arabs would exist even if both groups were the same religon. Anti-arab and anti-semetic feelings exist among just as many non-religous groups.

      Groups like the KKK didn't claim Blacks and other non-whites followed the wrong God. They made-up their own secular reasons to justify what they already wanted to do.

      Religon is just another scapegoat for bad people that want to do bad things.

      One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

      The Catholic Church recognizes and supports "The Theory of Evolution", and has repeated condemed "The Hypothesis of Intelligent Design".

      • The Catholic Church recognizes and supports "The Theory of Evolution", and has repeated condemed "The Hypothesis of Intelligent Design".

        Condemnation isn't the right approach. The right way is to calmly explain why ID is wrong.

        Of course, it's wrong because it's a hypothesis that can't be tested.

        Hmmm ... I think I see why they don't do that.

  • Unfortunately, the photos aren't visible any longer, although one gets a good idea of the extent of the damage from the description.

    Also interesting was a link posted in the comments to the letters section [theinquirer.net] of the inquirer regarding why Li-on batteries might catastrophically fail.

  • So it's come to Kansas now (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guuge ( 719028 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:54PM (#15836683)
    There may be something of a backlash against the new direction of conservative politics in this country. Is this a sign of things to come? Is there hope that the near future will hold less politicization of religion? The optimist in me hopes that people are fed up with politicians exploiting their religious beliefs in these nonsensical confrontations with science. The fact that a pro-evolution Republican is even possible in Kansas gives me hope.

  • Straight to the classroom... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Otto-Marrakech ( 989922 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @10:18PM (#15837058)
    From watching Ken Miller's recent lecture at Case Western University (whole 2hour talk can be seen here [youtube.com]), one point really stands out for me, that for 'Intelligent Design' a supposedly non-religious packaging of creationism to be accepted, it must go through a simple process that evolution also went through;

    Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Concensus > Classroom & Textbook

    Intelligent Design proponents are doing the follow;

    Intelligent Design "Theory" > Classroom & Textbook

    If Intelligent Design supporters are so confident in their research and findings which supposedly vindicate the literal truth of the Bible, why do they skip the most important process in getting their theory accepted?

    Meanwhile we have Ken Ham already building a 25 million dollar creation science museum [youtube.com].
  • are getting old and bordering on FUD and trolling. Dell has issued recalls for batteries that might cause this problem (and power supplies but those haven't been the problems in the reported cases). Remember, keep your laptops cool by not blocking the ventilation holes, the things are already hot enough...if you haven't checked your Dell battery then please do so here [dell.com] and avoid a disaster like this.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close