Slashdot Mirror

Logically, you're not capable of voting if you're dead

Apparently that's not the case if you're from New Jersey. Voters their seem to have cast ballots from beyond the grave in previous elections.

Why vote?

Yes, we have so many roadblocks in place to stop new nuclear power plants from becoming a reality like a $500 million dollar insurance subsidy to anyone willing to build new plants with $250 Million per year for five years after, and credits for nuclear energy production...

I hope someone does something to stop them and their overhyped fears of nuclear materials, so we can start making new nuclear weapons. Everybody knows we have solved any technical issues with dangerous nuclear power production!

our laws don't permit the prosecution of someone for a crime committed outside of the country

With the notable exception for war crimes of course. And a quick look brought up other interesting examples such as PART II.1 Section 83.18(3)(c)(ii) of your Criminal Code relating to committing an offense "... an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;". Now, I'm not a Canadian lawyer but I would hazard a guess that there are more examples.

The Canadian Nazi won't be "held accountable" in Canada

And according to PART XIV on Jurisdiction, Section 481.2 says: "... where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence ... proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.".

And its unconstitutional to extradite for something that isn't an offense in Canada.

Actually that's not the whole truth after the Extradition Act of 1999 the crime no longer has to pass the same "duality test". I quote: "The new process instead requires a analysis of the alleged offense for which extradition is sought and if a similar offense prevails in Canada, ... the test will have been met".

Also extradition is probably subject to the long line of treaties with individual countries that Canada has with most the Western world at least. I found this article on the subject very interesting.

In conclusion the answer has be that it certainly appears as though Canada can prosecute crimes committed abroad however as always certain conditions have to be met. I won't press my point further as I am not familiar with Canadian law and I might also be plain wrong :)

No they are not. Humans continue to evolve. Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story

They've already got those. Heck, these vending machines can even run away.

Politkovskaya had spent most of her career in helping the victims of horrific human-rights abuses. She was their only voice in an icy land of indifference. Commenting on the murder of Politkovskaya, Putin insulted her, "The level of her influence on political life in Russia was utterly insignificant."

By contrast, Koval helped the Soviet Union to develop weapons of mass destruction. They included nuclear weapons that can incinerate millions of victims within seconds. Commenting on his death, Putin heaps lavish praise and posthumously gives him the "Hero of Russia" medal, the highest Russian award.

I am almost at a loss for words to describe my utter disgust at the Kremlin.

Politkovskaya had spent most of her career in helping the victims of horrific human-rights abuses. She was their only voice in an icy land of indifference. Commenting on the murder of Politkovskaya, Putin insulted her, "The level of her influence on political life in Russia was utterly insignificant."

By contrast, Koval helped the Soviet Union to develop weapons of mass destruction. They included nuclear weapons that can incinerate millions of victims within seconds. Commenting on his death, Putin heaps lavish praise and posthumously gives him the "Hero of Russia" medal, the highest Russian award.

I am almost at a loss for words to describe my utter disgust at the Kremlin.

For decades, most scientists believed that people with healthy immune systems had no effects from Toxoplasma. But some studies in recent years have hinted that the parasite can exert surprising effects on behavior, at least in animals.

In 2000, British scientists demonstrated that rats infected with Toxoplasma lost their fear of cats. They proposed that this strategy increased the parasite's chances of getting into its final host.

Scientists at Stanford University recently followed up on these experiments, studying rats and mice. "They actually show a mild attraction to the cat odor," said Ajai Vyas, a Stanford neurobiologist. "It's not just the loss of an old behavior. A new behavior is being induced."

The Wikipedia link discusses the problem of bringing copyright violation charges. But, even if it is released in the public domain, the problem for the publisher and author is the charge of plagiarism.

Many high-profile authors have been brought down by charges of plagiarism. They have not been sued for copyright violations but they have suffered significant consequences nonetheless. See, for example, the recent case of Kaavya Viswanathan. As such, I would think that the copyright violation angle can be pretty much ignored. It's distracting and weak. The plagiarism charge, however, could have significant consequences.

Fast forward to today. Today, the firepower of the average soldier is anywhere between a few thousand to one and a few million to one in favor of the soldier, depending on what weapons you decide the soldier has available to him. Give him nuclear weapons and it's millions to one. Meaning that the military would be able to kill anywhere from thousands to millions of civilians while losing just one soldier.

And what are the possibilities a US soldier will fire on US citizens? One or two may but I bet many more would desert if not aid civilians. Heck China couldn't even get some Red Army units to shoot protesters during the protests at Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people. Here's an article from the New York times dated 8 June 1989 saying about one army unit that was believed to be planning to attack another unit:

"On Tuesday, residents in the western part of the city cheered convoys of troops who said they were members of the 38th Army, widely believed to be planning attacks against the forces in the 27th Army, the one responsible for most of the bloodshed. The citizens even dismantled some of their barricades on the Avenue of Eternal Peace, so that the 38th Army vehicles could proceed more rapidly to the center of the city and attack the 27th. 'Can't Figure It Out"

Another NYT article, TURMOIL IN CHINA; Legions of Soldiers Encircling Beijing: Loyalty to Whom? questions the loyalty of some Red Army units. If China can't count on army units to shoot on civilians what would make anyone think US Army units would fire on US civilians, on a scale far larger than the Kent State Massacre? I know when I was I the US Army I and others in my unit would of been among those who protected civilians. No, anyone expecting the US military to shoot on US citizens demonstrating on a massive scale would learn otherwise if they were to give the orders.

Yes, you heard that right: the resistance in Iraq is a nuisance. It's not a real threat. How do I know? Simple: we're still there, and we're not budging, and any inclination on our part to leave would come as a result of us wanting to leave, not being forced to leave.

As states above what makes you think you could get away with ordering the US Military to fire on US citizens? If I had been ordered to fire on US civilians by a commanding officer I'd have been more likely to shoot the officer. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq now and I bet he wouldn't follow such an order either.

Fast forward to today. Today, the firepower of the average soldier is anywhere between a few thousand to one and a few million to one in favor of the soldier, depending on what weapons you decide the soldier has available to him. Give him nuclear weapons and it's millions to one. Meaning that the military would be able to kill anywhere from thousands to millions of civilians while losing just one soldier.

And what are the possibilities a US soldier will fire on US citizens? One or two may but I bet many more would desert if not aid civilians. Heck China couldn't even get some Red Army units to shoot protesters during the protests at Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people. Here's an article from the New York times dated 8 June 1989 saying about one army unit that was believed to be planning to attack another unit:

"On Tuesday, residents in the western part of the city cheered convoys of troops who said they were members of the 38th Army, widely believed to be planning attacks against the forces in the 27th Army, the one responsible for most of the bloodshed. The citizens even dismantled some of their barricades on the Avenue of Eternal Peace, so that the 38th Army vehicles could proceed more rapidly to the center of the city and attack the 27th. 'Can't Figure It Out"

Another NYT article, TURMOIL IN CHINA; Legions of Soldiers Encircling Beijing: Loyalty to Whom? questions the loyalty of some Red Army units. If China can't count on army units to shoot on civilians what would make anyone think US Army units would fire on US civilians, on a scale far larger than the Kent State Massacre? I know when I was I the US Army I and others in my unit would of been among those who protected civilians. No, anyone expecting the US military to shoot on US citizens demonstrating on a massive scale would learn otherwise if they were to give the orders.

Yes, you heard that right: the resistance in Iraq is a nuisance. It's not a real threat. How do I know? Simple: we're still there, and we're not budging, and any inclination on our part to leave would come as a result of us wanting to leave, not being forced to leave.

As states above what makes you think you could get away with ordering the US Military to fire on US citizens? If I had been ordered to fire on US civilians by a commanding officer I'd have been more likely to shoot the officer. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq now and I bet he wouldn't follow such an order either.

Will Success, or That Google Money, Spoil Firefox?

Really? Lots of old toys in North America were lead containing (lil toy soldiers and miniature come to my mind). It was what, only 1977 Washington banned lead in toy paints?

Weird that you're reading them differently...lead recall seems to be their (china) faux-pas as it was the paint suppliers who had fake-free lead paint. The thing that Mattel is apologising for is the other 85% or so that were design issues (like tiny magnets).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/business/worldbusiness/21cnd-toys.html?pagewanted=all

China is (trying) suing because of libel: they claim that Mattel's wording and such has created people who suddenly believe 'Made in China' is synonymous for 'dangerous product' and 'health hazard'.

No clue where you're coming from or going with the date rape line though...Rohypnol is Euro in origin, and prevalent in use all over (disgustingly).

Hopefully this will also put an end to those pesky MRI accidents. Not that they're common, but still, those things aren't toys.

* The phone is programmed to check mail and deliver revenue to your service provider even when it is "off"

This is bollocks.

Kennedy after the Democrats swiftboated his first choice, Robert Bork

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Alas, the facts have a well known liberal bias and when they don't, we'll just ignore them to slam Bush and conservatives anyway. Cognitive dissonance FTW!

And that well known bias whoops your ass.

John Madden cancels the licensing agreement, and we have to have Marv Albert NFL.

Boy, that would bite!

Mod up please. This is why the Chinese manufacturers are getting in trouble. They are substituting cheaper, UNSAFE alternatives into commonly produced goods and then sending them off. The sad part is, the number of injuries and deaths we see in the U.S. and other countries, is *nothing* compared to the the number injuries and death suffered by the Chinese consumer. Their quality assurance for manufacturing is just NOT THERE! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/world/asia/08china.html?fta=y

If your Web browser can't play Flash videos, it should just say so. It should not say, "Make sure the path and file name are correct and that all the required libraries are available." (Insert your own joke here about double-checking the local public library's operating hours.)

For a good review of the latest Windows Mobile version 6 on state of the art hardware, see the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/technology/personaltech/08pogue.html?ref=business

I especially like his simple list of suggestions to Microsoft to fix severe usability problems such as: 'If it takes four presses on the More button just to see everything in the Start menu -- and you provide no direct way to get to the first page from the last -- you need to redesign.'

And... '...over all, it's a shame that such bloated, baffling software runs a phone whose hardware is so close to perfect.'

My theory is that the yellow-car paragraph was inserted into the story by a wayward computer to generate visits to the NY Times' health guide entry on flatulence through the gratuitous auto-hyperlink on the word "gas" in this sentence:

"Why did we evolve with brains that salute our shrewdness for buying the neon yellow car with bad gas mileage?"

Oh, Computers! So naughty, and so complex!

No Ron Paul doesn't want Roe V Wade overturned to make it law a woman has to carry a fetus 'til birth, the USA Constitution says nothing about it and since it doesn't the 10th amendment leaves it to the states or the people.

If you will recall the issue ended up in the SC because the states already decided to ban it. In 70s. In NY (the liberal state mentioned above).

If I recall right the SC overturned state laws outlawing abortion on a privacy basis. The First Amendment says people have the right to remain anonymous, though not directly. Instead it's based on the right to free speech, if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then (s)he can't exercise free speech for fear of repercussions. Though I don't recall the year or case in the 1810s a SC made a ruling using this reasoning in the decision. I think John Marshall was the Chief Justice. Since then there have been other SC rulings along the same vein, the last one before Roe V Wade in 1969.

Looking for the case John Marshall heard, I stumbled across this article: "Ron Paul: Take abortion out of federal courts". Here's another about the SC taking up a case on anonymity, in 2001: Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Revisit Anonymity In Door-to-Door Canvassing. Unfortunately after spending more than an hour I haven't refound any of the cases as related to anonymity and abortion yet. I guess I should buy some external hdds to use as backups.

As for me, I believe abortion should be legal. I don't believe government should have in the books or pass any law restricting what people do with their own bodies, whether that's having an abortion, taking drugs, or ending their life, ie committing suicide.

Frank Gehry is so over. MIT should have hired Zaha Hadid:

Hadid's Performing Arts Center, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Hadid's Herault Culture Sport Building, Montpellier, France

Rising star Hadid (a Rem Koolhaas protege) is turning science fiction dreams into real buildings. Tell me you wouldn't want to see one of her biomorphic, otherworldly sci-fi spaceships land on the boring campus of MIT. Instead they spent $300 million on some cartoon prisons that leak.

Takeaway point: Stop letting computer scientists choose architects.

I'm getting my son EU citizenship and teaching him French. Hopefully that's enough to ease his transition to a new continent.
Not to rain on your parade, but you should also teach him how to make smores from the car fires as France tries to assimilate its immigrant population.

It may seem like an unrepresentative, contrived example, but it isn't. The numbers are dramatic, (rounded up for effect, I believe) but not unheard of, especially in the context of a bidding war. Even with those numbers it still holds true. If you're an American Idol winner or similar pop robot, the numbers are even worse. Maybe it sounds like a contrived example because it should be.

I don't see where she said that the fictional band lost there writing and performance royalties, but the publishing royalties (and future royalties of derivative works) are kept by the label. The publishing share is typically 50% of royalties. It's rare that the masters (and control over publishing) return to the artist. It happens most often when an artist hits superstar status, if they negotiate for it. Some artists have been re-recording old material specifically to have better access to publishing revenue from films, commercials, and other sources http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/arts/music/18old.html?pagewanted=all. But for the great majority, once you've written it the label owns it and controls it forever. There's even legal foundation for a suit if you write material while under contract, keep it, and release it later for a different medium or label.

They own your rights throughout the Universe, anyway. Just in case.

There is change happening, and some labels share the risks and rewards better with the artists than these examples describe. But the majors are still lumbering along like drunken, hungry dinosaurs.

I prefer Steve Albini's old piece - it's a shorter read - but it makes the same points. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html To paraphrase his last line, some of my friends are indeed already this fucked. And if you're interested in the homework, you may appreciate Janis Ian's viewpoint as well: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html. She talks more about downloading than contracts, but she makes the same points in the end. (And it's topical to the Radiohead story.)

Illegal aliens getting legal drivers' licenses and NY state tax payers becoming unwilling participants in the RealID program...

What a shame...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/nyregion/29real.html

Record companies often SCREW the bands on contract.

Dude, producers, sound engineers, and all those folks don't all work for the record companies.

Front money? How many record company contracts have you seen? And how much does a record company actually advance on royalties for anyone but a superstar?

Marketing: yes, that's true. Of course, it's less true now than it was fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago, there were record stores, and people actually listened to the radio. Well, they killed record stores, and nobody listens to music on the radio anymore anyway.

Record companies are only now getting into the tour bus business, because that's the only part of the industry making money. That is not traditionally what record companies do. That's what band managers do, and for most recording artists, that's still what managers do.

Top-of-the-line instruments? Dude, you mean like Nikes and stuff?

So, no, I say your understanding of the music industry clashes with mine. But you do point the way forward: out of the hands of old "CD and lawsuit" companies and into the control of groups and individuals (within the current record companies, or outside them) with influence on the market as it currently is. And, with the internet, it currently is more segmented and more regional than it's been in a long time. Radio DJs are all but irrelevant; MTV? When was the last time they showed music? And yet the record companies still insist on making $2M videos? The current arbiters of music fashion and taste are those people who've been supporting recorded music since its advent, but have never been under the control of the music industry: your buddy who makes the mix tape, the club DJ, your little hoodrat friend who's been "saving it for the scene". The "industry leading" recording studios aren't worth it for most musicians: they can get a "good enough" job done in someone's house in the Meadowlands. The "music people" and their cocaine only harmed Rock-n-Roll to begin with.

So no, the Reagan 80s were not a glory period for music. As the saying goes, I survived the 80s one time already...

Many people believe that patenting drugs shouldn't be allowed, what should be allowed are patents on the method of making the drug.

It's a problem, and it's happened before:

http://www.nationwidespeakers.com/speakers/jerri_nielsen.htm

and another story of the same person:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DF1E3CF930A25754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

NY Times had an article "In India, Poverty Inspires Technology Workers to Altruism" that discussed how social networking sites had huge economic potential for the impoverished in India. I don't have much use for myspace, but social networking via the internet could have profound impact.

Instead of reading a *summary* of a New York Times article, here it is.

That article mentions high-powered jammers and specifically one restaurant owner who paid $1000 to install one so he could keep his employees working instead of gabbing on their cell phone.

It may be illegal in the USA to actively jam cell-phone signals, but as far as I know, there's no law prohibiting someone from passively jamming signals; see: Faraday Cage:

Hmmm, I wonder if aluminum siding would be effective?

First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.

Read

I already know the story quite well.

Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.

There was no authority.

That is an opinion, not fact. You are expressing the opinion -- assuming you know what you are talking about -- that the only authority could have come from Congress, which is what is precisely in question.

The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004

Nope. Absolutely false. That shows a dramatic lack of understanding about how executive authority works. If something is legal just because the AG signs a piece of paper, then it is legal just because the President tells someone to do it, too. The only authority the AG has comes from the President via the Constitution, and there is no requirement in the Constitution for how that authority is expressed: through a signature, through an executive order, through an offhanded remark at breakfast, through delegation to an inferior.

There's only two options: either it was illegal because it required Congressional authorization, or it falls under Executive authority and was therefore legal.

There's a difference between legal, and proper, however. It's generally considered improper to bypass the Attorney General, but if you're the President, it's perfectly legal. Read Article II again. The very first words. "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Not some of the power. All of it. That's what the definite article necessarily means.

Note that I am not making the argument that the AG's signature makes anything legal, or that Bush's saying so does so. I am just saying that the Constitution quite clearly and necessarily means that all executive authority belongs ultimately to the President, and that there is no formal mechanism for him to express that authority.

I have been saying since the wiretapping first became public that I am skeptical that the Executive actually has this authority. But that is the only question here.

And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.)

That is, of course, a straw man. No one is claiming the President can break the law. The question is twofold: whether this law is a Constitutional limit on the power of the executive, and whether the President has the legal authority to ignore that law if so. So if Congress passes a law that says the President is not allowed to commute Scooter Libby's sentence (over his veto, of course), is Bush breaking the law by then doing so? Perhaps, but he has every right to do so in my opinion, because Congress passed an unconstitutional law.

This is, of course, debatable. You could argue that the law is not unconstitutional (well, not in the Libby case, but in the wiretapping case certainly), and you could argue that even if it is, the President should be bound by it. The former case is far more convincing than the latter, but they are both debatable.

The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.

I never said there was. You're confused. I didn't say the government COULD NOT prosecute them. I said it is foolish to hold them responsible. If I were going to make an executive power argument, I would say the government has no authority or right to prosecute, and I never implied any such thing.

First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.

Read

Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.

There was no authority. The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004, and, at best, resumed being legal two to three weeks later. (Although there are indications that it lasted a good deal longer than that, too.) But there is a span of time that the program was flatly, indisputably, operated illegal.

This is, of course, assuming that the AG's signature made the problem legal, which it probably didn't, but it at least gave the telecoms some sort of defense. Without it, for that span of time, they are completely and totally fucked in court.

And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.) The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.

And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.

Yeah, I'm lying about that, because that's really hard to check that his 1999-2004 donations had no telecoms at or over $10,000, whereas his 2001-2006 donations had AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn suddenly show up and donate over $12,000 each, a total of $50,000.

Admittedly, I was wrong about the dates. I should have said '$100 from each in 2004'. (Or 2005, I don't know why they don't break each year out.) Looks like the bribery started sooner than I thought.

But Mr. Obama sometimes seemed ambivalent about the law. In his 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father," he wrote that the law could be "a sort of glorified accounting that serves to regulate the affairs of those who have power -- and that all too often seeks to explain, to those who do not, the ultimate wisdom and justness of their condition."

[Frank is giving his summation to the jury]
Frank Galvin: You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law. But today you are the law. You ARE the law. Not some book... not the lawyers... not the, a marble statue... or the trappings of the court. See those are just symbols of our desire to be just. They are... they are, in fact, a prayer: a fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, "Act as if ye had faith... and faith will be given to you." IF... if we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves. And ACT with justice. See, I believe there is justice in our hearts.
[he sits down]

Check your tax return. Making a cash donation means 100% of the money goes to your intended recipient, and it's tax deductible so you get a considerable discount on the donation. Money being fungible, your donatation effectively took that money away from the legislature's control at large and re-directed it where you think it should go. Colorado's yield from the lottery is less than 33% of sales (pdf warning, 2003 balance sheet is on page 25).

Staying with the Colorado example. For every dollar spent on lotto tickets, the expected payout is 50 cents, less 15 cents income tax due on the winnings (assuming 25% marginal tax rate to the IRS and 5% flat tax to the state; your tax rates may vary depending on where you live and where you buy the lotto tickets). You expect to pay 65 cents net to deliver less than 33 cents to the intended recipient, about 50% of what you spend.

Instead of buying a lotto ticket, why not make a cash donation? For every dollar you donate, the recipient gets the entire $1--three times more than a dollar spent on lotto. Your donation is tax deductible, so that same 30% tax rate means your net cost is only 70 cents. The recipient gets more than 140% of your net expenditure. Yes, donations are more than four times as effective as lotto games for funding eductaion.

Besides, you are more likely to die in a traffic accident driving to the store to buy a ticket than to win the grand prize.

"The only way to wwin--is not to play!",/i>

As a matter of fact, yes.

Um, the crap that you're spreading was about *Paramount* dumping Blu-Ray, not "Panasonic". (Panasonic still supports BR (foolishly IMO, since 95% of BR players sold are Sony PS3s, while Panasonic and the others are left to fight for the remaining 5%).)

I skimmed your link but didn't find any reference the NYT story that you say "the NY Times is sticking to". Rather, I saw a bunch of BR fanboys in tears, blaming Microsoft for their troubles. The NYT story to which you refer is Two Studios to Support HD-DVD Over Rival
The story cites two unnamed Viacom execs as saying that Paramount received 150 million dollars in financial incentives to dump BR for HD-DVD, but they don't say who the source of the financial incentives is. The same story goes on to *quote* *named* Microsoft VP Amir Majidimehr as denying speculation that Microsoft was the source of any such financial incentives (he said that while it may be that someone paid off Paramount, it wasn't Microsoft). The NYT "sticking to its story" doesn't say much, since the NYT didn't accuse Microsoft of anything. One could just as easily say that the NYT is sticking to its story that Microsoft didn't pay off Paramount, since their story has nobody accusing Microsoft of such and has Microsoft denying speculation of such.

Besides Microsoft VP Amir Majidimehr, Microsoft's Kevin Collins also went on the record saying that Microsoft made no payments to get Paramount to dump BR.
Microsoft Responds to Bill Hunts claims of a buyout

Microsoft's version of the story has since been proven correct.
Blu-Ray fanboy Bill Hunt, the primary spreader of the "Microsoft paid off Paramount" story, admitted that he was in the wrong:
Oopsie! Bill Hunt does a mea culpa. Now can the conspiracy theories stop?

The idea that Microsoft paid Paramount to dump BR was something that BR fanboys grasped onto (glossing over the fact that Sony did pay off Target to cease stocking HD-DVD players on the shelves).

This is not an attack on any group. it is just a reminder that our enemy is religious extremism in any form, and not just those that the extreme religious right might label terrorist. It is science, innovation, and a willingness to take risks that have gotten the US to where it is. We have safety, but we also have risk. For instance, we support research on biological agents even though there is a significant risk. Such research is critical. We allow guns even though guns can pose a risk. We allow drunk drivers to drive again, even though there is a risk. The later is a real eye opener. It is likely that, in the United States, more innocent persons are killed in one year from alcohol related accidents than in the past 10 years of terrorist attacks. In the face of this we spend perhaps half a trillion dollars on the foreign terrorists, but then let these domestic drunk terrorist go free.

We are heading into a dark age in the US. An age where we crawl into our shells, cowards who are to scared to create. As dangerous as it was, I had a real chemistry set when I was a kid, and the familiarity allowed me to excel at classes that others did not. None of the stuff was foreign to me. Just like we give kids toy kitchen sets, and toy guns, and toy cars, and toy phones, so that when they have the real thing that will not be afraid, we must also give the toy science devices. As as they get older, and the kitchen and the gun and the cars get more real, so must the science. Even to the point of a full lab for the home schooler that wants the kid to have a broad education.

Actually, it is the membranes that hold the seeds that contain most of the "heat".

"Capsaicin (pronounced cap-SAY-iss-in) is a powerful chemical present in hot peppers that irritates certain nerves in the human nose and mouth. It is most highly concentrated in a hot pepper's central membrane, which holds the seeds."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DD1E39F93BA35752C1A96F948260

"The hotter the pepper, the more capsaicin it contains, most of it concentrated in the membrane or rib. Removing both this membrane and the seeds can significantly reduce the overall heat level"
http://www.sallys-place.com/food/columns/ferray_fiszer/peppers.htm

"It is going to forestall Facebook's ability to get everyone writing just for Facebook," said a person with knowledge of the plans who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the alliance. The group's platform, which is called OpenSocial, is "compatible across all the companies," that person said. "Facebook got the jump by announcing the Facebook platform and getting the traction they got. This is an open alternative to that," the person also said.

My user name on Wikipedia (and Citizendium) is my real name. My first edits to Wikipedia were on neo-Nazis and Scientology.

Considering you can be put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts in certain countries in Europe, I would be very, very careful what you write on those subjects.

This is not theoretical -- people can, and are, put in jail for writing the wrong things in supposedly free countries in Western Europe.

Who do you think is going to pay to rewire (wallfish/snake, rip up walls) these bulk places so that each unit can be turned on/off by its self?
Thats right. You!


In some places the wire inside a building becomes the property of the landlord. As such the in place wireing to the closet can be re-used for another provider. The original installer often claims otherwise. Check your local area to see if you have a ruling in your market.

"There are still ongoing battles about this and battles about how precisely do you wire multifamily buildings. There are arguments about interconnection and who owns the wires inside the building. "
From; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E7DA1731F932A15750C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

The short story is in some places it is legal to bring in a second provider and re-use the building wire the cable company installed giving each resident a choice of providers. In other markets, a second redundant set of wires needs to be installed. This extra cost to the compettition is what the incumbant cable company is counting on.

www.fanwing.com

From NY Times
When you first see the FanWing, you think: there's no way that thing is going to fly. After all, it looks less like an airplane than a big, lumbering combine harvester that has somehow strayed from its wheat field. It has a hollow cylinder where its wings ought to be, and when it trundles down the runway, it moves barely faster than a bicycle. But then it lifts off, angles up and -- whoa -- soars up into the sky.

Also, Wikipedia