Except that there are ways I *could* care less, but they'd involve effort that makes the status quo level of caring best.

For example, I could care less about how the Seahawks were doing, but to do so, I'd have to go on vacation to some place where I'd never inadvertently catch a glimpse of them on TV. Somewhere tropical. That seems like a lot of work to lessen the amount of care I have about a subject, but it's certainly possible to say "I could care less" and mean "this is not even worth the effort that I would have to spend to stop caring as little as I currently do."

Where's the official statement? A quick search didn't return anything to that effect.

How are you going to use GPS in space?

http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/galen-gruman?page=1

Not exactly an unbiased source. Apple fanboy all the way.

It's based neither on "creaky old CE" nor "completely new kernel". It's based on Windows CE 6.x+

Perhaps, but I think it's important to consider the usage ratio. That is, if I drive the second scenario car more than 5x as often as the first, then it makes sense to replace it. Plus, it will likely wear out quicker due to the higher miles. The question being asked seems fundamentally flawed, as it's positing an either/or scenario when a better question would be to focus on the comparison as it relates to actual usage, not as it compares to driving both cars over a fixed distance. That is, it says "either you drive the 10mpg car or the 33mpg car every day for 280 miles per week" versus the more realistic "you commute in the 33mpg car five days a week for 240 miles, and use the 10mpg car twice a week for 40 miles to do some weekend errands."

Theism: deals with belief
Gnosticism: deals with knowledge

Agnostic atheist: I do not believe in any gods, but I don't think I can prove all possible gods non existence (most atheists - even Dawkins - fall into this category, because we acknowledge one could define "god" to be meaningless, yet impossible to prove/disprove)
Gnostic atheist: I do not believe in any gods, and I think I can prove any god presented as false
(few and far between are actually like this)

Gnostic theist: I believe in (a/some) god(s), and can prove his existence
(Descartes)
Gnostic Atheist: I believe in (a/some) god(s), but don't think I can prove his existence
(most believers)

So you're saying that people should stock up on Mosin Nagants from their local Big 5 for $100 each after tax?

"High-powered rifles" being universally banned my ass.

Biggest issue I foresee with ebooks is that, currently, none of them handle math symbols correctly. Imagine trying to read an economics text or calculus text without proper mathematical formatting. If you can't, check out the Nook for an example of how it looks. Fractions, even at the biggest text size, are smaller than 1/8" and almost entirely unreadable. Sigma notation looks like gobbledygook.

Until that is fixed, I don't see any school adopting ebooks, much less a technical one.

And is often the best way to get the job done.

Why are you looking at me like that?

Please actually take the time to read the statutes. The parent stated "in most states you can be required to state your name."

Note that that is far from true, generally a crime is required. The standard is very similar to Terry v. Ohio:
Alabama - A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

Arizona - A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

Colorado - 1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

etc

The important part is that in most states you cannot be compelled to state your name unless it is under circumstances that have clearly articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe indicate imminent criminal behavior.

Not sovereign, but qualified immunity. They can and do lose that protection when they violate clearly established conduct:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

Not most states, only 24 have stop & identify statutes.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

Because iPad doesn't sound like a female sanitary product?

They're only worth 1 point, why bother?