Not really; thanks to RADAR, modern anti-aircraft weapons are just as effective at night as they are during the day. The only aircraft that benefit from a night attack would be stealth craft, and only if they're flying low enough to be spotted visually.

You claim that's "Moral Relativism?" That statement was made from a Utilitarian standpoint, which states that the "action that would result in the greatest good" is the best action to take. The embryos being used for stem-cell research are mostly leftovers from IVF, so when it comes to choosing between simply discarding the embryo or using it for medicine, the better choice is obvious.

Interesting... You're suggesting arguing that there is an implied-in-fact patent license. I could certainly see how that could be the case.

There would also be the inevitable backups, caches, and the like that contain your personal data. It would be completely unreasonable to require Facebook to hunt through their daily/monthly/yearly backups (many of which would be off-site,) and delete the data of every user that decides to remove their account. In that context, the TOS change was merely a protective measure.

People that do their own mixing are a very small percentage of total computer users. If it means getting a larger slice of the digital media pie, I'm sure Microsoft would gladly give up that market.

Besides, if big-name movies and music were only available through Microsoft's media distribution software, which is only available on Windows Seven, most people would have at least one Windows Seven computer. Even the people that do their own mixing; they'd probably have an audio workstation running Linux (because Mac OS seems to be cramming DRM in as well,) and a media-center running Windows.

And before people start arguing that it would be hard for Microsoft to compete with iTunes: Remember that the record labels want Apple to increase the DRM restrictions. I'm sure they'd jump ship fast if another company offered a product with the same capabilities and market penetration (a player that comes pre-installed on Windows computers would meet this part,) and more of the DRM that they want so badly.

Here's my analysis of the situation: Microsoft isn't putting these features in at the demand of the RIAA/MPAA. They're putting them in to try to get a leg up on the competition. Media is increasingly becoming digital; music/movie download sites, streaming content, etc. Microsoft realizes this. So they decided to build the most appealing (to the RIAA/MPAA) content distribution platorm. This meant locking everything down at the OS level, so that users "cannot under any circumstances" copy the content. Of course, this isn't going to stop the hard-core pirates, who will always find a way around it. The only way to stop the copying of music and movies is to fully plug the analog hole, which is absolutely impossible without some sort of brain-computer interface that streams the content directly into the viewer's skull.

I'd assume that both of the subs were using passive sonar, probably towed-arrays. You typically don't go active unless you're already in a shooting fight and need the best possible firing solution against a threat that's running silent. I don't know if Boomers have passive sonar as good as that of an attack submarine, but it's probably pretty close. All this incident proves is that the engineers did their jobs well and made the sub nearly undetectable by passive means.

Actually, we were working on reduced-RCS designs earlier than that. The Lockheed A-12 OXCART and it's successor, the SR-71 Blackbird, were both reduced-RCS aircraft designs. Petr Ufimtsev, the Russian scientist you were talking about, developed a mathematical framework to predict the reflections of lasers. The Soviets informed him that it was useless, and allowed his work to be published internationally because they were deemed to be of no economic or military value. It was the engineers at Lockheed's Skunk Works, who were already working on reduced-RCS designs, that realized Ufimtsev's work could assist in the design of stealth aircraft.

IIRC, current nuke development is going towards shrinking the devices and minimizing fallout.

Same here! I'm naming boxes after the Greek pantheon at the moment.

You're not in control of the actual network infrastructure, which is what Net Neutrality is all about. The whole point of the Net Neutrality debate is that the companies that are in control of the wires are starting to discriminate against companies that aren't. Remember the the ISP (I think it was comcast,) that was filtering VoIP providers that competed with their own offerings? Without net neutrality, that kind of thing will only become more common place. As it is now, there are very few incentives for an ISP to not filter low to no cost options that compete with their own offerings, and many incentives for them to do just that.

Whatcha talkin 'bout Willis?

Wow, I accidentally post as AC (used Konqueror this time instead of Firefox and forgot I'm not set to auto-login,) and still get rated to +3 Interesting.

Anyway, I'll just toss in a personal anecdote here. I used to work at a Radioshack when I was in high school (I know, bad reputation, but the one I worked at was a franchise, not corporate, and actually hired competent people.) For a while, they offered a locked-down internet appliance, which ran WinCE on an AMD Geode platform. The original device was developed for 'emerging markets,' which is exactly what the XO is aimed at, so it was simple, affordable, rugged, and offered basic Web, Email, and Office capability. It worked with most major internet providers, including dial up. It did everything the average user requires. But, here's the kicker; it could only install specially-signed applications. They were only available through download, and the selection was incredibly limited. This was the limiting factor; it made the net appliances virus-free, but nobody liked the fact that they couldn't install their own software on it.

I was a nerd, even back then, so I understood the problems that can occur when an undereducated person gets their hands on a Windows XP computer. I'd try to sell these little appliances to all the grandmas and grandpas that came into our store shopping for a computer. I'd explain all of the virtues of the system. Then, if they were bright, they'd ask if they could install their Kodak EasyShare software or whatever on it. I'd have to answer no. So these people would end up buying a full-fledged computer, then never using it.

I managed to sell a few, but most of them came back. People would get home, then figure out that they couldn't install the "Super Video Poker 3" that they downloaded off the internet. Or they'd get some cheap, off-brand scanner or camera and couldn't use it because the device didn't have a driver for it and the third-party one couldn't be installed. Or any number of other issues. Then the thing was put back in the box and returned. The return rate on this computer was so bad that Radio Shack discontinued it. And it looks like the gPC, and even the Linux version of the eeePC, are going to go the same way. They'll remain what they are now: A niche market.

It looks like the "Linux/Mac fanboys" aren't the ones with the angst problem...

Don't you mean Tang?