See, your summary makes it perfectly clear: obviously he didn't feel like being pulled over at the time, so if the cops had just let him go instead of infringing on his right to not be pulled over (and thus violating his right to drive drunk), everything would have been fine... ...oh yeah, what were we talking about? Browser speeds or something?

1999 suicide rates per WHO:

(per 100,000)
JAPAN...M: 36.5 F: 14.1
US..........M: 17.6 F: 4.1
UK.........M: 11.8 F: 3.3

My take on these stats: honor is not taken lightly in Japan, and females just want attention, not the sweet release of death.

And how would this be different from the old legal standard?

Okay in a way I was being facetious, but I kind of had a point: an action is supposed to be considered a crime because it somehow hurts someone. All those things you mentioned don't hurt anyone and therefore shouldn't be crimes (except for copyright infringement, but I know you're not talking about REAL copyright infringement, you're talking about downloading music, which for now I'd rather not address). These laws have a place only in certain situations (for example, there is no reason you should have to wait for the light to turn green if there's not a car around for miles) but law enforcement uses them to punish people as often as they can.

And as far as the damn cameras go, imagine if you couldn't run a red light (after stopping, of course) in the middle of the night or walk across the street when there are no cars coming, for fear of the government seeing you and sending you a ticket in the mail.

The financial crisis is the government's fault, not really the banks'. And it isn't because of lack of legislation. It's because they print money at will that has no intrinsic value. It's not backed by gold or silver, it's just debt. Such a system is bound to collapse, and the banks handing out loans like hookers hand out VD just pushed it over the edge.

We already have a policy in place for legal, recreational drug use: alcohol.
 
You can buy and use as much as you want, do it at home or at a bar, but you can't drive on it. And if you do something stupid under the influence, you generally face the same penalties as if you'd done it sober. I don't know how insurance companies treat alcoholics, but as long as healthcare remains privatized, they are free to cover whomever they wish (to an extent... no racism, sexism, that kind of thing) and the government doesn't much have a say in it. Now if we go to national healthcare that'd be different.
 
There is no reason to think we couldn't legalize other drugs and treat them the same way. In some ways I think highly addictive drugs should be made illegal, but on the other hand, an adult should be allowed to do what they want. And hell, cigarettes are legal. But I think it's easy for a drug dealer to abuse addictive substances by getting unwitting victims hooked, so perhaps there should be some regulation. But not for pot, of course.

The problem with these cameras is A) it costs a lot of money and doesn't really make a difference (the small problem) and B) It's a significant step toward loss of liberties and privacy (the big problem). Once the cameras are already there, it becomes a lot easier for the government to pass and enforce a law which makes something everyone does on a regular basis illegal, something we think is absurd now but in 10 years will be expected. Then, once everyone gets used to a camera being on every street corner, they'll be much more willing to accept them in their homes, which is the government's ultimate goal. The idea that they're doing this to protect us is absurd. They're already aware of the fact that the cost-effectiveness of using cameras to prevent crime is practically zero, and usually they aren't very effective at assisting prosecution either.
 
This whole thing is bs.

If you commit a crime and no one notices, how is it really a crime?

It's a trap!!!

I really don't think this will damage bt that much though, even if they do lose. There are still other countries people can hide servers in. And if this does spell the end for bt, or even hinder it severely, I suspect a lot of people will go back to Gnutella until a less centralized replacement emerges.

Yeah that was my point. Just wait. Next, they'll be suicide-bombing churches.

At least somebody has the balls to stand up to these atheist assholes. I have to work with one and he never shuts up about how he thinks there is no God, it's like he's obsessed or something.

They don't have to be curious. The Galactic Supreme Council holds earth in the lowest regard, and they don't want us finding about them!

Actually, digital requires a much lower SNR to work. That's why when cellphones went digital, they went from transmitting at 3 watts to transmitting at .6 watts. With digital, the receiver only has to tell whether it's receiving a 1 or 0. With analog, it has to determine the phase between a number of possible points, which makes it more susceptible to interference.
 
This thread has been largely about digital vs analog, but I don't think that's relevant to the topic. The technology this system is geared toward is already mostly digital. Also, if you RTFA, you can see that they're not talking about polarization (which, now that I think about it, seems like a good idea), what they're describing is transmitting the wave over an array of antennas, each with a phase offset from the previous antenna. By modifying the phase of the antenna array, they can essentially create a wave within a wave. How much bandwidth this nested wave will have, or how they plan on decoding it, wasn't mentioned.

I'm sure your tree farm is doing just fine, but are you aware of how many corporations cut down forests full of diverse deciduous species and replant the whole area with pine trees? Also, a lot of times no one at all replants after logging.

I think he was saying was that many of the trees that are cut down are hundreds of years old, and having both old and new trees is important to the ecosystem. Also, there is no question as to whether deforestation wipes out whole species.

Most people don't create or preserve a forest on their own property for an economic incentive. Perhaps you do because you're in the paper business, but I don't think our economy would crumble if everyone stopped printing off emails today.

Of course solar cells don't save trees, but they do mean one less drain on the power supply, which means less carbon in the air, which is overall good for everybody. The phones are made of recycled plastic, not recycled paper, so I don't see how that's relevant here.

Optional accessory: a 15,000-candlepower indoor floodlight pointed in the corner for hi-speed recharge, day or night!