They'll also send a W2.

For someone who agrees with his overall point, it missed your head by a mile or two. Try looking up the definition of 'asynchronous'.

His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable. My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

I'm convicted of committing a crime that I did not commit. During the legal process I am questioned and, because I have no right to remain silent, I must tell the investigators/prosecution/whomever that I did not do it (truth). That denial is then used against me during sentencing because I 'lied' and thus I receive a harsh sentence.

In a world in which I have the right to remain silent, I say nothing during the legal process. While I'm still incorrectly found guilty, I have no denial on which to pin a lie and therefore am sentenced more lightly.

Careful, that arbitrary Crayola is a bitch to get out of clothing.

Shame that a book can also be an 'entertainment product'. But we don't need to defend those, do we?

At this scale? That'd be interesting.

+1

I'd love an upgrade to my precious Kindle Keyboard 3G.

Please AC, provide an alternative that isn't merely a synonym of either of those words.

One word: patents.

I'll no doubt get modded down for this, but why can't it be a new product category? Why does everything have to be considered either a laptop or a iPad?

What about all the identity theft that happens? Or online bullying? Wouldn't it be easier just to ban tech devices entirely? Would that satisfy your odd urge for knee-jerk regulation?

Because there are no phony identities on Facebook or anything.

Crap. I only thought I was posting as AC. Doh! :)

And ignores the fact that once published, there's no reliable corrective mechanism to propagate those results down beyond a standard literature search. I'm posting as AC because quite a few years ago I published results that I believed at the time to be correct, but were shown to be wrong in a subsequent paper. Despite this, I'm *still* being cited in new papers while the paper that refuted mine is seldom cited. Science isn't some infallible field. We make mistakes; Sometimes those mistakes are accidental, sometimes they're sloppy, and yes, sometimes they're even intentional. That doesn't reduce the validity of science, but it requires us to be more vigilant.

This. +4 million

Or that fewer younger players are being inducted.