It also went from 4 AA to 2 AAA batteries, but got better battery life (iirc).

That example seems a little fucked up. In a country that (supposedly) guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, I would think that simply seeing a gun would be insufficient evidence to justify seizing said gun on the basis of unlawful possession.

Your state requires a doctor to flip the figurative/literal switch? I thought in all states that had the death penalty, the doctor was only present to certify that the person was, in fact, dead, and that it was a non-doctor performing the actual execution.

If said right winger believes we were designed, just pose this question to them.

"Then why did God design us this way?"

Less messy, plus chemicals appear more humane. From the perspective of all but the condemned, it looks like they are just going to sleep.

Personally, I'm wondering why they've never tried nitrogen asphyxiation. It gives the same appearance as lethal injection, with the added benefits of being safer to handle and dispose of, and it is actually humane, since the whole "need to breathe" feeling comes about from a build up of CO2, not a lack of O2. If I were a religious person, I'd even go so far as to suggest that nitrogen asphyxiation is God's preferred method of execution. Why else design us with what appears to be such a serious flaw?

And when the cyclist ignored the stop sign / red light?

Applaud? All I see is someone being sarcastic, saying that something will never work, while pointing to a company that made that thing work. I see nothing in Doh!'s short post that indicates approval of it. Would you mind pointing it out?

1) The system is not resistant to court orders. It is resistant to the court going to the wrong party to get at the data.
2) Restricting the ability of a 3rd party to access the data has nothing to do with upholding the law. At most, you could say it is about keeping the government honest, which is the job of everyone.

If that is the outcome, then yeah, it probably wouldn't matter to anyone. But that isn't what Impy the Impiuos Imp said. They said:

"Fat person detected. Would you be interested in a 20 cents off coupon for Special K?"

Correct. Unfortunately, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "reasonable" parenting.

Didn't he address it in his second sentence?

It sounds more like, for lack of a better term, "reverse" DRM.

Alice is trying to give data to Bob, but not give it to Chuck. Problem is, Bob and Chuck are the same person.

In "normal" DRM, Alice is a big corporation, and I am Bob/Chuck.

In "reverse" DRM, I am Alice, and the big corporation is Bob/Chuck.

Though all that said, yes, it does sound like a step towards getting people to accept "normal" DRM.

Funny, but in all seriousness, guessing Jerzy Kaltenberg meant this: http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/08/1341234/alcatel-lucent-to-cut-10000-workers-calls-it-shift-plan.

Thanks. Can't believe I overlooked such an obvious reason. :P

Bah, of course I'd overlook something so obvious. :P

Thanks.