Alternately, the Super-Colliding Super Button...

Like, say, a nearly-uniform wash of electromagnetic radiation, apparently emanating from every observable point in the sky? I'd be willing to consider matter-antimatter annihilation at the universe's border as a possible explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Since objects at the edge of the observable universe are already redshifted to near-invisibility I'd expect that the gamma they emit would be similarly redshifted.

Having said that, I'd need to hear a really good explanation for why this annihilation exactly matches the spectral distribution for blackbody radiation at 2.7260 ± 0.0013 K before I'd totally swallow it as a replacement for the big bang theory. But I won't go around demanding that funding be cut from a bubble-universe researcher, either.

FTFA:

So it looks to be quite a ways out. Still, I'd love to see a video output spec that doesn't have mandatory DRM. I didn't see any mention of HDMI in the article, so there's a slim chance of this new interface not being broken by design...

I use bookmarklets to handle rot-13 encoding when I find it. Highlight, click bookmark, read as plain text. Simple.

Enjoy!

So, a Master's degree, then?

Perhaps, but it's a much more practical claim than the ancient map, especially when coupled with "I've been standing on it for the last 100 years"...

(emphasis added)

I disagree, and I'll give a clear counter-example. I believe in natural rights, specifically that life, liberty, and property are rights inherent to every living human. A robber disagrees with me, and is happy to relieve me of my property at gunpoint. How will this situation resolve itself?

* I calmly assert my natural rights, and the robber says, "oh, man!" and slinks away like Swiper the fox
* I calmly assert my natural rights, The robber shoots me and takes both my property and my life
* I give my property to the robber and think myself lucky to retain my life
* I draw my concealed firearm and encourage the robber to choose a different lifestyle

The first example is rather unlikely.

In the second example my belief in natural rights and an inherently violent resolution coexist perfectly, to the benefit of the robber.

In the third example I dare say that I've abandoned my belief in my natural rights in order to avoid violence. This is the correct response in many circumstances; I've heard many concealed firearm bearers say that "here's my wallet, take it and go" is a safe alternative to a gunfight, and one that should be seriously considered. It is, however, not optimal - I'd really rather keep all of my natural rights (both life and property in this case).

I believe that the fourth example is a proper example of maintaining my belief in my natural rights while offering an inherently violent resolution to conflict. Violent resolution is an option whether I'm armed or not, but it's only an option for the robber if I'm not. When I am armed I have the choice of defending my natural rights.

Why should I even be worried about the natural rights of someone actively depriving me of mine?

OK, you said a lot of things I agree with, and a lot of things I strongly disagree with. Each of your statements stand fairly well on their own, so I'll group them together for convenience of discussion.

So far we're in perfect agreement. I'll return to this later.

Here we diverge almost completely after the first sentence. I'll go point-by-point:

• Yes, bad things can happen. Doing worse things to prevent anything bad from happening is not an acceptable alternative. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm with the Dory character from Finding Nemo: it's not the Government's job to make sure that nothing bad ever happens.
• Law enforcement's job is not to kill people before they commit crimes. Nor have The People of the United States given up their rights to self-defense; the use of deadly force is not restricted to the Executive Branch (under whose umbrella both the Military and Law Enforcement act). There is no department of pre-crime, nor should there ever be. Law enforcement's role is to uphold the law and prosecute violations. Your statement appears to support murdering suspects as a form of crime prevention, and you're frightening me.
• You speculate a hypothetical situation where somehow only use of U.S. military power against its own citizens will keep 3000 other citizens safe. I find this highly implausible, but even if it weren't then use of the military on U.S. soil would still be a frightening prospect to be avoided at all costs (even the lives of 3000 civilians). Armies and civilians don't mix well, and both the Declaration of Independence and the Posse Comitatus act were written in reaction to bad results from such.
• Yes, the world is complicated. I may agree that to address that complexity we need to do things we're not comfortable with, but I don't agree that we need to compromise our principles to live in a complex world. If such things as "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom of speech" are ever important then they're important all the time, not just when it's convenient or simple.

• I think I do understand where Holder is coming from. I used to oppose the release of suspects whose guilt was proven via illegal searches. The fundamental question is this: "how much harm is done be releasing the guilty versus allowing Police more power to conduct searches?" I've moved over to wanting restricted police power, since I now believe that abuse of police power is the greater harm.

The constitution and our laws were written for a reason; it originally was to protect The People against abuses of power. The American Revolutionaries committed treason and laid down their lives so that they and their neighbors would never again need to live in constant fear of execution at the whim of an over-powerful commander-in-chief. Until 9/11 I thought most people understood that the cost of living in a Free society was allowing people to occasionally make choices that were violently wrong so that the rest of us could live without constant fear of the government making violently wrong choices. The typical historic quote for this is from Benjamin Franklin:

TL;DR version:
I don't want the Government to keep me perfectly safe. The only way to do that is to make the Government unsafe. I can live with the deaths of a few innocents at the hands of murderers and terrorists if it means my children and grandchildren will not live under the oppression of a tyrant.

I can't have been the only one to think, "wait, Glaive isn't a polearm...", can I?

For the record, I voted "Bec de Corbin" because it's the closest thing on the list to a Lucerne Hammer =P

If the biggest problem you have with it is the battery life, then fix the problem - just replace the battery!

Since you're posting to Slashdot I'm going to assume you are willing to do some soldering if you have to.

Invest $15-25 and you can get 2x or 4x the battery life; that tablet only came with 2500 mAh if the other posters here guessed your model correctly.

Make sure the new cell will fit, then have at it!

Yes, your math is rusty:

88 - 30 - 28 = 30

On the trip from hotel to charger the range estimate dropped by 8 miles despite a traveled distance of 28 miles.