This is an interesting point, which I'm going to veer slightly off topic with. All general purpose programming languages* can do _precisely_ the same things. All fit the requirements to be "Turing complete". ANY Turing complete language "A" can emulate any other Turing complete language "B", and therefore "A" can do the anything that "B" can do. Since "B" can also emulate "A", the two languages can do precisely the same things. (Church-Turing thesis). An interesting example of this is that JavaScript can do everything that CPU microcode can do, as shown at http://bellard.org/jslinux/ .

Therefore, the question is never "which language can do more", it's always "which language can do it most quickly, most securely, etc." C is often faster than Java for many operations. R is more convenient for statistics, PHP 5.3 makes security bugs less likely than PHP 4.0, but all of those languages can run the exact same programs.

Contrast HTML and XML, which being markup languages rather than general purpose programming languages, are not Turing complete. Standard regexs are also not Turing complete, though Perl's extended regexs very well may be.

Deuteronomy 22 talks about sex crimes. It doesn't say sex crimes are fine, it acknowledges that they exist. I acknowledge hat you exist, but clearly you are not fine, you are in need of serious help.

Further, 28-29 talk about an unmarried woman. Only really sick people would think "hmm, slept with an unmarried woman - she must have been a little kid, and that sounds great". Suck, sick bastard.

I understand your feeling on that. Practically, suing the million people who own chunks of Microsoft or Google might be difficult and expensive. If you had to attempt that, you might find yourself wishing you could just sue Microsoft rather than suing each person who is saving for their retirement. That is of course the "greedy people" who invest part of their paycheck - all responsible adults, who take responsibility for their own needs rather than spending everything they make and planning to demand that the next generation takes care if them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Current machines take an entire day or more to print something. It's not at all hard to believe that someone got it down to an hour for a 3" * 3" print. In fact, I'd be surprised if someone DIDN'T do that very soon.

Because he's claiming to have done something that I fully expected someone to do rather soon, I don't see any reason to think he's lying.

Hydroelectric is good, in the places where it makes sense such as Niagara Falls.

To provide for all of US energy needs would require 20,000 dams, each with the capacity of Hoover dam. Because Hoover was located in one of the best places possible, it flooded only 100 square miles. We' e already dammed most of the best spots, so new dams would be in less ideal places.

The 20,000 dams required would flood 80% of the continental US, so that's probably not a solution. There may be a few places remaining to add a little bit more hydro. However, we should keep in mind hydro is responsible for all of the catastrophic accidents that kill thousands of people. See for example Banqiao. Also, the MAIN reason to avoid fossil fuels is greenhouse gases, and hydro produces about the same amount of greenhouse gases, so it doesn't really help with the primary goal. International Rivers has some good information about that if you're interested.

Nuclear makes a lot of sense, with the one main drawback being a concern about safety. A worst-case nuclear accident could, in theory, kill a lot of people. On the other hand, hydro and coal actually DO kill thousands of people. Solar electric doesn't kill people, but it doesn't produce reliable electricity either, so it's only indirectly dangerous - wasting time and money playing with solar ensures that we remain stuck with coal.

The poppers which aren't regulated as regular firework, go for about 50 cents to $1 per box. I don't recall how many are in a box, maybe 25.

The better consumer fireworks are 2" shells and sell for about $18 for a box of six. 500 gram cakes are about $60. These are all Texas prices, near the import port at Houston. Hazmat shipping to other parts of the country may increase retail prices elsewhere.

Enthusiasts who spend $300 or more can pay 60% less by joining a group to buy at wholesale prices.

I'd think at least 99.99% of cases don't involve the suspect using their computer at all. One of the most common crimes is using a stolen checkbook or credit card, in a brick-and-mortar store. Thefts might be solved by looking at the store's security video, etc.

In the rare case where you're interested in an encrypted file, you can normally go around it. For example, if you wanted to prove child porn, the cached thumbnails that most image viewers create work just fine. Someone sending instant messages encrypted? Fine, the message log on their device is plaintext. Rarely do you need to crack the crypto.

N/m

> if it could be considered negligence of Google not to do a certain thing because it is their responsibility to do such a thing, then they wouldn't wait for the court to tell them to do it. They'd just do it.

Nobody knows what a jury will decide. A judge or jury could nail them either way. If the information caused millions of dollars inlosses tfor thousands of Goldman customers, a jury could certainly decide that Google should have taken five minutes to prevent that from happening. Google is safe either way if they do as ordered by a court. Lacking a court order or knowledge of the future, they decided it was better to leave the email alone. That doesn't mean they were certain that they'd not be sued - just that doing nothing was not as bad as doing what Goldman asked.

I can see one way that the court is authorized by law to do that. Under common law, we each have a duty to not be reckless about doing things that might cause harm to another. Had Google chosen to deliver the email after having been notified that it could bring harm to Goldman _and_its_customers, Goldman could then file a suit for negligence. The judge or jury would then decide if Google failed to exercise ordinary care in preventing the leak, or if they did all that a reasonable person would do to protect the customers.

If Goldman intended to file such a suit, the normal and proper legal procedure would be for them to request a temporary injunction ordering Google not to release the information until the suit was settled. That is well and good because if Goldman were to win, Google can't very well take back the information they've already released.

Since Google didn't object to the request, why make Goldman formally declare their intent to file a suit for negligence if Google doesn't comply? Everybody knew that was result in an injunction, and a perfectly proper one, so why not save time and just go straight to the injunction hearing? The court can issue an injunction in the end, and I don't know of any common law or statutory requirement for pointless rounds of paperwork when everybody agrees it'll end up as an injunction hearing.

I'm just curious - for a server, where you want RAID, gigabit bandwidth, etc, why did you choose Android on ARM as opposed to something like one of the inexpensive AMD offerings with any of the oother small Linux distributions that are more flexible? Those scale anywhere from very low end to 8 cores at 5Ghz and there are all kinds of options for RAID, gigabit or higher networking, etc. Was that because Android tablets made sense for the clients, so you decided to just run both client and server on the same platform?

I don't know how you figure "demonstrably". Most state legislatures have no choice, they aren't allowed by state constitutions to spend money they don't have. The federal government is allowed to spend money they don't have. That's the difference. It's not EASY in each state, but it's REQUIRED in most states.

It's actually pretty darn easy to NOT spend money that you don't hav. All it requires is inaction. Congress is normally pretty good at inaction, just not where spending is concerned.

Here's a real simple balanced budget:
Each department gets 3% more than they did last year.
Do that for a few years and the budget will balance. The year after that, the budget will be in black, meaning we can start getting rid of the debt load.

Getting rid of the debt has a positive feedback cycle. The more debt you pay off, the less interest you pay, leaving more money to pay the debt off even faster. Before long, the savings from not spending all your money paying interest start to make the rest of the budget a lot easier.

Illinois is pretty whacked out. The legislators admitted that their budget was unconstitutional, while they voted for it. At the same time, Illinois republicans proposed that they should not get paid until they pass a balanced budget, as certified by an independent third party. Here's hoping we never get any of those Illinois dems in the Whitehouse! Oh, crap.

Yeah, if most people saw that law enforcement did a good job of "serve and protect", if you felt good about calling the local cop because he'd help you out, I'd say that would be a good thing.

Where I grew up, even the local pothead teenagers would talk to one cop, because he did a good job. If a (pothead) girl was having problems with some dudes harassing her, this officer would help her out- serve and protect - not bust her for the joint in her purse. I think that was good.

Of course that was a local cop, someone who lived in the neighborhood, someone who went to high school with the adults he pulled over. I don't have a similar experience with a federal agency. Maybe that's why the Constitution originally set it up where all cops were local cops.

All US states other than Vermont run balanced budgets, so those same politicians could do the same when they move to Washington. Apparently, the voters don't really care aboyt that any more once governor gets elected president.

Interestingly, Vermont owes $13,000 per person, or $30,000 per family. It seems that either you keep the politicians on a short leash (49 state) or allow them to overspend and they'll put you $30,000 in the hole (Vermont).

A couple of states are debatable as to whether or not their budgets are exactly balanced. Either way, none of them borrowed hundreds of billions from social security, spent it, and then bragged that they "balanced" the budget by balancing their spending with borrowing.