Uh, well, that's the point. To obtain facts as to whether Sony was negligent, we would have to conduct discovery. And to conduct discovery, we would have to sue. And if we've waived our right to sue, we would stand before the arbitration board empty handed. `

In 2.5 years (of which they were in the south atlantic anomaly something like 5% of the time) they found 28 antiprotons.

You can fix this by editing or deleting the :Zone.Identifier:$DATA alternate data stream of the file. The file loses its internetness.

I miss my status bar.

I hate to quote wikipedia, but at least it's got citations:
"Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made."

"Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources: it makes no statement about equality, or the overall well-being of a society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

Fukushima was a 30 year old reactor that was scheduled to be taken offline in March of 2011, then had a life extension due to Japan's electricity demands. It was a TMI design that was operated to failure and it failed in the TMI way.*

I don't know about the anti-nuclear lobby in Japan, but as far as the US goes, all nuclear reactors are outdated designs because the anti-nuclear lobby has successfully blocked all attempts to build replacement reactors with modern designs. However, they've failed to get all the old reactors taken offline, because you can't have declining energy use with a growing population. Congratulations anti-nuke people. Instead of modern reactors that don't have a billion valves and don't need to be continuously cooled until shutdown+30 days, we have a fleet of aging TMI-type reactors with known flaws being operated until they fail.

I'm not saying pebble-beds in every town are the answer, but dammit, they have NO PUMPS AT ALL. It's like the anti-nukes want TMI reactors failing so they can kill nuclear completely. The reactors need to be replaced. LET IT HAPPEN.

*I am not saying they were identical scenarios so please don't point out the obvious.

I think this is absolutely the case. All this discussion about publish-or-perish or rewards is completely disngenuous. Sure, academics want their own work published, and they couldn't get past Wikipedia's original work prohibition, but academics want correct information out there just as much as anybody and hate seeing stubs or bad info and would happily contribute.

I think just about all these people have retired.

No the real problem with wikipedia is that they have ALWAYS been hostile to contributions by experts, like Fox News repelling climatogists. TFA mentions Citizenpedia, remember Wikipedia had TWO founders, one of whom got so disgusted with the anti-expert atmosphere he forked the project. His project didn't become popular, probably because 1) Wikipedia is always at the top of Google's searches, 2) Wikipedia is full of the cruft the public demands, like Anime, American Idol, and the aforementioned professional wrestlers which even the editors want to get rid of but can't keep up, and 3) because of 2), see 1) again.

Citizenpedia failed, but Wikipedia's still broken. So we get Scholarpedia. And then it's still broken. So we get Knol. And Wikipedia is still broken, people know it's broken, but it's at the top of the searches. The only reliable way to get an expert to contribute to an article and have it not get reverted is for an editor to plaster a "This topic needs attention from an expert" which doesn't happen that often. And even then, the expert's contribution will be "fixed" and "improved" until it's as factually accurate as your typical newspaper's sci/med reporting i.e. wrong (see any reporting in the last month about radiation).

Wikipedia will never improve it's reliability until Jimmy Wales and his cabal of editors who treat it as their own personal sandbox are given the heave-ho. Which isn't going to happen, because it IS their own personal sandbox.

What, citation needed? Anything from Sanger will do. Here's one from the relevant era: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

The Wire, (cable)
Mad Men, (cable)
Breaking Bad, (cable)
the Sopranos, (cable)
Deadwood, (cable)
the Shield, (cable)
Sons of Anarchy, (cable)
Queer as Folk (cable)
Not disagreeing. Just saying.

Then I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about optional components, but libraries always linked in at runtime when the program launches. Stallman, Moglen, and FSF have long taken the stance that dynamic linking to GPL'd libraries (GPL 2 or 3, not LGPL or GPL + linking exception) requires adherence to the GPL license. Here's a quote:

Eben:
The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of "share and share alike."

They claim this, even if your code contains no text from GPL'd code, contains only unprotected API text from GPL'd header files, or is distributed only as a non-compilable package that requires end-user assembly with GPL sources obtained separately.

When he says 'substantial' I hear 'non-empty'. You can't link to a single function in a dynamic library without creating a derivative work. So be sure you strip out all inline functions and macros from GPL header files and just use the structures, typedefs, and enums. Just to be safe. And goodbye C++ templates.

Mod Parent Up. Anybody and their dog can start a Linux Distro. Maybe they start with Debian because it's guaranteed to be free and open, or like like Debian package management. And maybe 500 people install it. I'm sure Red Hat and Debian are #1 and #2 in ACTUAL deployments, although for all I know Red Flag tops them all.

I think Asimov himself can tell you why there hasn't been and never will be any faithful Foundation movies:

That night, Pat LoBrutto, the science-fiction editor at Doubleday called to express his pleasure. "And remember," he said, "that when we say "novel" we mean "science-fiction novel," not anything else. And when we say "science-fiction novel," we mean "Foundation novel" and not anything else." On February 5, 1981, I signed the contract, and within the week, the Doubleday accounting system cranked out the check for $25,000.

I moaned that I was not my own master anymore and Hugh O'Neill said, cheerfully, "That's right, and from now on, we're going to call every other week and say, "Where's the manuscript?" (But they didn't. They left me strictly alone, and never even asked for a progress report.) Nearly four months passed while I took care of a vast number of things I had to do, but about the end of May, I picked up my own copy of The Foundation Trilogy and began reading.

I had to. For one thing, I hadn't read the Trilogy in thirty years and while I remembered the general plot, I did not remember the details. Besides, before beginning a new Foundation novel I had to immerse myself in the style and atmosphere of the series.

I read it with mounting uneasiness. I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes, all the nearly quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and of conversations. No action. No physical suspense.

What was all the fuss about, then? Why did everyone want more of that stuff? To be sure, I couldn't help but notice that I was turning the pages eagerly, and that I was upset when I finished the book, and that I wanted more, but I was the author, for goodness" sake. You couldn't go by me.

I was on the edge of deciding it was all a terrible mistake and of insisting on giving back the money, when (quite by accident, I swear) I came across some sentences by science-fiction writer and critic, James Gunn, who, in connection with the Foundation series, said, "Action and romance have little to do with the success of the Trilogy--virtually all the action takes place offstage, and the romance is almost invisible--but the stories provide a detective-story fascination with the permutations and reversals of ideas."

I guess you missed Timecode. Of course, they cheated by not having a script.

Then perhaps those states should mandate that they get the new formula. Any Sudafed I've bought in the UK and Canada no longer contains pseudoephedrine, the offending ingredient. The box of pills in front of me now lists the active ingredient as phenylephrine and the nasal spray is xylometazoline hydrochloride. These are the UK products.

The whole point of non-criminals buying non-illegal pseudoephedrine formulations is that phenylephrine is ineffective. Maybe those states should stop conducting trumped-up sting operations alleging illegal-misuse and let sick people buy the product that actually works.