what it really means is that there is now more women than ever before with whom you cannot have sex.

Where do you think the government would like the line towed to?

IANAL either, but I would expect that GameStop owns the games until they sell them, and can do with them as they wish, given that the games are their property. What they are obligated to do or not to do contractually with the game maker may be a different story.

With lazy teachers, lazy administrators, and the increasingly popular "zero tolerance" policies which are there to cater to the laziness & not to enforce discipline, and with police forces all to happy to use tickets as means of revenue generation, should anyone truly be surprised by this?

for the same reason Carly fired almost all of R&D, sold the itanium engineers to Intel, and considered getting out the printer market, despite those sales being the majority of their revenue: greed, short-sightedness, selfishness, and the desire to be seen in the news.

The key to enjoying any movie is correct expectations. If you, like CmdrTaco, cannot help but to compare this with Firefly/Serenity, you will be disappointed. It's not a space western, it's a Close Encounter, and quite honestly, has more in common with that movie than any western. It uses the usual suspects of western stereotypes in order to keep the backstories to a minimum, and does it as effectively as any other movie has. Ultimately it's an action movie, and the action delivers a 6 or 7 out of 10, which is the only real complaint.

Analogy is there to validate the context, without which the point would be pointless. So while there is no proof by analogy, quite often, there would not be proof without it.

It's all about marketing. Given the rates for TV, radio, and print advertising, this was undoubtedly a good investment.

if you download mp3's to your phone (via amazon, google, or anything else) you'll want an anti-virus scan of them. If you share wallpaper, ring tones, photos, or anything else with anyone else, you'll want to scan that stuff to. If you connect your phone to your desktop, laptop, tablet, or anything else--whether that other device and an anti-virus program on it or not--you'll want to know that your phone is clean. And don't assume that an iphone is the answer. If may not be the target of a virus (yet) but it is certainly capable of being a vector.

I would not at all be unhappy if they got Dina Meyer to do it again.

What about algorithms? Simply taking a bunch of components (that someone else invented) and rearranging the order in which they are used or interact isn't inventive, it's just mucking about with an algorithm.

Open discussions can either be primarily informative with an "anything goes from anyone" approach, or primarily educational in that some attempt is made to improve the signal-to-noise ratio by dealing with the trolls and spammers. In either case, any given forum will have to initially take a perspective to be either informational with the exercise left to the reader for picking out the wheat from the chaff; or if their perspective is educational and hence doing some guiding of the discussion for relevance to the topic. And clearly, some venues will have a more obvious beneficial choice to make than others. This is the internet, and I would hope by now that we can get over the false notion that there is a one-size-fits-all solution for anything.

Yes, hence the "may not". The reviewer mentioned poor writing and grammar, and I would hope that English as a second language would be a much more forgivable excuse for that than simply being under-educated and/or sloppy.

Looking at the author's bio on Pact's web site: http://www.packtpub.com/authors/profiles/emily-h-halili it would appear that English may not be her first language, and given that she's worn 6 different IT hats in 12 years, she's obviously not spent enough time doing any one thing to become an expert at anything. And now she's a consultant, which affirms the old saying "those who cannot do, teach".

Sure. There's the SALT 1, SALT II, START I, START II, START III, SORT and New START treaties with the USSR/Russian Federation. The US had 32,000 nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and are down to a little over 3,000 weapons deployed, and another few thousand in inventory, being decommissioned or used for R&D, with the full implementation of the New START treaty dropping deployed weapons to 1,550.

It's physically and politically impossible to eliminate 32,000 nukes over-night. And while you may argue with the length of the time table, a 95% reduction in weapons that are manned and ready to use certainly ought to count for "moving".