Even if I accepted your premise that once again it's simply price gouging oil companies at work (hint: it's not that simple), good luck writing law that mandates where "domestically drawn" oil is sold. It isn't going to happen.

Kind of hard to keep up with your eyes clamped shut and your hands over your ears.

Politicians are dirty, period. It's not like Republicans have a monopoly on corruption.

I'm not a fan of the Senator, however I think that in deference to the position there should be some semblance of decorum when referring to individual members of Congress or the President. There's far too little civility shown to the holders of the latter office for the current and previous occupants. The fault of that rests squarely on the two main political parties, their congressional attack dogs, and various political organizations masquerading as news outlets, charitable groups or think tanks. Not much thinking or charity as far as I can see.

Hence, I will have to disagree with you. Regardless of my feelings for the Senator, that's still his title.

More likely, the PRC govt has determined that Taiwan (whom they view as a renegade province) should not dictate T&C to ANY entity of the PRC. Ergo, the sale of such an asset by company operating in Taiwan would BY DEFAULT have no bearing in the PRC.

Nor is the notion that you can clean up such a vast volume of space with a small capsule. Kind of like thinking you can clean up the entire North American interstate system with a single street sweeper.

Keep in mind that this is the President's proposed budget. It's up to congress to actually spend money. And although they haven't got off their collective lazy butts to pass a budget, they've had no trouble spending (or wasting) money.

What we do have is direct evidence of the President's lack of commitment to a manned space program. He doesn't want to come right out and say that given the romantic attachment Americans have to the history of the program. Still, at every turn this President has paid lip service to the notion of a manned program and then cut the legs off when he thought no one might be looking.

And to the parent, this isn't quibbling. It's a statement of fact.

The judge is declaring that the style of the photo is central to the copyright of the composition. It's almost as though we're supposed to consider this as a patent. Yes, I know it's not but allow me the point. Houghton's image is not the first I have seen given this treatment (a color object in a B&W field). Admittedly, the other instances which come to mind are nature photos, but the intent is the same. My point is that Houghton is not original in the treatment. He did not design the central items in his composition (Parliament, the bridge, and the distinctive bus). There is too much variation in the composition between the two photos for me to come to the conclusion that this is infringement. Further, I think the judge is setting a vary chilling and dangerous precedent with regard to specifically photography but other expressions of art as well. Musicians should hope that this judge, abetted by some slimeball with a law degree, does not take in his head to look into the copyright of arrangements.

How about this: The messenger in this case [RMS] has nothing to do with the current state of affairs. There is no correlation. No prognostication.

Is that a satisfactory summary?

Yes. There's something seriously wrong with that graphic. It doesn't add up. Consider for example the Obama White House claim of debt under Bush: 12.7 T. But they arrive at that number by comparing an estimate, in this case a projected savings, against an actual deficit. There's nothing objective about that comparison because you're not comparing two values computed in the same manner.

I looked the Treasury Dept's own figures.
Jan, 2001 (Month/Year Bush took office): $5.7T
Jan, 2008 (Month/Year of transition): $9.2T
Today: $15.1T

According to the Treasury Dept then, the debt increased during Bush's 8 years by $3.5T. In the almost 4 years since Obama took office, the debt has increased an additional $5.9T. The White House only takes responsibility for $1.4T in their graphic. Either the Treasury of the White House need to explain the significant discrepancy in those numbers.

In the words of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

What did Montclair expect? Let's see: Legally binding contract. Contract not met. Customer sues for breach of contract.

Seems to me that Montclair has the upper hand here. It all falls on the conditions of the contract.

I would not recommend working in that environment as a newbie civilian. It would be one thing if you had a military background and knew what you were getting into. I will assume that is not the case given the questions you are asking.

Rather, I suggest that if you really yearn to see another part of the globe (an educational and eye-opening experience for most Americans) go somewhere other than the countries you mentioned. While you are deciding where that might be, consider perusing the State Department Travel Alert system (or whoever maintains that data today). That will provide you some idea of which locales might be safer than others.

I can't say that I agree with all of his positions, but I too will acknowledge that the level of consistency in his various positions points to the amount of thought he has applied to them. I can respect that.

Even so, he still strikes me as an a**. His comments on Steve Jobs are both churlish and ironic. The irony is that I consider them to share a certain single mindedness of purpose and a string of odd personal traits. Somehow, I expect RMS would be insulted at the prospect of having that in common.

Sorry, I don't have my scorecard in front of me. One of these two is a traitor... to whom, WikiLeaks? And the other is a paragon of virtue? The phrase "honor among thieves" comes to mind.

Given that this approach is able to account for light sources, geometry (perspective) and physical objects in an original image, it should also be able to remove objects and allow for realistic rendering of that loss. Combine that with the capability described in the proposal and the use of photographs as evidence at trial may soon be inadmissible. Or at the very least, a legal team could reasonably claim that a photo had been doctored (whether true or not) and therefore render such evidence unusable by the prosecution.

Your core temperature is 37 C (98.6 F). But you don't think someone would notice 50 C (122 F)? If that was bathwater, you'd be scalded.