If you are trying to copy a commercial tape or anything you recorded off-the-air, most places won't touch it without a copyright clearance.

Some may bend a bit if it's something that clearly has no commercial value, like a 20-year-old news clip showing your kid winning a high school football game. But don't count on it.

For /. readers who have the complete Tom Baker Dr. Who episodes complete with PBS pledge breaks showing a much-younger you manning the phone bank, good luck finding a company that will copy those for you. They *might* copy the pledge breaks but not the Dr. Who.

I think you are missing the point. The point is "Why use the '=' as the assignment operator instead of some other symbol, like Pascal's ':='?"

If I could go back and whisper something into K&R's ears, I would tell them to make "=" the comparison operator and pick something else as the assignment operator.

That used to be but these days it's frequently okay or even desirable to add functionality like input-parameter-validation rather than be concise and skip the validation, leaving a gaping security hole in kernel or other code which may run with privileges high enough to be dangerous.

Likewise, it may be desirable to have a larger piece of code that can test for the presence of hardware that may or may not be present and exploit it if it is there than to have smaller, simpler code that does things in a way that will work everywhere, but which will not take advantage of hardware that might be available.

Notice that I said "may be." Part of the art and science of engineering your code is knowing the trade-offs between "smaller, simpler, but less feature-rich" and "bigger, more complicated, but more feature-rich" and knowing the intended and possibly-un-intended uses of your code and how much time and effort you and others have to create the code and maintain it later, then make the correct engineering choice for your particular situation.

If I commit a crime and my shoes or other clothing contain evidence of my criminal act, is the clothing legally treated as if it's "part of me" or as if it's not?

Generally not. Think about all the crime dramas where dirt that is only found at the crime scene is found in the suspect's shoes, or where the dye from the exploding dye-pack was found on the suspect's clothing.

Much more likely to be a legal issue is the issue of how invasive the legal system can be to retrieve the evidence. A few years ago there was an alleged perpetrator who was shot during a crime. I don't remember how it all turned out but there were major court fights over whether the police could force the person to undergo non-life-threatening surgery to remove the bullet fragments on the grounds that they were evidence in a crime.

Well, mostly.

What Apple can do is require 2-factor authentication.

They can also provide individuals who want it - primarily high-profile individuals - stronger lock-downs such as only allowing registered devices to log in or require typing in a code that is texted to the person prior to completing the login, much like some banks already do.

Song inspired by real radioactive frogs (not turtles or slugs) near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

If only there were an efficient way to store energy from the sun or wind and turn it into grid-power later that wasn't called a "battery." Perhaps some futuristic supercapacitor-based system or fuel-cell-with-re-formed-fuel system will meet this need. Or perhaps something we haven't even envisioned yet outside of the realm of science fiction will be the answer.

Can I have an ID card that is JUST and ID card, with a driver's license that is a separate piece of paper/plastic?

When I present my ID card to cash a check, clear airport security, etc. it's none of anyone's business if I have a driver's license.

After all, other government-issued licenses like concealed-handgun permits, hunting permits, and professional licenses (engineering, medical, etc.) typically aren't on the same piece of plastic as your state-issued ID card. My bank doesn't know or care if I have (or don't have) a gun permit, a fishing license, or an license to practice medicine, and that's A Good Thing.

Splitting the driver's license from the ID card would also be good for military families and college students who didn't have a previous driver's license but who want to keep their "legal residence" where they previously lived - it would allow the state where they actually live to issue them a driver's license (valid in all 50 states) without either forcing them to surrender their existing ID card or giving them a second state-issued ID card whose information (address, etc.) may conflict with the existing card.

It would also solve much of the "short-term visa/expired visa/illegal immigrant" problem at least with respect to immigrants who still possess a valid, recognized non-US-government-issued ID card such as one issued by a foreign Consulate: States would be able to ensure that people who are driving can pass a driver's test, are paying the appropriate drivers-license-related taxes/fees, and are properly insured without having to face the political heat that comes with issuing an official ID card that is valid for purposes other than proving you are legally qualified to drive. If "political heat" is a concern, the document can be stamped "Valid as a driver's license only. Not valid for any other reason. Only valid on days in which the person has a legal right to be in the United States of America [this is for frequent tourists who use non-contiguous successive short-term visas but who want to pay for a multi-year driver's license]. While driving licensee must posses a valid government-issued photo ID card recognized by the United States, the state of [state issuing the driver's license], or the state in which the person is operating a motor vehicle. Licensees not possessing ID cards issued by the US government or a US state government must possess a valid travel or residency document or proof of an exemption [e.g. an ID card issued by a government with a no-visa treaty with the United States] while driving. Not valid after [expiration date]."

See Drop Table People

Oh you meant "Eat table people". My bad.

Come to think of it, he can probably read it without pausing as it prints out on his 1980s fax machine, so I'm surprised he hasn't denounced everything faster as "unnecessary."

If birds were really smart, Chicken Run would be non-fiction.

Organic matter decays over time, especially when it's not stored under "ideal conditions."

If you dug up 1500 people that had been dead and buried for 100 years, I bet you would have to work hard to get a sample of every stretch of the human DNA map. The only saving grace might be if the bodies were in a sealed casket or which were otherwise very well-preserved in a way that protected the DNA from decay.

On the other hand, if you stored 1500 freshly-dead people or birds today in a way to minimize DNA degradation and kept them that way for 100 years from now, our descendants in 2014 would have a much easier time with it, and that's not counting whatever technological advances come along over the next 100 years.

Here's hoping they can get enough nuclear DNA that whatever "Franken-bird" they create will be 100% carrier pigeon, at least DNA-wise.

As for the rest of the cell that starts the whole thing off, it will probably have to be a donor cell from a closely related bird. This probably means the result will have non-carrier-pigeon mitochondrial DNA.

On a related topic, if scientists figure out how to do this with birds then they replicate the process with humans, using human nuclear DNA, a non-human donor cell, and a non-human surrogate mother, will most countries of the world recognize the result as a "person" for legal reasons?