Listening to music while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Since we cannot differentiate between someone listening to music while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone watching a video on their in-dash DVD player while driving at 75 mph down the interstate, both should be disallowed. There is absolutely no reason you can't turn off your tunes for the drive, and it does not infringe on your rights one bit to tell you to keep it turned off. When you operate a vehicle you are saying to society: yes, I will play by the rules of the road. If those rules include not listening to music, then it is not "rights infringement". You tacitly agreed to it by getting behind the wheel. You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to listen to music. This is the same reason that breathalyzers are compulsory. You have a right not to self incriminate and you have a right not to take a breathalyzer if you are in your home or walking down the street, but by getting behind the wheel and exercising the privilege of driving (that's why you need a license, after all) you tacitly agree to abide by a more restrictive set of regulations. In other words, by driving YOU consent to give up rights while you are behind the wheel.

The United States Congress is consists of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. You are correct that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed several budgets and the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to approve a budget.

The national debt continues to grow, and will continue to grow. I'm not sure if the deficit is growing or not - Congress hasn't passed a budget in 5 years or so -- so that math is a little fuzzy. However, the deficit can shrink and the debt will continue to grow.

Let's say you make $50,000 a year. Last year you spent $70,000 and you currently have $100,000 in debt.
If you make $55,000 next year and your spending remains steady at $70,000, your deficit will shrink but your debt will grow to $115,000 (plus interest)

Astatine will be changing it's name to Ocho-Cinconium.

Then after a few mediocre years it will just be known as Chad Johnson.

RUN away! RUN away!

Does anyone know whether or not there was a range safety officer monitoring this launch? From the video, it's pretty clear early on that this booster is in trouble, and since it's unmanned it seems like it would be better to detonate the Proton before it impacts the earth.

Without knowing the procedures and capabilities it's hard to know why the flight was not terminated sooner. Any Slashdotters with knowledge of Russian launch safety protocols?

You must be a lot of fun at parties. So certain of things you are completely wrong about, yet willing to speak for the entire group.

Actually all of them die...eventually.

It is likewise biologically impossible for young men to get pregnant and bear a child.

As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

How about interpreting it this way. "Case A wasn't prosecuted, Case B was. At first glance, Case B appears to be less deserving of prosecution than Case A, but Case B took place on school property. In Case B there was clearly intent to create an explosion and given recent high-visibility events involving 1) kids being murdered at a school, and 2) innocent bystanders being killed/maimed by an explosion it is predictable that any explosion at a school will be highly scrutinized. Furthermore, in Case B, the so-called experiment appears to have been done without supervision, permission or any safeguards making the "experiment" excuse seem unlikely. Additionally, schools have published weapons policies and zero-tolerance policies, with mandatory consequences for violation. Had Case B taken place away from school property and/or under controlled conditions, it is extremely unlikely that Case B would have been prosecuted."

Note the complete absence of Attribute R. Also note that there was no judgment on the merits of the school's policies. As the parent of a student that was suspended for a zero-tolerance policy violation that even the principal thought was ridiculous, I have strong feelings about zero-thought policies, but that's a rant for another day.

I thought that was chlorofluorocarbons.

Maybe it was ozone?

No...it's methane. Wait...

Sulfur dioxide you say? No, that one used to be bad because of acid rain but now I'm reading that it helped cool the planet and by reducing atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide we've actually made global warming worse.

Then again, I remember not too long ago that diesel exhaust was horrible and we needed to get rid of diesel engines, but now I read that they're much better than gasoline engines.

So today CO2 is a civilization killer, but I'm sure there'll be a new environmental pollutant to worry about soon.

+1 Informative. Sorry, no mod points today so this will have to do.

Unless the AC was referring to the album by The Police, which was released in 1981.

I could just as easily say that JFK would be considered a conservative by today's democrats. It's not about "modern conservatism" or "modern liberalism", it's about an increasingly polarized society. Both sides are so concerned with being right and making the other guy look bad that neither one is willing to make the hard decisions that are in the best interest of "We the People".

We've got plenty of politicians, it's statesmen that we need.