Of course you can, but c'mon, it's a vastly different model than simply sharing a link directly to a 5GB file. As a practical matter, you're probably unlikely to want to spend the time chunking up 5GB into 10-20MB attachments and then uploading them individually to separate emails to send out...and your 1000 recipients wouldn't thank you either.

I see another problem...what happens if the bag gets knocked out of the hole? Now you have a sizable road hazard which acts a lot like a big rock to all the cars hitting it. You'd have to ensure that the bag is fully anchored into the hole. Worst case, you could have the bag get pulled up by the friction of a tire and thrown back into a car behind...I'd imagine that would not lead to good things.

They surely have enough data about their customers usage patterns that they can make better plans for upgrading their infrastructure as needed. I don't see anything about, "We're sorry, we were more successful than we expected, this is a short term measure which is necessary to preserve your QOS, we're making upgrades and in the meantime here's some something for your trouble." No, instead they're basically saying, "We've been really super successful, so screw you." There's nothing wrong with having unlimited plans, the abuse is in refusing to do the necessary traffic forecasting and, even more, in refusing to remediate the problem when it comes to light.

I'm not saying it's the majority of atheists by any means, but to say it doesn't exist is silly. Do a google for: "should outlaw religion" OR "should ban religion" Fortunately, most atheists and even anti-theists would take the more rational position you do, but I was responding to a comment which made the broad categorization that "atheists dont force others to follow their beliefs", which was (like most generalizations) false.

Really? We label/categorize EVERYTHING. But somehow we would magically not label "belief there is no god"? I believe the proselytizing from the religious might have helped drive a counter-reaction from the atheists, but I highly doubt we'd somehow fail to label every aspect of people's beliefs no matter how personal/quietly held they were.

No, you're right, I certainly overlooked the state-sanctioned atheism of those regimes. I suppose I tend to forget about the non-economic policies those countries had/have.

Rubbish. How many times have you seen someone write, "We ought to outlaw religion." or something to that effect. "Atheists" aren't and haven't been in a position of power to do such things, but if you think that there aren't *some* atheists who wouldn't try to impose their views on everyone if they had the opportunity, just like some religious folk do, you are sorely mistaken.

Well...no, the usual argument is not about files per se, it has to do with the data in the files. In fact, the ability/right to change formats is a frequent aspect of the debate. And I doubt you'd find so very many takers on /. that if you go wipe even the MPAA's computers clear that you haven't committed a crime. "Data file" and "data" are not just different by interpretation, they are two distinct concepts. Likewise, the usual discussion deals with duplication, not deletion. Those are two words which are also not different by interpretation, they're in fact opposites. So trying to draw parallels between this discussion of deletion and discussions about intellectual property rights and duplication are disingenuous. It's not a clever gotcha comparison, it's wrong.

Yeah, I do something similar, "FBI Van 1337". Geeks will get it, others will wonder what's going on....

Also, did they avert that? It seems like this is, in fact, the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Perhaps they averted it being the worst nuclear disaster ever, including Chernobyl, but it would have needed to be a lot less disastrous to not be the worst since. So...unless something worse than this but not as bad as Chernobyl comes along, I suspect we'll keep using it for this event for a long time...but there's a good chance the next disaster will be the "worst nuclear disaster since Fukushima" instead...at least, here's hoping....

Thanks. :) *I* was confused for a second when I saw that reply, "Surely there's no way all that science-babble was derived from Futurama episode!?"

Another vote for Design with the Mind in Mind. Well written, relatively up-to-date, practical advice.

huh??

The speed of light is constant across all frames of reference. Frames of reference that are moving relative to each other will perceive light generated by the other frame of reference as having a different "clock" (i.e., frequency), but the speed of the red/blue shifted light will be the same in both frames of reference. The speed of light itself does vary across mediums (say, water vs glass vs air vs vacuum), but that doesn't come into play here. Also, they weren't measuring, directly, the speed of the neutrinos. They were comparing the time of the neutrinos' arrival at different sites and they found a difference that was unexpected. However, that measurement depends very much on the clocks being in sync, and this is what TFA is discussing.

The bending of light in a refractive medium is completely unrelated to the bending in a gravitational field, and your conclusion that the latter involves the speed of the light being altered is false.

How does thermodynamics come into play? If the earth were a closed system, that would be one thing, but we have this convenient star that periodically gives us some extra energy....

As far as being "green" as pointed out elsewhere, this would, ideally, be "carbon neutral", although in practice it would at best be merely less carbon intensive than fossil fuels. So, it's "green" as in "not as bad as some alternatives".

What it really comes down to is using the biomass as a convenient storage and transport mechanism for solar energy. In the end, that's what we want to use, one way or another, for pretty much every energy technology except nuclear fission/fusion. The trick is just finding the way to use solar energy which maximizes convenience and minimizes the bad side-effects.

I think a more interesting solution for gassification would involve picking the fuel source for maximum efficiency...off the top of my head, it'd be very interesting to see what sort of efficiency could be gotten if they grew algae, say, and created dehydrated pellets from it to use as fuel. Perhaps someone has tried that?

Perhaps they are just really, really old...and British.