Actually, Google plans to cause rolling blackouts globally, in an energy scheme they are calling "Night and Day".

It's too bad scores are limited to 5.

Microsoft park on the evil side as usual.

What Motel 6 can you almost stay at for $16 / day? It's usually closer to $60 / day, although I've seen it as low as $40 / day.

The differences between humans and humanoid robots are minor implementation details.

What makes me wonder then is why such a disparity between hotels rooms and business/first class vs economy flights.

In hotels, it seems like the basic conveniences, as long as they charge you fractionally little enough for it, you won't mind paying in addition to whatever the room cost already was (~10% a day?). However on flights, the more you spend on your ticket, the more they will go out of their way to plant their lips on your butt as far as letting you board first, get cozy, have a free drink, check a bag for free, etc.

I guess the difference is that you're not getting two disparately priced rooms within one building in the case of hotels?
But it's still pretty damn ironic that those you pay more to, try to screw you over more in the hotel industry. Somewhere along the way apparently it seems image and prestige way overtook actual customer satisfaction and service.

There are advantages to being bipedal, hence why humans and birds are.

Like what?

The only "advantages" to being bipedal is that it frees up two limbs to do things other than walking. With humans, we use our front legs for grasping and carrying and manipulating things. With birds, they use their front legs to fly, which has distinct advantages over walking. Most birds only walk when they're resting, eating, or doing something else where they don't need to travel any significant distance. For primary locomotion, they use their wings, because it's a lot more efficient (and faster) than walking.

But, if we solve a few problems the relevant advantages would be weight (2 vs 4 legs)

If you don't have 4 legs, then you won't be able to do anything on the moon. Humans have 4 legs. We only walk on two of them, and call the other two "arms". They are smaller and lighter, but not that much lighter. Most quadrupedal mammals also have smaller, lighter front legs, which they happen to walk on. With them, just like with us, the rear legs are larger and heavier and provide most of the locomotive power.

efficiency (wheels are best, but humans are the most efficient long distance runners)

Wheels suck for rough terrain. Let's see a 4x4 truck or a mountain biker climb the Grand Canyon, or a mountainside for that matter.

Humans might be energy-efficient long-distance runners, but they're not very fast at it. That efficiency doesn't help too much when you're being chased by a bear or a lion. And I'm pretty sure birds are more efficient than humans at long-distance travel.

and the ability to step out of a hole.

Huh? I'm pretty sure just about any quadrupedal or 6-legged animal can do the same with ease. And with narrow holes (relative to their body size), they wouldn't fall in them to begin with, as their body is spread out more horizontally and if one pair of legs slips, the other pair (or two pairs) is still on the ground.

I think you are confusing a conservatism with a particular american political association (i'm not very familiar with terms in this context, so please elaborate). But by definition 'conservative' has nothing to do with 'being who you want to be', but quite the opposite: avoiding change and limiting yourself to traditional ways that worked before to attain some form of stability. This manifests mainly by resisting rapid change (often the faster or bigger the change the more resistance).

Especially social conservatism creates the biggest resistance against all rapid change of inter-human relations (more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism). So i'd classify anti-gay conservatism under the social (or perhaps cultural) conservatism.

Of course the conservative christians have their separate issues with homosexuality, but that just makes it a double whammy... There are christians that don't mind gay people getting married (not too much I'm afraid). But there are *no* conservatives - by definition - that don't mind big changes. Conservatives will always resist and fear social changes, and this has nothing to do with 'hurting people in the process', the perceived threats are merely psychological in origin.

Here's a question: if you get fired, are you legally obligated to turn in your building keys? I honestly don't know and I think there are some interesting similarities.

Every time I think I can't possibly see something more ignorant posted on Slashdot, some moron like yourself comes along and proved me wrong.
 

If having a toy with a meal really made *that* big of a difference to children's eating choices, don't you think ever banana in the world would come with a free sponge bob action figure?

If fruit companies could sell $0.15 worth of water and sugar or $0.10 worth of potatoes for $0.99 cents, their profit margins would support including a SpongeBob figure. But they can't.
 
Etc... etc...
 
Or in other words, you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.
 

To paraphrase Scott Adams: Fat people are fat because they like food more than they like being thin.

Yeah, just blame the victim. It's so much easier than actually thinking. Curing your own ignorance is just too much work.

So, as always, 8.8.8.8 is a lucky number in China?

Lovely plumage...

As long as the guy who wants to help people isn't doing so by shaking me down for the money to do it, it's all the same for me.

A copy, for the purposes of copyright law (see the definitions section at 17 USC 101), is any material object in which a copyrighted work has been fixed. For example, if you write a poem on a sheet of paper, the poem is the work, and the paper in which it is embodied is a copy (the first copy is still a copy). If you xerox it, there is still only one poem, and thus only one work, but now there are two copies of it. You could destroy the first copy and the work would continue to exist in the second copy.

Thus, if the watch, or something on the watch, is copyrightable, the watch (or at least the relevant portion thereof) is a copy, because it is a material object in which the work is fixed.

I'm sorry, what?