For the love of god when will HP stop having such idiotic URLS?

There's probably fewer things to worry about blowing up or catching fire out in the ocean.

You know, someone could get poked in the eye otherwise. ;-)

But now Charter has taken the unusual step of hiring one of those activists to help develop its policy

Alternate "tinfoil hat" explanation:

Once he's in house, sufficiently "re-educated" and compensated, and once the lawmakers have been paid off properly, then he will become a lobbyist to tell us in newspeak that net neutrality is slavery, and that corporations should be able to block competitors and promote their own services as innovation.

I hope this guy is honest and sticks to his guns. But my experience in the world suggests a much darker outcome.

I keep putting more layers, and the world keeps showing me I'm not paranoid enough.

And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

Holy crap ... looking at the picture of this thing I'd say "jetpack" is not what we want to say, and it has nothing to do with the technology.

To me "jetpack" implies something man-portable like a backpack. Not some frame you strap yourself into .. that thing is bigger than a damned motorcycle.

It's neat looking. But this is somewhere between an exoskeleton and small aircraft you pilot in the upright position.

Jetpack implies you could actually perform some locomotion with it attached to you. You know, land on the roof, shoot the bad guys, grab the girl and fly off.

This, not so much.

Well, I guess it depends on expected flight altitude, doesn't it?

If you're going to stay under, say, 200 feet ... you're pretty much screwed. Call it twice your "few hundred feet" ... then it's still half your flight envelope. Much over 1000 feet and would you even be using a jetpack?

Yes, "perfect is the enemy of the good" in some cases ... but "never going to be useful enough to work" might also come up here. And if your emergency parachute for your jetpack means free-fall under "a few hundred feet" then that sounds pretty useless unless you're usually cruising at fairly high altitudes.

This bug is about as serious as they come for enterprises

This isn't a bug.

The default key apparently was inserted into the software for support reasons.

This is crap security by design.

And you can probably bet that the NSA and the Chinese have these keys, and can pretty much bypass any "security" offered by Cisco.

Essentially Cisco did this shit on purpose, and you can bet at least some people knew damned well this was there.

LOL ... well, I'll accept my being a moron as the problem here ... despite reading it, and knowing where those cities are located ... my brain was treating that as a "coast to coast in an hour", like New York to LA.

You are utterly correct.

the ability to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than an hour

I am exceedingly skeptical this would be survivable by humans.

Suddenly I'm picturing Garfield plastered to the car window.

It just seems like the forces involved in accelerating and stopping would pretty much result in "puree". :-P

So now we get down to the meat here. Thanks so much for bringing it up. Issues of race, ethnicity, national origin, or gender are all real and provable human characteristics which are innate and immutable. I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, instead of inborn.

I believe you're probably a moron, and that even if it is a "choice", it's completely irrelevant.

In the same way that it's irrelevant if a mixed race couple choose to marry. Because the exact same stupid argument was made when people wanted that kept outlawed, and it was just as meaningless then.

Regardless of what I believe or you though, should a federal court get to decide that for all people for states?

If you ever like to point out how you enjoy a Constitutional right, you better believe I do. And you should as well.

Because the 14th amendment to the Constitution says you can't have a law which denies equality. Therefore, a state passing an amendment which violates that amendment is not valid under the Constitution of the US.

Something that is without a doubt best for children are a mom and a dad.

And now the stupidity begins in earnest.

Wah wah wah ... we can't let teh gays have teh children because teh family values. I'm sorry, have you not looked at society lately?

Now gays are just as free to fuck up the lives of their children as straight people. And just as likely to do a good job at it.

What are you doing about all those currently existing kids from fucked up families besides being a self righteous ass going "tsk tsk"? My bet, not a goddamned thing.

You know what? Having kids grow up in a household full of bigoted assholes is also harmful to children.

Probably more than any of the crap you're suggesting will happen because of same sex marriage.

The downside: the fibers so far are too weak to be useful. One solution could be to print the particles like ink on existing fibers.

Wait ... so you can make the color part of the fabric ... but the fabric is too fragile to use for anything ... so now you'll make your fancy nano-stuff to put on existing fibers.

What is the point of this again?

Wow, you can make color part of structure. But the structure isn't worth a damn. So you'll spray this on traditional fabric?

Someone needs to contact the underpants gnomes here.

This is a solution in search of a solution to the problem the solution almost solved.

So, if a majority of say, non-white people voted for a law which said "white folks can now have their property seized", you'd be OK with that? Because it's the will of the people here?

Or are you specifically thinking that the right to pass laws which treat people unequally should entirely be a right reserved for Christians?

What is your specific set of legal criteria in which one group gets to vote on the rights of another? Is it limited purely to sexuality, or will it include race, religion, or gender?

So, the whites could vote to enact slavery again?

You're not arguing for anything other than "it should be my right to vote to deny you a right, but nobody else can do it to me".

If you really think that, then you're missing the whole point. You're not making a principled argument, you're making one based on how special you deem yourself.

Wow, asshole much? Things went badly at the gloryhole last night?

Look, I asked because I legitimately find myself asking "how can you make use of this?".

It's clearly not something which I as a consumer will directly be able to use, and many of us probably have a hard time imagining in what context you have the ability to move around that much data.

Seriously, fuck off.

The declaration of independence would seem to disagree with you: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". It's not me saying that...it's the founding fathers.

Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".

It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".

There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

.
There is no religious exemption.

So do you support the right of states to decree that slavery is legal? Or that blacks can't enter a business?

Can you explain why you feel those two things are different?

Because one group of people voting to deny rights from another group of people has pretty much already been shot down in US law.

Why do I get the sense that people who would be screeching about how they're having Sharia law forced on them are completely willing to do the same thing?

What you're saying is "I am in favor of my religion imposing obligations on other people while screaming how it would be outrageous if done to me". You're saying your religion is special and different in law.

Sorry, but that's just a steaming pile of crap.

The problem with this is that SCOTUS has basically said "this isn't a set of rights which is up to be decided by a vote".

So, like you can't have a state which says "woo hoo, slavery is legal, bitches", you also can't have a state which says "we deny you this right to do the same thing we do even if you feel self entitled and special".

The religious argument is irrelevant here, because marriage has legal rights and protections which have nothing at all to do with any church.

What next, pass a law which says any Christian may rape the wives of non-Christians if they deem it appropriate? Because that's about the same level of lies and bullshit.