Regardless, you can't move the entire responsibility away from the person who made the comment onto the person who did the deed if the two are inextricably linked. Just because the people who vandalised the house arguably committed a worst crime, doesn't negate the potential that whoever spurred them on committed a crime - the question to ask is, would they have committed the crime if the lie had never been spread?

Nice troll. I haven't seen one of these completely off-tangent hooks besides mine. Maybe nerds don't drink in bars.

I was related to Mary Coyle Chase (author of Harvey). After she died in 1981 I helped clear out some things from her house. We found a book which had been checked out of the Denver Public Library in 1929. It was really fun returning it. I asked how much the fine was. The person at the circulation desk called the head librarian, and after a good laugh, they said there wouldn't be a fine.

I've always referred to them as 'fat-carts'. Is scooter the PC word to use though? Personal mobility device?

I can almost guarantee this is a moot point. The muscle is an extremely efficient machine, much more than anything we can build, if I recall my physics lessons correctly.

This would also give the cows more muscle, which equals more and better beef. I can see this being feasible sometime, possibly...

That sounds like my experience with setting up SFTP:

Me: I want to create ftp accounts without creating them as user account for the console.

L1nux_M4st3r: Why would you ever want to do that, anyway?

Me: For the 9 out of 10 reasons I'd set up an FTP server.

L1nux_M4st3r: You can't do that. I can't think of one reason!

Me: That's it, I'm going back to windows.

L1nux_M4st3r: We didn't want your kind anyway. Go kiss Bill Gates for me, Micro$loth boy!

Indeed. The attitude and words "Why would you even want to do that?" are the most poisonous to the Linux community.

Where can a buy the T-shirt so I can show my pride in the state's microbe ?

Planted!

I can't find the very first story that had the initial details, but at first no big site physically had it, and pics were posted from the guy who found it. The story said he was charging people to spend time with it. So engadget I believe passed on paying this guy for it. How gizmodo got it? Maybe they offered him some random tech device in exchange for it or maybe he was just a big fan of Gizmodo. Also there is the good chance that after Apple wiped it, the person who found it had no use for it and just gave it to Gizmodo in exchange to hang with the giz crew and have them pay for dinner. He was probably smart enough to know that putting it on ebay would have Apple knocking on his front door.

Had a friend from India who told me once that his house had caught on fire when he was a kid and his dad had to bribe the firefighters to fight the fire.

Sorry to break it to you, but I lived in Creve Coeur in the early 80's and you've always had to stop before making a right turn on red there, and everywhere I've lived. In the case of a right turn a red light is like a stop sign.

"Webkit", though, tells you nothing about codec support. Chrome and Safari, for instance, have pledged different sets of codec support.

There are other details that matter, as well. If the browser in question allows 3rd party extensions, or simply supports video by falling back on the OS-provided set of codecs, then the codecs it supports are user-changeable. If the browser only functions with the codecs built in, or relies on a non-user-modifiable set of OS-provided codecs(the iPhone version of Safari almost definitely qualifies), than the set of codecs it ships with really matter; because they aren't going to change.

Your hypothesis fails the falsification test. Basically no matter what Google does, people like you are going to say they did it for their direct advantage.

To make it a scientific opinion, you have to give an example of an action that Google will take that will convince you they were not evil. Sometime ago, slashdotters were saying that if Google open sources VP8, that would be proof enough. Apparently you want more. So tell us. What do you want?

And those are ridiculously easy once you get the trick. The first ones that were out, I remember, hit in the very early 90's in magazines like Popular Science. In those, you had two dots right above the picture, and the instructions were to visually split the dots and combine them in such a way there were now three. That achieved, look down at the picture.

Most, if not all of the later ones removed those instructions, and it became a game of "stare at this until you get it." For the really old-timers, we understood the real trick is to cross your eyes slightly and vary the degree until you hit the magic separation necessary to resolve the picture.

I'm not entirely convinced the effects are related to those used for 3D movies, since Magic Eye works through the transposition created by overlapping the two visual fields by crossing your eyes.