BTW My "idea" is not hilariously backwards as I never claimed that Microsoft was valueless because it doesnt make stuff. I pointed out that however other people can perceive it like that which is the point of the argument. Many people will not invest in something that appears intangible and ephemeral, regardless of how good or useful a software house can be.

South sea bubble, the Dutch Tulip craze, Railway mania, the Posiden bubble, 2007 Uranium bubble, and of course the NASDAQ in March 2000.... Wanna bet on how dumb investors really can be sometimes?

You mean in the eyes of the market, which in terms of evaluating what a company is "worth" is what counts. I never made such a claim at all - I proposed it as a theory... Software and IP etc while obviously valuable isn't something that you can get hold of.. it seems ephemeral, just ones and zeros. A company that is generally percevied to make "stuff" even if it is outsourced, is often held to be intrinsically more valuable than one that doesnt - the rights and wrongs of that are another entire debate. However I still think that people like Apple to some extent as they "make" things - there is a series of big shiny, well received boxes bought by high income people regularly. Against that Microsoft makes a few games consoles (that overheat) and a thing called the Zune that no-one really knows what it's for, apart from the fact it's a high priced failure. Now is that worth more than the deep penetration Microsoft has into the enterprise server market, the database market, the email and collaboration market, and lets not forget Office... well it's the markets... Reality is always playing second fiddle to peoples perception - that's why you get bank runs after all - not for any real reason but because herd mentality takes over.

Microsoft doesnt make anything... not real stuff. You can buy an Apple computer, but not a Microsoft one. Perhaps that has some bearing on the perceived value and owrht of the company - I'm just throwing the idea out there....

Actually the crime is committed the moment that you throw the brick provided it meets the tests in the Criminal Damage act. (assuming UK law here). By the time the glass is smashed then you have committed the offence.

UK law defines a crime as being the actual act "actus reus" and the intent "mens rea". Since he did both of those whilst in the UK, I'd say we have reason to prosecute quite legitimatly. The target is immaterial really - and for the purposes of the law to some extent it is irrelevant. People have been for example convicted of attempted murder in the UK when there was no possibility of any harm even occuring as the "person" wasnt even real so to that extent the target in the USA could be considered an abstraction.

Whilst it's undeniable I think that he did actual do it, there are a lot of people that cannot see why he should be extradited. The UK already has adaquate laws for the prosecution of the crime, and the crime was committed in the UK so it has always seemed odd to a lot of people that he should have been extradited, especially with the massive imbalance in potential sentence between the UK and US for this. I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet.

Cameron is not going to be too concerned either way one suspects, although he will probably lean towards not extraditing him. Clegg however as a hard and a fast Liberal is almost certainly going to move all that he can to ensure he is not extradited. The one person to consider though in all this is Kenneth Clarke, whos is the Justice Secretary. He has interesting views - he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity". Quite what his feelings are on the extradition - and he gets the ultimate say as Justice Minister are as yet unknown. From what little I know of him personally I suspect he would favour prosecution in the UK but for all that his views are relatively unknown.

Sorry, no. "Ex post facto" has nothing to do with increasing the punishment after conviction. It refers specifically to declaring something illegal, then prosecuting somebody under that law based on conduct that occurred before the law was passed. Regardless, punishment is increased after conviction and sentencing all the time. Violate the terms of your probation? Straight to the slammer. Start a fight in prison? You get sent to solitary. And so on.

Let's address some of the other things you may be misinformed about. This is not a bill of attainder, because it doesn't address specific people or groups of people. And no, the "group" of people who are in prison doesn't count, because potentially ANYBODY could be in prison for some other crime. If the bill stated that it only applied to black people, or people named Steve, then it would not be permissible. It's also (arguably) not a due process violation, because since it is a civil punishment and not a criminal one, the standard is lower than what is necessary to convict a person of a crime and send him to prison. You still need to convince a judge under this law, so there is still a due process issue. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address that in this case.

What's at issue here is ultimately whether the United States, given the authority to imprison somebody for a crime, can indefinitely extend that time under a civil statute based on a showing to a judge that it is necessary. This is not legally any different from the authority to put somebody in solitary confinement, or deny access to privileges based on behavior. I'm not comfortable with the ruling in this case, and I agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia that this is an inappropriate extension of government power. But please get your facts and legal terminology straight before going off half-cocked based on your limited legal understanding.

$53 000 is a reasonable cost. It also has everything to do with the wishes of the deceased. And yes, there's a concrete chance of revival. I could answer your arguments against cryonics, but sadly you didn't provide any. And that's how cryonics debates usually go. You should probably read about a rabbit kidney which was cryopreserved, then thawed and implanted to a living rabbit. Of course, this is fact is in disagreement with your dishonest worldview, so you ignore it.

fyngyrz, are you against any kind of civil imprisonment order?

Well considering the age of consent is 16 in Scotland for everyone and everywhere else except England and Wales where it is 16 unless you are in a position of trust regarding the individual, then it is 18. But I agree most countries take a sane approach when it come to younger people, but then again in most countries the prosecuting types are not worried about looking tough due to them not being elected.

quanta themselves are random.

Take an atom of uranium. You know the half-life of the element. You know the exact probability the atom will break up in the next second. You have NO way of determining when it breaks up. It can be in a second or in a thousand years.

Quantize this.

Shameless self-promotion ahead...
This is more a suggestion to help with mapping received signal strength (RSSI), rather than data network latency and bandwidth (you can argue that those data network metrics rely heavily upon your RSSI!):
Grab an old Nokia, use gammu to enable Network Monitor mode, fire up a GPS and display the combined information streams on a map. I did exactly that as an experiment using a Nokia 3310 and a Navman GPS receiver. Interesting to then correlate the signal peaks to the actual base station locations.

The main caveat is that the old Nokias in question only do (I believe) dual-band 2G GSM at best, so you won't actually be able to measure 3G W-CDMA statistics as if you were connected with a 3G data device. I would offer, however, that 3G RSSI might be related to that of 2G as many of the base stations handle both services (ignoring differences in signal propagation characteristics). A starting point at least...

The correct decision in ANY matter is the cheapest solution in terms of total cost to society as a whole. That, roughly, is the evolutionary definition of morality, is it not?

In my own experience, a very quick way to determine this is if they have the following:

1. A vehicle used specifically for carrying their tools to various jobs.
2. That vehicle has an Air Compressor permanently or semi-permanently installed in it (Craftsman-style "portable" compressors do not count)
3. Check what brand tools they have. Shadetrees aren't willing to put out the money for quality tools. If most of what they are using are Craftsman or Home Depot specials, look elsewhere.