[Citation Needed] Considering close to 1/4 of the price of gas in most places in the US is ALREADY taxes, that would be a hard number to back up. Or are you comparing the price here to the even higher taxed fuel in other countries and calling that a "subsidy"?

I agree and to sell it politically I recommend we call it "reprocessing fuel for use in geothermal power plants."

They say the new DNA outperforms the standard DNA in evolving to meet the researcher's criteria. That means it changes more easily. In other words, it's less stable.

In most situations, what we want is stability. Nature needs some ability to mutate and evolve, but considering that the wrong mutations result in cancer and death, too high of a mutation rate leads to failure. I suspect this is particularly true in long-lived larger organisms.

Han Solo being chased by Minions? Oh wait, Minions is Universal...

Soundrels would also make an excellent movie... Alas, Star Wars will never be in the public domain in our lifetimes in order to make the movies on our own.

Adding a backdoor that is secure is very easy to implement. The government just needs to publish a public key. You then encrypt your private key using that public key and include it with whatever you encrypted. This would be much like the lock box on a house that holds the front-door key that only real estate agents showing the house are supposed to be able to access. And there's no reason it would be limited to just one. Opening a connection to a server in Turkey? Better include lock boxes for both your own government and the Turkish authorities.

The only big hole is the security of the government's private key (or more likely, keys).

The tricky part is that this government lock box has to be added to the common protocols. And how many different protocols would have to be updated? TLS, ssh, PGP, etc. What are the odds of introducing flaws that allow for new attack vectors when introducing the back door? For example, could you trick a victim's computer into thinking it needed to include the lock box for some jurisdiction that you control?

Now while the technical side of this could be made to work, as a public policy, it's a horrible idea. Let's not just say it can't be done and forget about it. We need to fight this as bad policy.

I owe you absolutely nothing and unless I am buying something from you or you are buying something from me I have no interest in you. If you want want government to stealcfrom me to subsidise you somehow and then call me a 'sociopath' or a 'moron' for not accepting that, then you are not only a thief, but some kind of a sick psycho thief.

One has to do more than your average bear to build a business from the ground up, how is that a surprise in any way? If it were easy, everybody would be doing it and it wouldn't be discussed here right now. I started up my own businesses but always self funded / got a client for the product. To do that I put 10 years of savings and years of work on the line, that is not an easy thing to do. But if I were unwilling to do it myself, how could I ever expect somebody else to do it on my behalf?

This ruling doesn't just cover Java and really Java has nothing to do with this. This is about the entire field of computing but probably even worse. Do you want to build a house? So are you going to make doors rectangular shaped passages with opening/closing covers? You are violating something there.

This actually proves my point on copyrights (and patents for that matter). Government should not be given any authority to provide any sort of protection for any of it.

So the problem is cross contamination between fiber channels due to frequency differentials, I think they equalized all frequencies somehow but I don't fully get it. Red is longer than blue for example and if separate strands of fiber carry different 'colour' and frequencies 'bleed' from strand to strand how do you equalize that exactly? Have wave peaks correspond? How? Are they proportionate to remain synchronized? If this is a serious problem, why not add more isolation between strands?

They wrote the legislation to be completely unable to accomplish those ends because the legislation was so filled with crap from multiple people with multiple objectives. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to modify the text of the law to make it work. If the text of the law is wrong, it is the responsibility of the legislature to modify the text of the law through the legislative process.

However, for this law, it was passed in such a clusterfuck of a hurry that they didn't read the law first and ask these questions about how it would work in practice. Now they don't have the legislative numbers to fix it the right way and the POTUS has put public and political pressure on the SCOTUS to interpret the law with the intent of saving the implementation instead of interpreting the law based on the law.

The US didn't have a big standing army at the time because the intent of the Constitution was that the federal government not maintain a standing army at all times. Armies were supposed to be the state militias coming together in times of war to defend the collective nation of states. However, we have descended into a time when we have a standing army at all times which our founding fathers warned us was the gateway to a tyranny.

If the intent was that subsidies could go to Exchanges established by the Federal Government, then why did they put the "established by the State" clause in? They could have just left it as Exchanges and it would have been fine.

Again I have to explain to people the English language... It's called a "parenthetical expression." A parenthetical expression is an expression which is inserted into the flow of thought. It may be in the middle of a sentence or between sentences, but it DOES NOT DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND. (emphasis mine, source http://englishplus.com/grammar...)

Let's simplify the sentence and then expand it back up. The base structure of the sentence is: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That is the meat of the sentence and the essence of the law. There is also some text in there about how the security of a free State requires a well regulated Militia, but there is no law requiring a well regulated Militia to be in place. Now I would argue that the well regulated Militia is operated by the "State" as you say through the National Guard program which is operated individually by the 50 States. However, the fact that DC is not a State and does not have a Militia should not be construed to mean that they can ban guns there as the residents of the District are still people who have rights, one of which is to keep and bear Arms, which shall not be infringed.

Exactly, the triangle goes Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle, but everyone wants to focus on the last one... I guess it's because we've been sold on the idea that spending and consuming is what drives the economy. If we reduced, it would cause a great depression/recession/slowdown, etc. If we reused, we are basically putting people out of work right?