I agree.

But that's not really a correct description of this case, is it? He doesn't simply hold a different opionion: He acted (through donations) to try to get laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying.

There's a big difference between responding negatively to someone's beliefs and responding to their actions.

Aplolgies if this was already mentioned: but why not just put the video in Premiere and black out the 5-seconds or whatever with apple products?

It is true that there are many different types of cancer. I've often been the advocate for "you can't 'cure cancer' because it's not a single thing" , and on many levels it is not.

But I've come to change the conclusion that a single, overriding cure for most-or-all cancers is not feasable. At the root, the same basic event (uncontrolled division) is occuring. Given that there are even mammals which have developed nigh-immunity to all cancers (naked mole rats); it doesn't seem unreasonable that such a universal solution might be available to medical science at some point in the future.

As to the "accumulating mutations" problem. There's an unbroken line of cellular replication between the egg that formed you and the first DNA-based life to form in the oceans 4 billion years ago. Yes: there has been mutation in some of the clones of that cell that have terminated individual creatures over that time, making my scenerio a bit hyperbolic; but I do think that this "accumulation of mutation" within centuries is over-rated and my be (primarily) solvable as well.

If we removed non-cancer from a naked mole rat: how long before it got cancer?

I will invoce your company for "transaction services" and then donate the bulk of the funds to the open-source projects of your choice. Feel free to contact me to do so :)

FTA: "In the last 3000 years, the maximum age of trees alive today, only one such event appears to have taken place."

The actual oldest trees are about 5,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees)

Though that doesn't devalidate his main point (that this has only happened once in 3,000 years). I just wish he'd fact-check a bit more.

The basic article is rather rife with false assumptions and simply wrong information.

Much of the article seems about power (the amplifier)... and I've got gear at my house spanning the past 30 years.
Though he discusses power; let's start with the actual sound quality... a well built amp will work with no discernable loss of soundquality. Period. Decades of testing by basically everyone (not to mention a simple oscilliscope) show that a properly built amp, driven within its limits, has no audiable diviation from "perfect".

It was true 30 years ago. It's true now. If there's "a sound" to your amp either
1) It's deliberate.
2) The amp is junk
3) There's a problem.

So what about power? Well, McIntosh (my 35-year old is 120Wx2) makes amps up to 2,000W right now; and there are others that go higher. Peavy has a class-H amp at best-buy that's 1200W @ 2ohm for a couple of hundred dollars.

But any discussion of power is just stupid without a discussion of load. As we've moved to self-powered subs and smaller mains: the needed power to drive speakers has gone down. Sure you can get a set of B&W800s or such... and for you the high-end store still carries huge amps.

There's so much that can be said but the short of it is, unless you actually screwed up, it is the speakers, not the amp, that determines the sound.

But what about the other way? Hearing someone when I've got a lot of background noise. My problem with "in-the-ear" has been that, because the distance is so short and the driver so small, the rate of volume increase / decrease is sharp. In short, I quickly go from "can't hear you" to "too loud, but still can't understand".

Then I could deal with a radioactive oil slick. At least I could still tan at night.

"condemn an entire industry because of one accident"

Well blowouts occur more-than-yearly with oil dumps in the tons. Add to that collapses, sinkings, pipe ruptures, and things like tanker ruptures and the numbers get very signifigant.

This is just an unusually large instance in an unusually noticed spot.

But how well will it work in the minivan when the kids want to watch it, or on the plane when work is flying me somewhere?

Copyright was not created back in the days of yore, nor enshrined in the constitution to protect / help the economy.

The express purpose for granting an artist exclusive copy right for a limited period was to encourage the production of more art. (the US constitution is pretty explicit, but so is centuries of common-law before that).

How / why am I having my tax dollar spent on this non-issue. I don't think we have a shortage of art looming, and if we do: I don't see that copyright laws in India are the problem.

Yes, we know of windows and skylights (windows in roofs). Neither routs light througout a building.

But light-pipes do. In smaller buildings (houses) they are hemispherical light gatherers with basicaly reflective conduit. In larger strructures, they are fiber-optic.

Cool, but not new.

The license you get that allows you to pilot a helicoptor is for "rotary wing aircraft".

Those blades are indeed wings (to the same extent wings on a plane are).

Not that this is related to the actual topic at all.

Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately. Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.

Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives. As a political action: this is assassination. As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.

Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal? We've done it in every war since WWI.

Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us? How is that worse?

No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).

You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders. It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.