1) Please feel free to argue with the media about what you assert the media said. I am not them.

2) Your comment is also out-of-context. The question was asked, and answered. You hack a straw man by pretending I was addressing something other than what I was.

3) I am not capable of tautological wants. It would be kinda cool if I could, but I cannot support or oppose something because I support or oppose it. I do require some reason for a position.

On to your post. *You* assert that we should kill people for the reason "it saves money".

OK. Let's kill all people, at arrest. Indeed: let's just have the arresting officer shoot them on the spot. That will save *far* more money than your plan will.

No? That's not your position? Then what is your position? What was that about honesty?

There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.

As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.

So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.

And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.

How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?

Openeing your response by poinding the table is not a good sign. (I started in the 1980s, so I win)

Actually: I pay Verizon for a connection to NetFlix. It's not something Verizon is being asked to provide for free.

Cogent (which has one of the highest-ranked connectivity degrees on the Internet) is who Verizon is failing to peer sufficiently with. They are not providing me the connectivity to the internet which I am paying them to provide. They likely would be falling over themselves to do so (perhaps going so far as to offer NetFlix that free access you assert) were they losing customers to other services that did offer such connectivity... but because of the duopoly, there's no competition for them to lose to.

For comparison: See Google Fiber's performance with NetFlix.

Let's take this to an extreme. Verizon cuts off all communication to everyone not paying them directly. That includes all other backbones (like Cogent, AT&T, UUNET, etc in the US and all foreign sites). All sites not directly paying Verizon from everywhere around the world stop working entirely.

Is that "internet access"?

What's the difference between "not working because of no connection" and "functionally not working because of deliberately insufficient connection"? Practically none.

I'm not sure you've entirely grocked the idea of an "Internet" and are confusing it with an "Intranet".

Verizon has advertized that I can buy X amount of internet connection, and then (deliberately) failed to create the upstream connections to deliver on that promise. Netflix, one of those up-stream providers who pays Cogent for access to the internet, is now having to pay Verizon for access to its intranet which, according to my earlier statement, is supposed to be internet.

Now we all realize that bandwidth upstream isn't infinite. If everybody and their brother decided to attach to my server at home, they cannot expect that only their paid-for internet connection would determine their connection speed (as mine would come into play), and even at a peering level, congestion is an inevitability at some point.

But the goal of Verizon, in servicing its customers, is *supposed* to be doing the best it can to provide promised internet badnwith to locations that its customers are tyring to reach. We know they will not succeed perfectly.

The issue is when Verison begins to, for the sake of profit, selectively limit peering. They are no longer attempting to fulfill their promise to give me internet access at a given bandwidth. It is this willfulness that moves us from "the way the thing works" to our gripe with the way the major ISPs are operating.

Let me put this in a different context. If TWC suddenly solved all its problems with NetFlix in my area, and if the public at large was aware of this, there would be a migration from Verizon to TWC. At that point, Verizon would suddenly improve its peeing with Netflix.

The only reason they did not, is because they are duopoly and so did not have to. That's pretty-much the bright-line test for whether there is abuse.

ISPs should be common carrier.

So all my cells come from a single cell that was present in my mother at the time of her birth having all come from a single cell present in her mother at the time of her birth, etc, etc.

Because cells reproduce by binary fission, both "child cells" are the original cell. Therefore, every cell on the planet is as old as the first cell (unless cell genesis occurred more than once).

Anyone who asserts, therefore, that cells have a finite and resolute reproduction amount or lifespan is clearly wrong. Some individual cells may introduce mechanisms that age them (I'm sure many do); but all existing cells are billions of years old.

Cable provides more channels than Aero, which only gives you a way to shift the (usually 3-6) free channels. Pricing parity would make no sense.

How does one get badnwidth without copper/fiber/cable again?

Why doesn't big cable do the same? Because they don't want to compete for audinece... they want to have captive audience.

Depends on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with. Bird moving through foliage at low F value? AF is likely to grab foliage. Something really close to camera and moving randomly? That can be a problem too. Baby waving arms... make sure you get focus to the face: AF (esp phase-focus) is likely to get the nearest object rather than the correct one. Contrast focus (and phase focus on-sensore, as with Canon 70D) can add face / eye detect, but (except the 70D) at the cost of speed (so moving objects are a problem again).

Begs an odd question.

The employer didn't not intentionally create nor knowingly permit. The problem with this CEO stemmed from the outside world.

The proximate cause to want to end his employment (yes, I realize that in actuality he quit) was the disruption in the workplace from the outside.

That the source of this disruption was the customer base, and that the cause for their displeasure was political seems not germain to whether the company itself would have been acting in a legal manner should it have been a firing. The obvious question I would put before the law is "can a company be forced to keep an ineffective employee merely because that ineffectiveness is in some way, outside the control of the company, tied to their politics".

Though I have to wonder if this means, in CA, a company can be forced to keep a KKK member or neo-nazi even if they are, for example, a minority outreach non-profit or houacaust museam.

Distance.
- Fuel
- Time in microgravity
Radiation exposure enroute (in fairness, a problem for Mars)
No aerobreaking to land (though perhaps mitigated by lower gravity)
No idea how to get through ice, or what would happen when you did.
Contamination.
Pressure.
Stopping radiation = no radio.
Etc.

When we can have permenant habitats in the deep desert: then we can talk about feasability offworld. The moon is really a no-brainer starting point because of the(relative) ease of short-duration missions and resupply.

First they would need to lower the stock somehow... perhaps sewing FUD over 2 fires. If that doesn't work, maybe some campaign about how bad batteries are. That would make them aquireable... if it worked.

It is an absolute certainty that an infinite amount of monkeys would type an infinite amount of "a"s on their first keystroke. They would also type an infinite number of all other characters on their first keystroke.

There's a classic story. A building with infinite rooms has infinite people filling it and you want to add infinity more. All you do is have everyone move to the room with double their current room-number, freeing up an infinite number of odd numbered rooms. Mind you: some will have an infinitely long move ahead of them.

Unfortunately: They created infinite heat from their work and basically destroyed the universe.

Though honestly: I think it might be better if B5 was just reshot entierely. There are plot threads that didn't get cleaned up because of unexpected changes mid season (though Talia had a grand exit that, while bringing a sudden end to some plots, was actually very well done, the other two created gaping holes in how the series unfolded). There were, bluntly, cheap-looking sets which would likely not be helped by a higher resolution (See shows like Farscape for better set use). The acting was something of a mixed bag.

That's simply not a true statement.

To his first issue (aspect ratio). There are two possible solutions.
1) Release in 4:3. There's nothing in the HDTV spec that prevents you from putting black lines on the left and right sides.
2) Change aspect ratios when CGI is present (this commonly happens in movies. Batman: Dark knight uses something like 4 aspect ratios)

To his second issue (resolution of CGI): So what. I know fan communities that could reproduce the graphics and have done similar. What they cannot redo is the recorded acting.

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.