He can always up the ante -- go rob a bank of $1,000, commit an assault, etc. He's not entirely powerless in this situation. Something that would bring in a federal charge.

"Would you please tell the court why you . . . took it upon [yourself] to dig a very big hole in the middle of 1st Avenue?"

"Well, there are so many holes in 1st Avenue, [I] really didn't think anyone would notice."

Then they're wrong. You can get one free credit report each year from each credit reporting bureau. You don't have to get them all at the same time. Do Experian one time, then a few months later do TransUnion, then a few months later do EquiFax. Rinse and repeat.

But yeah, Sony is lame. I had a DVD drive for just over a year when it went out. Wouldn't do anything about it. I won't buy Sony again if there's any other alternative out there.

Like Charlie Sheen.

Touché.

This would be even more beautiful:

I just read about EROS last week . . . don't know how well it works, and it's probably old news to a lot of people. But the concept seemed interesting. EROS OS

This is precisely the reason they have revisits. They take viewer input and try scenarios or ways of doing things they didn't consider -- and sometimes they are able to duplicate the result. If this episode in December is still about Archimedes, then this will be the second revisit (maybe third??) they've had for this myth. That said, I've had times when they've tested myths and came away thinking that just because they didn't do it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Some of the myths they try to bust are based on scenarios of freak accidents, in which case there could be factors they don't know about, or it could be sheer dumb luck that a victim survived. Regardless, it's entertaining, and there are times when I learn things, but I don't take their results as gospel.

Indeed. He feels human beings are a problem. Okay, first thing you do is stop contributing to the problem. Ergo, take care of yourself first.

The other problem with having Greedo shoot first is that they were, what . . . about 2-3' feet from each other? Across the table? Greedo is an experienced bounty hunter. How the hell does he miss from that distance??

. . . again, and again, and again . . .

• Conservatives vs liberals. Liberals vs conservatives.
• Pro-choice vs pro-life. Pro-life vs pro-choice.
• Responsible disclosure vs full disclosure. Full disclosure vs responsible disclosure.

This is a hot-button issue where side A tries to convince side B they're wrong, and side B tries to convince side A of same.

There are benefits and drawbacks of full disclosure. There are benefits and drawbacks of responsible disclosure. There will never be a consensus.

I'm not trying to say it's not worth trying, but when doing a Google search for "full disclosure" and "responsible disclosure" on slashdot.org comes up with:

• http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/04/11/1424226/Why-Responsible-Vulnerability-Disclosure-Is-Painful-and-Inefficient/
• http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/06/14/210205/ATampT-Breach-May-Be-Worse-Than-Initially-Thought/
• http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/1640232/Firm-To-Drop-Database-Web-Server-0-Days/
• http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/1924237/Microsoft-Says-Dont-Press-the-F1-Key-In-XP/
• http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/06/16/0021225/Miscreants-Exploit-Google-Outed-Windows-XP-Zero-Day/
• http://slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/1640232/Firm-To-Release-Database-Web-Server-0-Days/

All on the first page . . . all from 2010 . . . All as threads with this debate going on . . .

Hasn't the deceased equine been flogged enough?

I believe there are times when full disclosure is better, especially when a company has shown a track record of not following through. I believe there are times when responsible disclosure is better. I don't think it's an absolute and this is not the only criteria I use when trying to decide which one applies to a scenario. But when the debate keeps going on over and over and over and over again . . . perhaps there should be a "Full Disclosure vs Responsible Disclosure" classification for Slashdot.

Sort of. What it's really stating is that you believe this is an issue that should appear on the ballot for a vote of the people. I would suspect that the majority of people who sign the petition likely do support the petition's position, but that's really not the point. It just means you agree it should be voted on.

The ballot is how you state your support (or lack thereof) for a particular position.

R2 was out with Luke at the time. They had to fix the hyperdrive and C3-PO had to talk to the computer to find out what was wrong. He needed to do it because R2 wasn't around.

And you'd be wrong.

How about those children that go on to overcome their adversities? Are you going to avoid having a child because that child may have dyslexia? Cerebral palsy? Diabetes? You don't want your child to go through breast cancer? Perhaps Crohn's disease? Hemophaelia? How about those children that go on to do great things even though their genetic makeups are not what we may consider normal? Are you going to shun Helen Keller? Ever stopped to consider the difficulties through which she was able to navigate? And come out smelling like a rose?

Are all children like this? No. Some will buckle under and just not make it. Some will adapt to their situation. And some will excel beyond their limitations. Sounds like most "normal" children I know too.

We don't understand enough of the little nuances of nature to be able to say we shouldn't pass on gene N because of the pain and suffering it may cause. The passing on of these genes may be the intermediate effects of nature updating the human genome. We just don't know. And by avoiding combinations of certain genes just because we think the offspring will have a bad life may cause delays in generating our future genetic makeup.

We just don't know. We think we're smart, but really we may be too smart for our own good. And do I know any of this for sure? Absolutely not. But I feel I at least have the insight to be able to ask what the potential long-term effects are instead of just living for my generation and perhaps the next -- and know that I don't have all the answers.

In our own minds, we feel it's important to know. However, by knowing and avoiding mating with someone with a recessive gene for some condition we consider tragic, we may be preventing the completion of a gene mutation in progress that would strengthen us at some point in the future. No, not all of our offspring live as a result of these inherited diseases but it is likely some will and they may reproduce, potentially passing on a new gene that avoids this condition in the future.

We learn more from adversity. Having the perfect child doesn't teach us anything. I would posit that many of those parents who have to deal with children with disabilities learn a lot more about parenting and selflessness than those whose children are considered "normal" by society.