I don't recall the internet ever being controlled by its users.

I was skeptical, and looked up some data. It seems this is indeed correct.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005

Quite interesting.

Its released under an Apache license. Anyone can run with it if they want to.

It has been quite possible for a third party candidate to win. Here are some examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

There are probably a few more, but these were the ones I could find most readily. They were on the ballot in most/all states. It gets easier if you look at smaller elections. There are a few in the house right now, IIRC.

Voicing your support for a third party candidate has the same value as supporting any other candidate. I would actually assert that it has a bit more value, really, as it shows you are disillusioned with the two party system and your choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. If more people broke free of the fallacious "throwing away your vote" argument, I could see the situation improving. Perhaps not a reformation of the system entirely, but the two parties might just perk up and listen a bit, in fear of independents actually gaining ground.

I used to have that box. It seems to have been taken away from me. Not sure why.

http://www.google.com/patents/US6384822

This seems pretty "pure mathematics" to me. I suppose the phosphors of a monitor count as a physical material, but I think that's stretching it a bit.

I'm curious, what problems do you think evolution brings up?

Food-safe plastics do exist. I cannot say whether this particular plastic used was food-safe or not, but its at least possible.

Voice your dissent. Vote 3rd party. Only good things can result from that. Either we elect a 3rd party candidate, which I suspect would be less susceptible to corruption, or the first party candidates wake up a bit and realize they have to pay attention to the electorate. Either way, the people win.

Also, vote in primaries. The first parties tend to have at least one candidate that isn't atrocious, but they don't seem to win primaries very often. I suspect voter apathy is the cause here as well.

If you want to take laziness out of the equation, sign up for absentee ballots. Much easier than voting in person.

I don't think that is a patented iPhone thing. Palm has had silent toggles on their smartphones forever.

RELEASE... THE KITTIES.

Miller is an American Beer. The company isn't owned by Americans anymore, sure, but the beer is the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brewing_Company

Hmm ... unfortunately, despite what your intentions may have been, to most readers it appears to be an advertisement. At least thats what I am gleaning from reading all of the comments here. Perhaps product reviews are simply not a thing for Slashdot, given the impossibility of distinguishing advertisement from a personal review/endorsement.

For me, Slashdot is all about the community. The perceived commercialization of this website is a very touchy issue for that community, especially so given taco's departure. I would like to ask that you guys please tread carefully, as I don't want to lose the website I have read for many years. Too many to count right now without growing despondent. If I just wanted another news aggregator, there are many to choose from. But Slashdot is special.

I believe the Nest attempts to learn your habits, which the Prestige does not do. I'm not entirely certain that this is a useful feature, mind you, as I figure most people's schedules are regular enough to just program in. However, the point remains that the functionality is somewhat different.

While I understand your cynicism, I believe it to be a bit misplaced in this instance. These rules are to protect the rights of the people. Specifically, the defendant.

Also, I don't believe the situation to be quite so hopeless as you put forth. When I last served on a jury, I was picked to be the "extra guy" (unsure of the proper term), so I didn't get to join in deliberations. Instead, the judge called me into his chambers. I felt this was a bit odd, but he just wanted to talk about my jury duty experience, and any way they could try and make it better for the jurors. He (and I suspect most other court staff) was well aware of the generally negative perception of Jury duty, and wanted to try and help fix that. That concern was genuine, and not required of him in any capacity.

I have never spoken to another judge in the same manner, so I have but one data point to give, but its a very promising and hopeful data point. I think it has a little smiley face on it, actually.