http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html

First: HP 75C with 16K
Current: 8 Gb

I use a free app called coolreader on my Android phone. No dictionary, but you can highlight text, so no biggie. Put the money in the bank or something.

To me it would be Stanislaw Lem's Memoirs Found in a Bathtub, but I would give honorable mention to 1984, The Dark Tower, and the Thomas Covenant Series.

The 4th Amendment is very clear (probable cause -> specific warrant -> seizure as authorized by the warrant), and so is Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), which plainly states the Constitution is the highest law of the land. The 2008 FISA act blatantly contradicts both very clear articles of law by stating that the President's assurance that a directive is lawful (even if it obviously isn't) is protection from the law. If retroactive telcom immunity stands, it would potentially establish precedent that the President is the highest law of the land (again, contradictory to the Supremacy Clause.) The fact this issue had to go to appeals at all is a joke, and the retroactive immunity ruling is even more so. Plus the fact that it makes a mockery of Nuremberg, which executed people who followed unlawful orders.

Actually, there are thousands of Rural US consumers who get their internet through Anik F-2 (Wild Blue) I would bet there are as many (if not more) rural areas in Canada that have no access to even POTS.

I can do all that on my phone, without buying an extra device to haul around. Fondleslabs are the latest pet rock or maybe a status symbol at best. I fail to see anything they can do that I can't do better on my PC or phone. As for other people, I might see it getting a niche market for artists.

Well said. Sad that I had to scroll down so far to get to the question I asked myself when I first saw the story... what exactly is the "ground-breaking" technology? At the very least they are trolls for the very use of the words "ground-breaking" to describe ANY of the technologies in question.

As far as I can see, Apple proves the so-called "free market" is all about who has the best marketing and lawyers, NOT about innovation or efficiency.

1. Did you even rtfa? It sure seems like you are knee jerking at the title to me.

2. Are you a nuclear scientist, and thus have some expertise? You sure come across as if you are, but I doubt that reality backs that implication up.

3. No matter who the author is, the periodical was started by nuclear scientists. I trust the editor of New Scientist exponentially more than your non-existent credentials.

The article seemed thoughtful and well written to me.

I'm not saying your claims are incorrect, but I can find no corroborating sources for them. Would you care to source them?

Yeah, keep ploughing through the ditch you drove us into.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

Myth, and the small percentage (3%) it does affect are "S" corps who became such because of the TAX BENEFITS, and did so before Bush crippled the country with out of control spending on a senseless war and even more senseless tax breaks. We've had ENOUGH of the VOODOO economics.

Pure horseshit

If you can't see how comparing today's US government as it is today with countries who have single payer, etc, etc, etc (which not only are we NOWHERE near today, but we weren't even near when The New Deal started) as a fallacious, slippery slope bullshit talking point argument that has no bearing on reality, we aren't going to find a middle ground, so enjoy your house of cards that you call logic and piss off.

Exactly, so why is the right making such a big stink about people who make 250K+? By the time their accountants get done, the amount they pay even after the cuts expire is likely a substantially smaller share of their income than those of us who are struggling to pay our children's medical bills, etc. And the dumbest part is that they would not be making the money they are if it weren't for public education and other infrastructure. Even just the contribution of the government towards modern information systems is HUGE.

I don't need numbers. Look up Glass-Steagall, whose provisions have been repealed by: The "Marquette Decision," The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982, and Graham, Leach-Blily. On April 28, 2004, in a flagrant final act of eviscerating regulation, the SEC ruled that investment banks may essentially determine their own net capital.

This deregulation led directly to the S&L failures as well as the most recent Banking crisis.

You are right, I was looking at WW2 numbers. My statement was incorrect.

So you deny using slippery-slope fallacy and in the same breath engage in it. Debate over.

Epic fail. Your words utterly fail to match reality. First off, even if there were no regulations, they would still be lobbying as much (more, actually, since 'regulation' also covers lobbying) to get favorable treatment, government contracts, etc. etc. Secondly, during our best and strongest years(post-WW2), the top tax rate was in the 90's, the banks were heavily regulated, and the government was distributing a large percentage of the GDP for the general welfare of people including helping retired and poor people with their bills and medical expenses, many grants for health and other technologies, and infrastructure (such as highways, power, water, and communications) without which both the commercial and private sectors (of the whole world, and especially the US) would have stagnated and possibly had another dark age!

Both the commercial sector AND government can be great positive OR negative forces. Crippling EITHER is sheer idiocy! We merely need to curtail the TRUE threats without succumbing to slippery slope rhetoric by the radicals.