A portmanteau of meme and name?

Basically Wikileaks is trying to change the world so that we are so afraid of things we do in private being revealed that we don't do anything bad. They are doing this in the name of the public, and there is something to that, but they don't seem to care if they are crossing the lines between appropriately private matters and ones where the light of day would do significant public good. They absolve themselves of responsibility by adopting a pretty much filterless approach to revelation. There are great costs accompanying the benefits they provide, and though in the grand balance they may have done more good than harm so far, the magnitude of the stakes could tip the scale the other way very quickly.

RTFL. The letter indicates that cosmic rays are more likely to be distributed throughout the body due to higher energy, whereas the lower energy X-rays used for back-scattering will likely have concentrated impact on the skin.

F-sharp (pseudo musical notation)

If you never show it to anybody, it is absolutely yours. If you show it, or distribute it, it is no longer yours in an ownership sense. Copyright is an artificial and temporary right which is granted only as incentive for you to share your creations.

Technically, you don't want to get paid for copies of what you write. You just want to get paid for doing what you like. It just so happens that getting paid for copies of your product is the primary economic mechanism for this compensation in your case. And it is (arguably) worth preserving this mechanism, but not necessarily at the cost of arming abusive corporations so that they can chug along sucking up the lion's share of money derived from OTHER PEOPLE'S creations, while they stifle personal liberty, social and educational commentary, and technological innovation.

I am not a big fan of illegal file sharing, but the *AA have taken advantage of the situation to push a reprehensible agenda.

Brilliant. Truly brilliant

You and the OP are both being unnecessarily vague and inaccurate.

The question is whether the US federal government has the authority to tell one person to purchase something from another private entity.

The local government isn't forcing you to buy something. It's forcing you to pay taxes (which it can do) and then it's providing a service (which it also can do). Even though it looks similar, paying taxes + receiving a public benefit != purchasing a consumer good.

Interesting idea. Basically would need to establish event triggers on relevant tables. Should also be able to invalidate results that were previously found, and provide updates as well. Would require a lot of memory to persist enough information about the previous results that you don't end up with duplicates. I'll try and check in when you actually have a site.

IANAL, but if you transfer the copyright, they are free to reuse without a license so the version you transfer can still be used by anyone under the GPL, but they are free to modify as needed without any "viral infection". All the same, it would probably still be unacceptable to the lawyers drafting the rules.

The problem is that it is not stated directly what the question is that is being asked, so students are required to infer what the question is. Unfortunately, they just assume the "=" implies a question is "what is 4 + 3 + 2?" since that is the sort of question they are used to being asked. They are probably not used to (a) seeing an equality as a "statement", and (b) inferring from the hole in that statement that there is an implicit question as to what would fill in that hole to make it true.

It's a very easy leap for me, and probably always has been, but for my second-grade son on the autism spectrum it is a nearly insurmountable leap of logic. Our local school system works very hard to encourage this conceptual thinking in math, but at least for my son that is making it even harder for him to shore up the basics.

All that to say, I can understand how this state of affairs could come to be, but am sad to see that middle school kids in general are not exposed to enough logic and inference.

Worse yet, the more safety measures you add on, the less people feel they need to pay attention so it can make the relatively few failures more catastrophic.

Yeah, definitely the best part of the whole site.

You don't need special glasses to see a 3d-movie in 2d. The 3d glasses work fine. They did for me anyway.

I've got various eye-problems related to a severe infection I had as an infant. I've had surgery twice to try and correct my lazy-eye. And I'm totally immune to all kinds of 3d (3d movies, magic eye, etc.). Last time I went to the optometrist she explained that during the years where my eyes were crossed I developed a pyschological "blind spot". Since the eyes weren't pointing the same direction, I could either see double or just shut off the signal from one eye at a time. My brain opted for the latter.

Since my eyes are straight now the problem is theoretically something I could train my brain to stop doing, but I've never had any luck with the eye-exercises they gave me.

I went to see Avatar in 2d. Then I went to see it in 3d. The only difference at all for me was that in the 3d version if I took off the 3d glasses the whole screen looked fuzzy. If I kept them on nothing was in 3d, but the polarization meant that at least I could see the 2d images clearly.