We should really explore using non-food sources (e.g., algae) as biofuel bases. We need food to stay inexpensive and gas not to increase in price, because we're using more expensive food sources. Here's a good Q&A about algae as a source of bio fuel (http://algae.ucsd.edu/potential/algae-qanda.html).

The INL project started in ~2005, but it was only recently announced.

In the US, the government sued (and continues penalizing) the tobacco industry, because their product causes "wrongful death", "injury", and causes the individual to require significant medical expenses. This product causes all of those things, so the lawsuits were justified. However, one would have thought that at least some of the $16B recovered by 2006 would have been given to the smokers who were suffering.

Instead, the government kept all of that money justifying that they would/might someday provide Medicare for those people -- despite the fact that most did not receive Medicare benefits! The State governments even announced that they were using the funds to build roads and for other projects!

This is one more demonstration that these types of groups seek to champion causes in order to perpetuate themselves, by keeping up the fight (fear), rather than relaying recovered damages back to those who were harmed. It's disgraceful.

So, a well-planned criminal just needs to hang out at the local shooting range and collect someone else's brass casings before they commit a crime. After they commit their crime, they collect their own shells, and toss out the other person's shells. When police show up, there is a positive ID on the discarded casings, because of the #. This was a good idea, but it is so very easily spoofed because it's non-deterministic and can put innocent people at risk. I'd pass...

My sunlight comes from out of state, too. Should we that with usage regulations and fees?

Should we abbreviate Facebook Incorporated as FB or is it now better to just call them FBI?

Excellent point. No patent or copyright treaty means that there is no violation outside of a specified jurisdiction. We see that between countries today.

The interesting thing about copyright & free software advocates is the way they define 'free'. If free means that I can give my work to others without anyone placing encumbrances, then that's a good definition to advocate. More often than not, I hear the sentiment that since software must be free, anyone can take someone else's work whether they like it or not.

'Free to give' seems to evoke sharing, while 'free to take' creates feelings of protectionism...

Perhaps ... as long as the definition of 'freedom' doesn't morph to equal 'piracy'...

Not even commenting on the article's content, is it really better to trust a pirate?

In 1995, I built systems for the USAF / AFRL based on data gloves and Polhemus trackers and I was not the 1st. We used this for 3D environment interactions and had many types of gesture recognition. Reading Google's patent claims, Google positioned the sensor on the finger tip (ours was on the back of the hand) and then applied all prior art to that minor and obvious 'novelty'. This is a minor departure from prior art, but is inline with how the US patent system works: you get a patent in exchange for full disclosure, then others get the opportunity to improve upon your invention and then patent their improvements. As a technologist, I look at this as a cheap copy, but from a patent perspective, they took prior art and built in a new way. If this spawns innovation, then cool, and if not, then it doesn't matter. I predict that, if successful, Google will see a few patent challenges.

Tell her the US Government has a copy of everything and they never go away. With proper identification, she can possibly request the pics under FOIA. ;-)

To test the phone, they could do more controlled experimentation here on earth... Also, most of the components were derived from those tested for the space programs and the work that NASA has already done, so it would seem that they don't need to reinvent the wheel. See (http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

The constitutional model just means that the rules are known in advance and doesn't refer to what those rules actually are (left or right). During the last several of decades, the US has given Presidents "Executive Authority" and Congress has failed to assert its constitutional check. The "BS" to which you refer is not due to the constitutional model, but rather to the departure from it.

Open source has a lot of excellent qualities, but applying it to finance may not be good. What is needed is a "Constitutional" model whereby all the rules are known in advance, solidified, and very difficult to change. This will keep opportunists from changing the rules to help them gain, financially. Even if all the rules are not perfect, being able to plan on them creates an environment of stability. The US financial model is not as stable as it was, because those unwilling to make difficult calls have chosen to simply print more money as a way of masking the problem and hoping it will go away. Now, business is trying to keep up with these non-sensical debt fetishes by the Fed decision makers. When we can get our leaders to calm down, survey the situation, and make slow and calculated changes according to established norms, then things will get better. If the Michigan Gov wants to make things better, then it is best to *not* try an use all the power that the office allows; rather restraint is more prudent.