21:9... this is not a 7:3 aspect ratio? Well, I'm holding out for the 42:18's.

And Windoze 95 is an ancestory of yours.

So where's the IAU when I keep hearing this radio commercial for the bullshit "Internaltional Star Registry" from Rocky Mozell? Or did they already smack that one down, and all the suckers who keep giving him money to run commercials didn't get the memo?

Especially for digital books, but to be used on the digital information that a regular book is printed from... a cryptographic hash of the book is the book identifier. Decentralized, unlikely to have a number collision, and the added bonus of a mechanism to make sure that the book you received is the book you wanted. The only thing that needs to be centralized is the decision of which hash to use, how to hash the data, and how to represent the hash as to the user.

While TFA is an interesting approach, the simpler solution to one of the main thrusts in TFA (of having equal EC representation/distribution) is to simply change the EC to where each congressional district (or in this case, electoral district) is autonomous and controls its own vote independent from the rest of the state it's in.

Even if the two extra EC vote afforded each state are kept, I see this as a far better system than a strait popular vote system. Why? Because the EC has a side effect of doing something amazingly positive that few realize. It contains vote fraud to within the state it happens in.

Consider this for example: Imagine a politically corrupt jurisdiction in your state. Imagine that they start cranking out fraudulent votes. The votes they dilute are limited to the vote in their state. But in a popular vote system, they now dilute everyone's vote. By tweaking the EC system to treat congressional districts autonomously, the fraud is contained even further.

And since congressional districts are explicitly drawn to contain apportioned sections of the population (given a few constraints of not crossing state boundaries and the like), the goal towards equal vote weighting is more naturally furthered.

Instead of bothering with punishment in SK, why not just help him emigrate to NK? Maybe after he's lived there, he'll realize what a crap hole it is and try to help the place go Gangnam Style.

Yet another piece of content going the way of the "Penis Song".

But if you hold a particular idea, can you be called a bigot and be summarily dismissed? And those ideas that are generally accepted to be bigoted never get a fair discussion because those that would argue in favor of them are marginalized and dismissed for merely advocating the idea.

Linux now has decent NTFS support. That lead me to believe that anyone who wanted to implement these GC routines would have enough (indirect) documentation of NTFS internals to do such.

So what you're saying is... that you don't watch Beck, but you believe what his adversaries say about him. Okay. At least I know how informed you are.

I don't have mod points, so I have to post. It's discouraging to see so much lefty-Flavor-Aid blather here at +5, and something like this only sitting at +4 (at the time of me seeing it).

Since you didn't explicitly state this, and for anyone else reading this and curious about it, the clueless senator in this exchange is Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). (As suggested by the phone number included.)

If I'm recalling correctly, the federal 9th circuit struck down the binding arbitration clause of the contract in a suit against Verizon, stating that a cell phone contract is a contract of adhesion, and that one can not sign away their rights to legal recourse. I'm sure read this from a story linked from a /. front page post. I don't have the time to find this, but hopefully my post will jog someone's memory and they'll get a +5 comment for recalling it.

You know what their response to that is? It's very simple: "Right, you're buying a license."

It probably is their response. It may be even more flippant... "Right, you're buying a box". Everyone need to push back and state that such is not the way to convey such in our language. That they need to explicitly state that the price is for the priveledge to enter into a license agreement with them for use of their software, and that a reasonable jury will interpret the language of "buying the product" to mean "buying the product".

Of course, I may still be under the misguided impression that our world still has a good percentage of reasonable people.

Also, I'd like for it to now be legally disallowed to use the term "buy software" in a commercial context as it no longer applies and would falsely advertise what it is that we "purchase".

An absolutely brilliant point. And following up on that point, I went to their website to see how they phrased it, and indeed they are using the language "reasons to buy" and "review and buy" on their product pages.