Your experience does not correlate with my experience.

The wikipedia page on containment buildings has this blurb.

In 1988, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test of slamming a jet fighter into a large concrete block at 481 miles per hour (775 km/h).[14][15] The airplane left only a 2.5-inch-deep (64 mm) gouge in the concrete. Although the block was not constructed like a containment building missile shield, it was not anchored, etc., the results were considered indicative. A subsequent study by EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, concluded that commercial airliners did not pose a danger.[16]

While not a direct proof of design criteria, it seems to line up with the original statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

I thought you'd gone off the deep end when I read that has "hard to eat houses"...

Too be honest, NT 4.0 had it's fair share of quirks. I had one of those three month evaluation copies. I never once hit the timeout. I bounced back and forth between that and Windows 95. Whichever one was pissing me off least at the time...

How is this a violation of due process. As has been said by several others, the guy filed in the wrong court, got his lawsuit rejected and wanted SCOTUS to over turn that decision. This guy is the one not following process.

Is this a thing now? Where we just

Of course, you realize this is nowhere near being in the best interest of manufacturer. You're asking for a low priced phone (margins aside) that you'll buy today and use for 10+ years. It's much more in their interest to get you to upgrade every couple of years. Repeat customer.

I'm sure your answer to that would be "Screw 'em! I'm the customer! This is what I want!" However, I'm sure we're all aware that it doesn't work this way. There is always the other spectrum where they are simply losing overall sales because they don't provide you what you want. But I don't see that happening with phones much these days. Most people want the bling...

Well, sure. $70/month isn't bad at all. But $75!? Come on! That's an outrage!

Why would they. Those sites are a complete end run around the cable/satellite companies. With the the cable/satellite partners they sell their content and walk away. The cable/satellite companies charge the end users for the content and then lather it up with advertising to get as much money as possible out of it. The web sites that make the shows available provide the content straight from the source and tack on the same advertising. It's just straight profit for the content creator (used loosely). Why should they care if you have a cable/satellite account? They're still making profits either way.

6 months salary... can I be your butler?

I'm not sure why everyone assumes this research is suddenly dangerous just because it exists. I find one of three scenarios likely.

1. The "terrorists" wouldn't understand the research and, therefore, wouldn't be able to do anything with it. So, no harm done and very little risk. Continue the research and our overall understanding.

2. The 'terrorists" have the people they need in their fold which can understand and do something with this research. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that these same "terrorist" scientists could just do the same research on their own and produce similar results without this particular piece being published? "Oh! But it'll be easy for them now!". I don't really buy that one. If they wanted to do something along these lines they would have already.

3. The "terrorists" can now go recruit people that would understand and be able to do something with this research. Same scenario as number 2. They could have done this ages ago and done the research on their own.

I have a hard time believing that just because this paper is published it will be any easier for the bad guys to do harm.

It did when those selection pages were introduced. I remember seeing it there. However, ever since then it quickly fell in the rankings and wound up somewhere in the weeds. Now I have to search for it every time I get a new install and want to change that.

You keep saying this like it's true...

Not if you're using 24 hour time. Then it's only right once per day.

That's pretty much the point. No matter how you look at it, this way of depicting things says war is inevitable. Clocks are intended to move forward. Eventually we're going to get to midnight.