I think this is a more pertinent answer to his question.

WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM...


stupid caps filter, it's supposed to be all in caps

And by "reef", they mean a patch of silt 25km away from the actual reef.

And Deepwater Horizon was 77km (48 miles) from shore. This just in: ocean currents move stuff around.

No. I ascribe "keeping us safe" (in an open-ended woolly-thinking sort of a way) to George Bush in exactly the same way that I ascribe "make the world safe for democracy" to Woodrow Wilson. Each of them (OK, Bush's speech writers) knew EXACTLY where the course of their actions would take us.

When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government? Oh, that's right, George Bush and John Ashcroft used that as an excuse to make us live in a police state right after 9/11. Now it has spread to the whole democratic West. Good thing the terrorists didn't win.

At least the US version will explain that GCHQ means "Government Communications Headquarters" i.e.: the Brit version (SIGINT) of the NSA. Also, guaranteed no boobies, so win/win.

I see that you're "aquisitionally challenged" yourself.

Can someone with a thermodynamics background please explain to me how we can extract energy from Japanese cartoons?

A lawyer dies and goes to heaven (hey, it sometimes happens).
At the pearly gates, he's greeted by St. Peter and a huge heavenly choir, singing.
Lawyer says "What's with the big turnout?".
St. Peter says "We've had popes and saints and kings arrive here, but never someone who's 196 years old."
Lawyer says "What are you talking about? I'm 62."
St. Peter says "They must have added up your billing hours instead".

Reply hazy, ask again later.

Yeah, they lost me at "Gartner predicts...".

The Fendahl had it coming. The Time Lords had no choice.

Here's a shocking stat I came across just yesterday: the richest 85 PEOPLE have as much wealth as the bottom HALF the world population. That's 85 == 3.5 BILLION. citation[PDF warning]

Almost HALF of the world's wealth is owned by one percent of the population.

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

Unfortunately, I have somewhere to be, or I'd be writing a much longer epistle.

That's just because this particular case uses negative logic. Try substituting "libel/slander" for "patent infringer":

Normal case:
Plaintiff: "He slandered me!"
Defendant: "No I didn't!"

This case:
Plaintiff: "I didn't slander him!"
Defendant: "Yes you did!"

In either case, it seems overwhelmingly logical and obvious that the burden of proof is on the person claiming they were slandered, irrespective of whether they're the plaintiff or defendant.

Why do electorates keep falling for this "Government doesn't work! Vote for me, and I'll PROVE it!" crap?