There are NO Paradoxes that need to be explained in in Back to the Future III.

THERE WASN'T EVEN A BACK TO THE FUTURE II, much less a III !!! THEY WERE NEVER MADE!!!

At least, that how I like to look at the world.

Here's an analogy that works for most people, but maybe not Slashdotters, as it involves talking about girlfriends (use "My Guild is the best and undefeatable" as a substitute)

You claim your girlfriend is 100% trustworthy.

When some jerk thinks you're wrong, and decides he wants to hit on her, you throw a fit saying any doubt can not be tolerated. (Instead, let him publically embarass himself, and show him how its really done when he goes down in flames)

When someone shows proof she's been texting her ex, you throw it out (though, if you looked into it, you might find a good explanation: you might find she was just trying to get back her hottest lingerie to wear for you, or she wanted the phone number of the smoking hot babe she told him no about, but she wants the threesome with you)

If you are confident, these things aren't a problem.

And though I think they are likely correct about their conclusions, their lack of WELCOMING contrary points of view makes this the issue.

Though I will never claim to understand all of the science, I can see immediately their fear of even being questioned.

I can not believe that someone on this forum, FOR NERDS, would make such a huge mistake on the REAL stuff that matters.

"You've never worked in the real world... they expect RESULTS!" -- RAY STANTZ TO Dr. Peter Venkman

As a Slashdot reader, you should know better...You might as well have misquoted a Python line, sheesh

Vegetative Patients Can Still Learn

Well, let's be honest, no one like to admit this and we "support" them for their right to make their own decisions. But, most of us consider it a real lack of judgment, and making that conscious decision probably says a lot about their overall intelligence.

But, I have never felt that someone was beyond hope just because they will only eat vegetables!

{devilish grin}

Depending on the ex-lover, there are some that might argue that bringing them back as a zombie is not only "the same", its better than it ever was :)

*Sigh*, its a telescope. Just move the tripod to somewhere safe. Jeez

Try to hit the demo with IE and you get this error-

oh noez - please get yourself a sophisticated browser :)

Ok, I looked at the patent on this before posting this because I initially thought, was "BULLSHIT, you can't patent a fucking staircase. There has to be something being left out."

But, I was wrong wrong wrong.

About the only descriptive text in the patent.

"We claim the ornamental design for a staircase, substantially as shown and described."

I know he has made some cool tech contributions, but this is absurd!!!
 

Yes, I can...IF...

Its gonna be cost analysis decision just like anything else. I, and I would expect most other people, am not going to go out of my way to use it.

So, my airport is 10 mins away. If I have to go an hour to get to the train, and I still will have to go through all the same hassles (security, ticket counter, etc) I am not going to do it.

Other factors come in obviously, if it crazy cheap, but its all just is this advantageous or do I literally and metaphorically want to "ride the train" because its the new cool thing to do.

BTW- Love that my captcha for this is ELECTIVE, seems quite fitting

"affecting the outcome of elections at the local, state, and federal levels. "

Source please? Not saying your wrong, I just missed that detail when I RTFA.

Yeah, the buggies the Amish use don't have headlights. The govt makes them put reflectors on their buggies, that the Amish hate.

I can assure you, if this goes into effect (And just to be clear, I hate this idea), you won't get away with "My equipment is not capable of meeting your requirements"

To call the man an idealist is the understatement of two centuries. The suggestion that he was trying to define which liberties one ought to give up in exchange for which sort of security is just laughable.

Take a deep breath and read this, it may seem a little complicated to you at first and make you want to get really mad:

I AGREE with YOU.

But that doesn't mean that I must support your manner of defending removing the extra words. That is all. The original quote is fine the way it is. No need to edit his language for him.

Is it your assertion that capable writers necessarily write as few words as possible? That they never provide justification for their assertions?

Actually, I was making the opposite point, thanks. Capable writers often use more words that others might feel necessary.