Regarding the accessory socket: Depends on the car. And some cars give you the option of behaving in either way.

My CTS actually has a fuse in the fuse box that serves as a jumper between two positions. In the first position, the socket is as you describe that you expect it: On only when the key is in the "run" position. In the other position, the socket is on continuously, only switching off when the key moves to the "start" position (to protect against surges).

The car also has battery rundown protection, but I don't know the details of this. All I know is that it occasionally turns to dome light off when I leave it on the "on" position overnight, presumably when the battery reached a certain threshold. I don't see any reason it couldn't govern the accessory socket in the same way, but I do not know if it does.

This drives me crazy.

First, everyone tells me this about being a game dev. Everyone. Oh, and how it's not glamorous and some companies (read: most of them) treat you poorly.
But once a week, we get a "what nobody tells you" about game devs article here or on Extra Credits or the Escapist or wherever.

Stop it.

Second, there is nothing interesting about procedurally generated anything any more. Diablo did this. The first one. In 1996. It can be a nice feature, but it's not noteworthy any more. The move from sprites to polygons was noteworthy for early titles like StarFox. But nobody is putting "polygon-based graphics" stickers on their game boxes today.

Or it's likely a differing opinion. As someone who enjoys (some) Microsoft products, and occasionally defends that position here on Slashdot, the whole "shill" thing gets tiresome.

This is fair. If it's happening. I read Slashdot daily, and either these are getting moderated down to -1 SUPER quick (I read at 0) or it's not happening enough for me to notice. Can you link to examples?

No, I don't think we all know it. I see this idea parroted a lot. I don't see examples cited, other than people saying "Hey OneNote is pretty good! You should give it a chance!" followed by ten replies calling the poster an astroturfer.

It gets really old and frankly is embarrassing to watch.

Um... use your head. You fill out forms when you get a license. Logically you would "sign up for that" when you fill out the form, or you'd just not be able to get a license.

It's possible they've overlooked it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of them drove.

You can't really expect the math to be on Discovery.com. It's a general interest site for the public. It needs to be accessible (though perhaps it wouldn't hurt them to link to it...).

Someone else posted the original paper, which can be found here.

You're a moron.

I don't even know where to begin...

1) Why on earth would you pick Qatar of all places? They have a population of 1.9 Million. I live within an hour of at least two cities that are larger than that. You then compare it to all of the United States? Really?
2) GDP per capita is a terrible measure of poverty. If you've got unequal income distribution (lots of poor, and some super rich) it skews the numbers.
3) Qatar has fantastically low violence. Like lower than the United States. Even though GDP per capita isn't the best metric to use, Qatar is still a very well off country. The unemployment is low (1.5%!!!), poverty is low, literacy rate is on par with western nations, higher education rates are high, etc. And you know what? Their murder rate is half that of the United States.

Now I bet if we went through all the majority Muslim nations one by one, we'd find exceptions - nations where the populace is relatively well off and educated that are more violent than other nations that are poorer (Muslim or non-Muslim majority),

But I also bet that if we ranked all the nations in order that violence and other social ills would largely trend with some other metrics (unemployment, median income vs. cost of living, education, literacy). I further bet that the Muslim nations on this list would *mostly* cluster with nations that are statistically similar to themselves.

Does culture matter? Absolutely. Look at the violent crime rates in the U.S. vs. Japan or Germany, three nations who have very similar makeups on paper.

But my point is that culture goes *way* further than just religion. Stop being obtuse, or stop trolling. I can't tell which one you're doing.

Where were the moderate Christians when Christian extremists bombed abortion clinics and shot staff members?

I'll grant you that there are probably more violent extremists who would cite their motivation as Islam than there are violent extremists who would cite Christianity as their motivating force. But so what? That still doesn't put the blame on the rest of the Muslims.

The fact is that there were no U.S. security forces there. The consulate was defended by and the mob was engaged with deadly force by Libyan security forces. Early reports indicate that when it became clear that the mob was overrunning the consulate, a local Militia intervened and stepped in to defend the consulate. Many / most of these Libyans were likely Muslims themselves.

Today, there were rallies in Egypt and Libya of people expressing remorse for what happened. But I guess they must not be Muslims because they weren't violent and because they denounced the violence. Funny that.

To answer your questions:

How many of them did you see spoke out against the beheading of non-moslems, carried out by their moslem brethren, in the name of Islam?

Every single Muslim I know. Every. Single. One. To say nothing of Muslim politicians and prominent leaders speaking out in more prominent venues than my living room or office.

were those so-called "moderate moslems" when the Madrid Train Stations got bombed?

There are 1.1 Million Muslims in Spain. 29 individuals were charged in involvements in the Madrid train bombings. While I'm sure there are other violent crimes that have been committed in that population of 1.1 million, am I to believe that the vast bulk of them are what? Biding their time? Waiting for the right moment to detonate their suicide vests that they've all been issued at the local mosque / radicalization center? Wow! Spain is a ticking time bomb!

Did we see any of those "moderate moslems" spoke out against the bombing of the London subway system?

Why yes we did see moderate Muslims speak out after the 7/7 bombings. In fact, 500 of their religious leaders in the U.K. issued a Fatwa condemning the bombings.

Do you know that them moslems beheaded little kids in southern Thailand, just because their parents were (the parents were butchered as well) non-moslems?

Did you know that Patriotic Resistance Force in Ituri (a group that indentifies itself as a Christian militia) has committed genocide, kept prisoners locked in rooms that were essentially mass graves, kept women and children as sex slaves, and engaged in conscription of child soldiers? Does this mean all Christians are vile? Or maybe just all African Christians? Maybe just Ugandan Christians? I'm sure we can find a sweeping bigoted generalization you can agree with!

You should be modded down as a troll, because you are a troll.

There are bad Muslims in the world. Congratulations for figuring that bit out.

But guess what? If there are a million Muslims in an area and 100 of them go on a killing spree, guess which group gets news coverage?

Nobody is apologizing for anything. We're trying to make sure bigots and morons understand that a couple billion people aren't responsible for the actions of a few.

No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.

The tax question goes to the question of did he take every slimeball loophole possible, or did he file as intended by the spirit of the law? His father made a very public point of doing the latter.

It's widely known that George Romney released 12 years of taxes. What's not as widely known is that when he did, he released it to a journalist with Look magazine. When he did, the folks that poured over his returns noticed something:

"Auditors notice two unusual facts in these returns. First, the Romneys have never made much use of tax loopholes, such as depletion allowances, that are taken for granted by most people who reach their bracket. Second, over the 12-year period, they have donated an average of 19 percent of each year's adjusted gross income to their church."

http://itcouldhappenhere.com/blog/romneys-ryan-timing-a-taxing-matter/

The question isn't does Mitt Romney do anything illegal (though the Dems would love it if he did), the question is do his tax returns make him look unethical?

I'll grant you that although the OJ Simpson saga should have been just tabloid fodder, because of his celebrity it was widely covered by legit media.

But story of the year? Story of the decade? Are you insane?

Just that year, we had the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact with Jupiter. Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Kremlin accords. Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. Nixon died. The Yugoslav wars were in full swing, THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE OCCURRED. Apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa.

So seriously, this was the biggest news of the 1990s? The same decade that had the gulf war, Bill Clinton elected twice, and then impeached, the rise of the world wide web, (speaking of which, Netscape was 1994 also), the Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine massacre, Branch Davidian Compound, Rodney King Beating and subsequent LA riots...

Yes, the media oversold the importance of the OJ Simpson story. Please don't perpetuate that today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Weapons_of_mass_destruction

I'm not going to argue for McCarthyism. But you're providing a false comparison.

In this instance, you're demonizing the tools themselves as a problem. But under McCarthyism, government used the tools of the day, tools we *still* use today and see nothing wrong with when applied correctly.

This isn't, and shouldn't be an argument about tools. It should be an argument about *rules*. Due process, and who gets to collect and use data and how.

I don't have any problem with government collecting massive amounts of public information. I just want the way that data is collected, archived and retrieved to be regulated.

You wan to know what cars were on Maple St. between 1:00AM and 3:00AM on the 5th of May, because of a murder investigation? We've got the records. Any sane judge would issue a warrant to retrieve those records when a serious crime like murder is involved.

You want to check the records for what time your ex-wife's car left her house on Monday, because you're spiteful and you happen to be a cop? Sorry, you don't get the records without a warrant.

Will there be rule breakers? Probably. Will there be abuses? Probably. But we have that now with the current tools, and we punish these folks when we catch them.

• Just because we have stalker cops, doesn't mean we don't give cops police cars.
• Just because we had McCarthyism doesn't mean we stopped having Congressional investigation or wiretaps.
• Your speed limit example is just wrong. If you go 65.1 in a 65, you can get a ticket now. Just because you don't *see* a cop there doesn't make it suddenly legal.
• Your First example, five cars near three murders, starts out sane. We could do that today if this was discovered by eyewitness or by security camera footage at a gas station. But then you make the leap to "the cops will beat all five suspects". This could happen, or it could not. It would have everything to do with bad cops and nothing to do with the tools. It could happen today.

Don't blame tools for bad actors using them in bad faith. Put controls in place to restrict how these tools can be used.

We give cops lethal weapons. But we hold them responsible for how they use them. I think they can handle *cameras* if we apply sane standards to them.

A good friend of mine lives in South Carolina. There's a barbecue chain there called Maurice's Barbecue. Big chain, everyone knows about them. And everyone knows that they are openly unapologetic racists.

The guy who runs them fought a court case all the way to SCOTUS to keep blacks out of his restaurants (lost by unanimous decision). Walk in today, and you'll find literature on shelves with racist tracts and his book promoting "a lost way of life" and promoting slavery.

http://www.amazon.com/Defending-My-Heritage-Maurice-Bessinger/dp/0971336903

The Chick-Fil-A analogy is apt. These guys can't keep blacks out of their restaurants any more than Chick-Fil-A can keep gays out of theirs. And the kids behind the counter making minimum wage, along with the management of individual stores may or may not have a prejudiced bone in their bodies.

But the owners are intolerant dinosaurs from a bygone era. They may not have a completely free hand to run the company the way they wish with regards to bigoted policies. But they're still jerks.

The point is bigots of all kinds are still around. But there are disgusting things that we have decided are lawful (for instance, hate speech), and disgusting things that we've decided as a society that will be unlawful (discriminating in places of public accommodation).

The problem is that that's not a good analogy.

Chick-Fil-A doesn't refuse to serve gays. If they did, your analogy would apply. Instead, the owner supports policy (read: laws) that would deny gays certain rights (in this case, the right to marry).

A better analogy would be if a restaurant owner supported legislation banning interracial marriage, but still served blacks and interracial couples in the restaurant.

Support for the laws that discriminate is detestable, but it should not be illegal. Discriminating against who you serve, however is both detestable, AND illegal.

Are you kidding me?

Do you think you can shoot down any aircraft that flies over your property?

These are / will be treated no differently than manned aircraft until such time as someone decides to pass a law / laws differentiating them.

Browse through the FARs. Most Federal Eviation Regulations make no mention / distinction between manned / unmanned aircraft.

It's unlawful to fire upon aircraft.

Doesn't matter if the aircraft is American or not, armed or not, manned or not. It's unlawful to fire upon, set fire to, explode, or otherwise screw with the operations of an aircraft registered in the U.S. or other countries. If it's manned, it also prohibits you from screwing with the crew.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32

Just out of curiosity, what keeps you from shooting at the guy who hands menus on your door knob from local restaurants?