Would an Animatronic President have a birth certificate?

Well, you've heard of it now.

Beware Poe's law.

I think his point was more that if it breaks, there needs to be a way to disconect the rear wheel from the motor so the bike can be pushed around. I'd think that from a practical standpoint, you'd have to have that for everyday use anyway unless you can run it in reverse.

The range problem has vanished if your benchmark is bikes with tanks so small they have a range of about 150 km. I ride further than that before my first stop most days. The benchmarks for range are touring and sport-touring bikes with large tanks that are capable of 350-450 km between stops.

When an electric finishes the Iron Butt Rally, I'll say the range and charge time problems are licked.

More likely, you live in a place where there are surfaces behind the riders for the noise to reflect and bounce back in your direction.

Go to a wide open area sometime and have anything with an audible exhaust drive by you. You'll hear a lot more if it as heads away than when it's coming toward you.

I'm as excited about electrics as the next guy, but there's a fistful of gassers that will run rings around the current crop of electrics on performance measures alone and an armload if you factor range into it. That will change, but I'm not holding my breath for something that fits my needs (fast, comfortable and capable of 500-mile days without gaps in the middle) in the next 5-7 years.

The Livewire has marginally better torque- and power-to-weight ratios than HD's Sportster 883, which isn't a stellar performer by any measure. What it does have is full torque available from zero, and that makes it a good (but not fantastic) stoplight racer.

It's a nice idea but how many people will pay to embed this framework when scores of iOS extensions are going to come out with iOS8, and let you do essentially the same thing?

It's both the descendants of the 36-bit Univac 1108 and the 48-bit-plus-tags Burroughs 6500 (very much like, but not compatible with, the B5000).

You can target everyone who was sent or sent mail to anyone who lost email - you find out who that is simply by gathering a list of everyone that person communicated with a month before and after the period they lost the email for. You might miss a few people in the middle but it would be pretty close, and you'd probably get most of it.

And many of them recognize this as well.

If Mach is "the Mach kernel", I don't think it offers UNIX APIs, but at least two OSes based on Mach have passed the Single UNIX Specification test suite (which NT 4.0 hasn't, and which even Interix^Wthe Subsystem for Unix-based Applications hasn't).

Microsoft haven't. I guess they realized that software actually used alternate data streams, so they had to add them back to ReFS, although only "up to 128K for both Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2", so they're more like "big extended attributes" than full alternate data streams.

Are you certain? The ln command, when run without -s, would return an error if you used it under Tiger or earlier?

Or are you referring to hardlinking to directories, which was something UNIX traditionally supported, but which required root permissions (as it was used by the mkdir command to create the . and .. directories), and which was removed at one point (4.2BSD, as that added the mkdir() system call, making the ability of link() to link to a directory unnecessary?), and added back in 10.5 with the introduction of Time Machine, so that it could be used in backup trees as a very hacky form of de-duplication (each backup tree is a complete copy of the file system being backed up, but if there's an older copy of an unchanged file or a directory everything under which is unchanged, the "copy" is done by making a hard link rather than by copying the file to the backup disk).

That's what happens with any backup scheme that does incremental backups - if a file hasn't changed, a copy isn't made.

Then suffer the penalties of the law or obey it. There is no false, you either change the law, follow it, or accept it's punishment.

Or you continue to break it and seek to avoid punishment as much as possible.

The law is not subject to interpretation

That shows a total lack of understanding of the court system, or an inkling why there is a court of appeals.

So if a company worth billions exists by dumping toxic wastes into rivers, laws against that do not matter?

In that case it is morally wrong to do so, so it matters. If it's morally right to break a law, then the law does not matter.

If it is that obvious and plainly seen, then you will have absolutely no problem getting the law changed.

And THAT shows an utter lack of understanding of political momentum or how laws get made/unmade.

You called me naive but you are the one who doesn't seem to understand anything about the mechanics of laws or regulations.

I'll let you have the last response as you obviously cannot reach enlightenment on this matter.