They are asking for open access to networks that were privately funded, like Comcast's _access_ network. The government didn't help AT&T (or any of the component companies SBC, Bellsouth, etc) run copper lines to houses nor wire fiber to digital loop carriers in neighborhoods.

Just my opinion, and please pardon my bluntness.

Bullshit.

Easements, government granted regional monopolies, etc.

Comcast et. al. have all received plenty of government assistance in the construction of their physical plants.

has no background - https://www.google.com/

Sometimes there is no difference between the simple truth and what you call psychological violence. When a person faces nothing but grim days, poverty, pain,abuse and disease recommending suicide should not be called a crime. There are some people in such rotten conditions that they really need to die. Pointing that out to them is not always a hostile act. I'm not sure that the law should ever get involved in such an issue.

Define "go after"...

It's the same as you "going after" the libeler or slanderer. Why should the one who acts be let off? A person who takes action against me(as previously stated) will have to justify it. And I should have legal recourse against them if they can't. I would hope that acting on hearsay is deeply frowned upon, since out in the real world, it can't be stricken from the record. And if it isn't, then that right there is the problem.

I turn the above paragraph into a commercial and play it on every American Idol commercial break.

And I am able to do exactly the same thing. Though I would hire better writers. Your attempt to sound like Monty Python definitely needed some sprucing up. So, what's your point? Throw enough bullshit around and people will quit believing it.. As it should be. Verify what you hear, read, see. When you act without doing so, then you are the bad guy. And on you I would sic my lawyers. HTH

Fecal transplants are illegal in the US, but in certain rare circumstances (such as an otherwise untreatable C. diff infection) they can be life saving.-Peter

You can turn off blocking under Tools>Options>Security. Maybe FF doesn't work properly, but functionality to bypass security warnings can't be much of a high priority

Actually it is a bit more complex than that. A Hash is just an link to an anchor on the current page. I am not sure how gmail works exactly, but I use extjs at work and it manages the history with an iframe as well. It needs a way to keep track of all the history tokens so it uses an iframe. Check out its source code if you are interested. http://www.extjs.com/deploy/dev/docs/source/History.html

Yes, I don't think that it's the actor's fault either. I should have mentioned it. I totally agreed with all that you said.

I think that if this were a different kind of movie, then the new Scotty could have worked.

I think that the former actors didn't have much to work with, because of the limited budgets. I also think that a lot of the success of the characters happened because of the former actors just selling it with all that they had. Maybe I'm out to lunch when I say this, but to just rewrite the Scotty character, but give many of the other characters similar characteristics, really discredits the work that James Doohan did.

For Uhura, she wasn't consistent with the former Uhura, but she was still a high status character.

As I write, I just thought of something. You said, "I get the possible need of water pipes in engineering". I argue that there was no need for Scotty to get trapped in the water. A running theme of Star Trek, is that no matter where you want to go, you never end up in rock or in a wall or floor. We could argue about how realistic it is, and I do acknowledge that transporters were new for the reboot's time period, but the audience has already bought into it's reliability, so to stick him in water just for humour might not be such a good idea.

Another thing about the old Scotty is that he was just a supporting character, and for the most part didn't need lines like, "I like this ship, it's exciting!".

Another thing that I found so odd was Chekov being able to ramble off a lot of scientific babble. I didn't think that he would know that. Those lines should have been given to Scotty.

I propose that the law gets out of trying to regulate our personal and private lives, and that all take up personal responsibility.

Oh, and if you DO screw up, nasty consequences. Really nasty.

There are also those of us with more than a passing interest in data security that are perfectly happy using facebook.

With every post I make, I keep in mind that the government, employers, and everyone that I've ever met can and will look me up. Sometimes I wonder why all these people are so paranoid. What are you doing that's so dangerous, posting your credit card numbers? Is your name and address such a valuable thing when it's been posted in the phone book since the days of rotary phones? Why are you posting things online for public review that you wouldn't want anyone to know? The fact that I see this argument from a lot of very technically savvy people (especially here on slashdot) really boggles my mind.

Facebook best feature is a chance to build a vision of your life and push it online for public review. Best of all, it's editable. You can go crazy editing your public profile (and many do), with the expectation that the interviewer you just talked to will probably be looking at it. Go ahead and post your job history, and all the impressive stuff you've done. Don't post pictures of yourself drinking on the job (or do if that's how you want to present yourself.) It's a tool, and a very powerful one. Think of it like the C++ of social tools, very easy to create something that will cause you grief later, but also very capable of crafting masterpieces that you can be proud of.

Why would anyone even passably technically inclined pass this up?

Sexual intercourse should be a human right.

From what I know, from a humanist philosophy point of view, any human being needs to have the right to full control of their body. So if someone wants to do something insane with their body, they are entitled to it (poenis goes WHERE?). Encouraging mutilation or sex however, would not be humanist (Somebody, think of the children! And hey, we're already past 6 billions of population! Earth is not a clown's car!). So if you decide you want to have sex, fine (Although I still despise you, crazy pervert!). If you want to preach people should want to have sex, need help to have sex, should be sold equipment, manuals, videos, books, have sex parties, night club lounges, sexual workshops, masturbation encouragement boot camps (LOL, WTF?), pro porn marketing campaigns, sexual education in school, porn industry awards, also tight jeans and 90% of US humour etc, all of which is speech, well, that would be psychological violence. Thats ideals, philosophy, morality, etc however. The field of law is another matter, and how to word the law so it's not abused either way is not so easy.

Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

I for one say welcome to our cancer immune naked mole rat overlords.

Good question.

I got my sandbox account this morning and am trying to figure out what it is and what it is good for.

My initial drunken impression is that it is a free form, real-time, google apps mash-up sort of thing, with bots written by smart people.

Still messing with it...