Interesting that the 'pirating == theft' brigade hasn't modded you into oblivion yet...

The correct answer is "Yes, but I avoid the comments."

It's called Moral Relativism, and it's about as old as history. It's certainly older than you, so your slack-jawed, gaping old man schtick certainly seems a little disingenuous.

do you really thing a struggling farmer cares about the environment when his business is failing?

I think I see the problem.

The guy wrote a reasonably interesting article on his own personal blog and submitted it to /. twice.

I'm failing to see why you're so butthurt over this.

glide wrapper?

You might associate it with coral reefs, but the majority of it is far more bland.

Check out these articles on whale falls. It's pretty cool.

http://www.nurp.noaa.gov/Spotlight/Whales.htm

http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2002/dec20_whalefall.html

I really don't know what to say, other than you are wrong.

You know I'm wrong, but can't explain it. Clearly a commanding grasp of the subject.

Just read this and get back to me.

Holy crap, I forgot that I had i76 on my shelf. Awesome!

don't buy i76 if you are on a multicore, it runs like ass

God dammit.

From TFA:

If he's right, and the proposed technique could end the worldwide radioactive-waste problem that has been building up for the past fifty years, why has almost nobody in this country heard about it? The answer to this question -- along with the roots of many of the problems plaguing current U.S. nuclear-waste-disposal efforts -- can be traced to a 1986 decision by the Department of Energy which cut off research funds for sub-seabed and other disposal alternatives, so that the agency could focus exclusively on developing a land-based geologic repository for high-level wastes; a year later it settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The timing was unfortunate: ongoing sub-seabed experiments were canceled in spite of encouraging results and after much experimental apparatus had already been built.

Hmm, the DoE _is_ a known Greenpeace collaborator. Let's keep reading...

Clifton Curtis, a political adviser to Greenpeace International, has fought against sub-seabed disposal since 1978

Aha, the smoking gun! Let's take a look at this commie's CV so we may revel in his complicity.

...Senior Political Advisor and strategist on oceans for Greenpeace International (1991-1998)...

Wait, what?

Yeah, the wikipedia pages on race and biology are home to a lot of axe grinding right now. There have been a few (relatively) recent papers published that essentially say "maybe some genetic clustering re: geography" and this has led to unwarranted proclamations from people who should really know better. If you're hoping (ok that's probably not the kindest work I could pick) that the science will reverse itself you'll need to wait a while. It could happen, nothing's carved in stone except archaeology. But it hasn't yet.

This is why black couples tend to have black kids and white couples tend to have white kids. When you mix the two the usual genetic dominance rules apply.

But you still end up with a black kid now, don't you.

I just... I don't know, man. I started with my first reply assuming that the guy never graduated from high school. Nothing "wrong" with that, but it was clear that he'd missed out on some basic education.

Then I see post after post saying "oh yeah totally race is like that", and I have to wonder what the hell is going on. Did none of you graduate from high school? I mean, this isn't new information.

Let me make one simple statement, and I hope that it's both perfectly clear and easy to do a bit of googling on:

There is no genetic basis to race.

From what I can tell, Nuremberg is the only instance where this defense didn't work.

(only very slightly sarcastic here)

From TFA:

"The bottom line," Nolle says, "is Internet2 a science project? If it doesn't have any relevance to the issues of the [commercial] Internet as it is now, then what good is it really going to do? My view is that the success or failure of any publicly-funded project is whether it benefits the public, and I suspect that most everyone in the general population would say that if Internet2 isn't going to fix problems with the [commercial] Internet, it's not helping them."

I think that most everyone in the general population would think that Nolle is a dickhead, and that his attitude typifies the point of view that's pulling America down into technological irrelevance.

Are you honestly suggesting that he killed his wife over open vs. closed source?