Noise ordinances are constitutional. Vague and confusing laws are unconstitutional. The problem is if most of the laws on #1 fit in category #2. It doesn't mean anything about #1, other than lawmakers are dumb.

"fighting words" and "incitement" are illegal acts in many places, and there's a fine line for what are illegal words.

In Bill's case, it was the judge that defined the words poorly, and he gave the only legal answer, even if it seemed silly taken out of context.

So assume they hit the roof, a startling sound, but no impairment to vision. If the driver reacts and crashes, is that the fault of the person reacting, or the person acting?

As for "capricious" it's not. Capricious would mean without precedent, and "on a whim", while the decision was before the FCC for 10+ years, and not taken lightly, and it just confirms the state of the Internet that existed for most of its life. That doesn't meet the definition of the word, though I've not dealt with the legal definition of capricious. If it were truly arbitrary and capricious, one would not need file a legal challenge, as one would expect it to change before such a challenge were concluded.

It's not a proprietary solution. It's a single OEM-only drive that's similar to (and meets the standards of) many others available now and before. The article inappropriately calls a standards-based OEM drive "proprietary".

Stupid M.2 is why it's harder for me to get good toys for may mSATA. My 256GB boot drive will have to suffice.

In my experience people who were too lazy to learn perl in the mid 90s and who are not experienced in Java.

So it only protects from shock waves? I was thinking of something that would help replace the expensive, heavy, and error prone reactive armor on tanks.

Eskimo is a tribe. It'd be like calling Tahoe, Taos, and all the others you can think of based in the Southwest US "Pueblo". It's wrong, and indicates that you don't know or care what the correct label is.

In the United States and Canada the term "Eskimo" was commonly used to describe the Inuit, and Alaska's Yupik and Iñupiat. "Inuit" is not accepted as a term for the Yupik, and "Eskimo" is the only term that includes Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit. However, Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Greenland view "Eskimo" as pejorative, and "Inuit" has become more common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Though, being around the Alaskan natives, I've found that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. Canada, Greenland, and Alaska would be more accurate. Eskimo was one tribe, but it was one of the first, so all the other arctic tribes were (wrongly) called Eskimo.

A race-baiting A/C is assumed willfully ignorant.

Then everything is sexual harassment because everyone has a gender.

So if I blow on your hand, I've used "physical force" and thus committed an assault? Does it matter of the "blowing" of air was from speaking? I can measure the "physical force" speech causes. Microphones are designed to measure and record that physical force.

But you have an inarticulable line between speech and "force" where the force has no force.

For the water balloon, what if it misses the car, and the driver still panicked and crashed?

So water hitting your car causes risk. I guess you never drive when rain is predicted.

In reality, a water balloon thrown at your car holds a near-zero risk. Yet people go ape-shit over it. Is the problem the person that causes offense, or the person that over-reacts? You assert that if it's assault with water, then it's the fault of the thrower (do you sue God every time it rains?), but if it's words, the fault is with the people that hear.

I think your logic is flawed.

I'm taking a real incident of speech that was prosecuted. You speak in platitudes and generalities, but nothing concrete and definable. So I'm trying to identify the edges, if any. Inciting someone to do something through speech should be illegal, according to you. Unless that "something" done is be offended. I don't see your logic. Offense is real, and measurable. It can be measured with medical tools, like you can see a bruise on someone's nose when you hit them. Yet the nose is sacred to you, and the ears aren't.

So you must prove malice for any noise ordinance to be enforced against a noisy neighbor? Reality proves you wrong.

There are billions poured into STEM, and encouraging early career scientists through programs at NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc. None of that is working (less than 50% of people trained in science stay in science). When I was still training students, the best of them generally ended up working in finance, not physics. An additional $250 million is not going to make a notable difference. We need a cultural and structural change in how we train and retain good scientists and engineers, not a meaningless bandaid.