I loved B5. I hate reboots, at least as I understand the word. I have no problem with replacing the actors. That happens frequently in movie franchises. James Bond has been played by a number of actors, and even the gender of a major supporting character was changed in that franchise without calling it a reboot. In my mind a reboot is when the producers and/or director want to take advantage of the name and existing fan base, but decide to do two other distasteful things: First, change key story concepts that have already been established, and second, they usually want to retell yet another origin story. Why is this being called a reboot, and is JMS calling it a reboot himself or are others just misusing the term? I'll gladly go see a new B5 movie (and I really don't go to many movies), but I'll avoid a B5 reboot like I would avoid an Ebola infected missionary. If JMS wants to tell a completely different Sci-fi story then I would welcome that too, but he should not reuse the B5 name, If he wants to pick back up story telling in the B5 universe then he shouldn't try to tear down what has already been done.

On a side note, the list of lost actors from the B5 production should include Tim Choate who played my favorite character, Zathras.

Agreed. My first thought was that this article is just trying to bait Neil deGrasse Galactus into another fight.

This is a typical great government idea. The really great thing about the idea is that once you deal with a zero-day vendor and buy a vulnerability, giving them a lot of money in the process, you can rest assured that they would never sell the same vulnerability to anyone else. 'cause that would be wrong.

Yup. And they wrote that while calling someone else an idiot.

"Rosetta and its probe"

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Sounds dirty.

I like putting my tongue in chicks.

We could find no example of where a court had granted such a remedy or even where such a request had been made.

Well, duh! Normally our rewriting of history is effective enough that you will not find such records.

You're making a false assumption.

What a shame that in many cases people don't recognize sarcasm and irony.

It looks like this count is coming from someone monitoring what OSs they see in use. That being the case, it must be greatly under-counting Windows 8 and Win 8.1, since while they may be on many more computers, they are unusable.

One? I would have removed all of the arts and all of the foreign languages. I would certainly place computer science higher than any of those on a list of things that deserve to be "core subjects".

..."comprehensive immigration reform efforts that tie H-1B visa fees to a new STEM education fund" could be used "to support the teaching and learning of more computer science in K-12 schools,"

Translation: We'll do this and then we'll have to let more H-1B foreigners into the country to pay for it. The question isn't how many tax dollars this law will cost, it is how many American jobs it will cost and how further American technical jobs can be devalued by an in-flood of cheap foreign labor.

Actually, they are deliberately not identifying the patent. Might be a doctor. Might be a nurse. But in any case it was a missionary, someone who went to Africa to tell the people there that his or her own religious beliefs were better than those of the Africans.

I saw an interesting thing on the CBS evening news last night. One of the missionary spokespeople was telling the CBS talking head how distrustful the local people were if the doctor was wearing lots of protective clothing while treating patients. The supposed journalist just let this be stated and never questioned if the spokesperson was trying to say that they sometimes deliberately do without the protective gear to help gain the African people's trust. Apparently these missionaries believe that they should tell these people that the Christian god is better than whatever they believe in, but not bother to try to tell them that civilized science and medicine is better than jungle science.

I agree completely. More importantly, this person volunteered to go to Africa and do whatever he did. The millions of people in this country did not volunteer to take similar risks in bringing him back.

Boy, how stupid can you be. We are talking about bring over here someone who knew all of the precautions and should have been taking them himself. If it is so safe to treat this deadly incurable disease then the person would never have caught it in the first place. The very fact that this person has the disease when they knew exactly what they were dealing with and supposedly took all of the proper precautions disproves any claim of safety in bringing Ebola to this country.