That could be. Being long past draft age, I don't pay those aspects much attention. But the last time I heard of someone actually registering was when the draft was still active.

To this day, males 18+ must register. Those who do not cannot receive Federal financial aid, nor work as a GS or contract employee for the Fed.

Did it do a 4G inverted dive?

At present, Bing's map function is ***MUCH*** faster than Google's, tho it uses older and often-foggier sat imagery. Google search has become so largely-useless that anyone who can produce better results (and return to respecting "exact search" including punctuation) has an opportunity here.

I think we actually had fewer crap results back when they weren't trying to eliminate spam results at all. Now the crap is evidently custom-tailored to take advantage of Google.

Yellow pages was not only paid advertisements, but far too expensive for any but the most well-heeled of pranksters. That 2x2 ad in a major market cost around $1200/month, last I asked. A one-line bolded listing was $200/mo.

Of course there were free yellow-pages clone directories, but you get what you pay for in print, too. Mainly, it was a waste of air to get the listing, because apparently no one troubles to consult these third party directories in the first place.

"Selective Service had to know where to get young men should the draft ever get reinstated. And yes, female US citizens are not subject to this at all."

I don't know a single young man who has ever registered, let alone reported their current whereabouts. Presumably it's not strongly enforced (if at all) so long as there are plenty of volunteers.

As to part two of the quote, I'll believe the goal is equality (rather than just power) when the feminazis start agitating for gender equality in the draft (when and if it's ever reinstated).

It says in the article (iirc, read it a few days ago) that this was a problem a few years ago but now is mostly licked. So I'm not sure why it's coming up today.

Wow, I didn't know that. I have a Triton and I'm quite OK with the CL there -- I also use an E-Mu USB audio interface from "Creative Professional" series.

As others have already stated, for quality sound work you don't want any of those gaming gimmicks, just good ADCs/DACs well outside the noisy chassis.

Plus, for home audio output, you should be using digital already. In 2008/2009 I got myself a "digital" amp mainly for some future proofing, as I needed a new amp anyway, even if I didn't have everything else for a 5.1 setup. Turned out my laptop already had SPDIF output, undocumented, within the earphone jack. Later I also found the same capability in a desktop motherboard, after finding the pinout of the chip and doing some soldering. So I guess a lot of people have the digital out capability, without knowing/using it.

Didn't Apple go through this exact same issue with the iPhone app store a few years ago, and they fixed it?

Those rules were written in 2010 — and AT&T has pledged to abide by them for three years if its DirecTV purchase goes through — but were knocked down by a federal court in January.

Even if AT&T did abide by these rules in three years their commitment is over and they can do what they want.

As intrusive as the Google Glass has proven to be, it will only be worse when observation recording tech is more difficult to detect.

I disagree. The exact opposite: when people stop noticing, they will stop caring. It won't be perceived as intrusive anymore, and people will be less annoyed by it.

It's the conspicuousness of the camera in Google Glass, the constant reminder that you might be recorded, that makes most people feel creeped out. For the previous decade leading up to that product, nobody cared about small+cheap camera tech itself. And people walk/drive by fixed-position cameras all the time, and don't give a fuck there either. Peoples's behavior shows that "intrusiveness" happens when a cameras looks like a camera, and I suspect it also has something to do with being face-level, literally "in your face" and you're making eye contact with it, unlike the case with less conspicuous cameras. It was never about privacy; it's some aspect of self-consciousness kind of related to privacy, but a different thing.

You might say "maybe you, but I sure care. Hell yes it's about privacy." Of course you say that. I'm talking about how people behave and the emotions they display. Not their innermost secret thoughts that they are always terrified to express in voting booths or policy decisions, yet are happy to speak of on the Internet.

You know, the Internet, where they don't have a camera in their face making them all self-conscious! The Internet, where instead of a terrifying 1x1 pixel image that makes you think "WTF is that? That's weird! Are you watching me?" you now instead see a bunch of "like buttons" which are obviously for liking things, not getting your browser to send a request to an unrelated tracking server.

In addition, there's a certain inevitability about it all. The cameras have been there a long time, there are more today, and there will be even more tomorrow. You can't do anything about it, except stay at home. So you'll either accept or you'll go insane and get selected out. You'll handle it. (Contrast that to Google Glass, the one small camera out of the hundreds out there, that you actually recognize and is also rare enough that there's little social cost to shunning. With GG you can refuse to accept and also stay within social norms, so GG is different.)