You assume that companies can place anything they wish in license agreements. You always have the right to believe something in an agreement is not legal. Based on that belief, you can then choose to fight it in court up front, or you can take your chances choosing to ignore it first then potentially end up in court anyway (probably having to pay lots of $$ if you lose).

Just because something appears in a license agreement does not automatically mean it must be adhered to. But you better be ready to defend your position and face any possible consequences if you choose to ignore it.

Who cares? Just think of all the energy you could produce by dropping it on the tiles!

That's the problem. They did a search on Bing and didn't find anything.

That is the exact problem right there (emphasis mine). The whole point of vision tests and minimum requirements is to decide if an astronaut's vision would keep them from doing their job. And the people developing and administering the tests are far better qualified to determine that than an emotionally-biased astronaut who is directly and strongly affected by the outcome.

California can pass any law they want. It doesn't mean the law will be constitutional, but they can pass it nonetheless. Of course, they're only going to pass laws that they think would stand up in court. Otherwise it would be a waste of their time to even bother. But what they think will stand up and what will actually stand up can sometimes be different things.

Indeed. Because clearly there is no better way of teaching someone biology* than to simply show them a bunch of pictures of different people's vaginas. </sarcasm>

The main problem is that even though medical illustrations are both prevalent and often better at highlighting small details (artists can control contrast of areas very easily to show off such details), there are many exhibitionists out there who add self-made images just because they can. Most people don't post these images for their encyclopaedic value, they post them so that there's a picture of their penis (etc.) on a popular public website. The end result is an article with 10-15 different photos of the same body part, when 1 is sufficient.

* Note: whether or not Wikipedia is the best place to learn about a subject such as biology is a different argument altogether. But as long as one is careful with references, there is no question Wikipedia offers a lot of useful, factual information.

Hypothetically speaking, if the TSA can create a system to effectively screen out bombs, then they should also be competent enough to create a system to screen out impersonators. And if they can't effectively screen out bombs, then screening out impersonators becomes a moot point.

Personally I don't believe they can do either correctly.

Yes. They're called politicians. It's what they do.

I would say a law school's responsibility is solely to prepare a student for passing the bar exam. It is the responsibility of the bar association to ensure the bar exam will only allow qualified individuals through to practice law.

If idiots are being allowed to practice, don't blame the schools, blame the bar association.

Yes.

Clearly, you've never seen my handwriting.

So what you're saying is Microsoft made it big because they didn't make mistakes when others did. Sounds like a recipe for success to me.

Also, every for-profit company's goal is to bring in large amounts of cash. It really doesn't matter (to the company) if they do that by bringing in talent, new ideas, and worthwhile products, or if they do that by producing crap. All that matters is that they bring in cash.

That's terribly inefficient. Clearly the problems occur while driving, and your solution requires banning a lot of substances. Instead, let's just ban the automobile. It has the same effect, but only requires banning one item, thereby being much more efficient. No more cars == no more drunk driving.

But come to think of it, you'd still need to ban planes and other forms of transportation just to be safe. So instead, we should go to the source of the problem: ban people! No more people == no more drunk driving. Problem solved once and for all. Once and for all!

If you can look at a Slashdot submission and say "didn't see it", then you just don't read Slashdot often enough. Kind of like the editors.

Does that make Microsoft the parent that leaves you with painful, mostly buried memories when the other parent isn't looking?