Can we take Carl off the pedestal yet? I know, it's hard to let go of childhood heroes, but almost all of his "contributions" to science were of a metaphysical nature, which is to say, not really scientific contributions at all. These writings included.

Poo is #2. #1 is something else entirely.

Read your own link: entrapment isn't not a crime; it's a defense.

And to the above poster who wrote, "courts used to take a very dim view of it,": Au contraire! Per your sibling poster's link:

Courts took a dim view of the defense at first. "[It] has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian, ethics, it never will" a New York Supreme Court said in 1864.[7] Forty years later, another judge in that state would affirm that rejection, arguing "[courts] should not hesitate to punish the crime actually committed by the defendant" when rejecting entrapment claimed in a grand larceny case.[8]

We humans find it much more satisfying to "find" and point out the evil in others than to look for the good, let alone encourage it. We like to admonish people for things we'd "never do," having never been tested to see if our morals really match our rhetoric, and knowing full well that we probably never will. I believe Jesus is quoted with words to that effect, though it doesn't take a self-proclaimed deity to realize that we're all capable of being shitty.

Nice use of vague and (therefore) unverifiable claims to build a foundation for extraordinary claims of worldwide press censorship (in the face of nearly unfettered communication via the internet, no less). Some might call your post a conspiracy theory, but it all makes sense to me. Well done.

Controls save lives, because they allow you to work with less data and reach a conclusion more quickly. Note that even controlled experiments are never conclusive, but without controls you need much, much more data to make a compelling case for efficacy.

Everybody lies.

Indeed. Linux just sets devices aflame. ;)

Nein.

making a false police report by computer is not that distinct from making a false police report by other means

Oh yes it is!!! -- Amazon Patent Team

it won't be long before someone gets shot by police over it, or police shot by home owners

If police get shot by homeowners, it won't be long before someone gets shot by the police over it.

What you wrote is not what he said.

He said that rolling through them saves fuel, not that there was no reason to ever have a stop sign, or that they were annoying at all.

"Michigan Builds Driverless Town For Testing Autonomous Cars"

It's called Detroit.

BOOM! Thank you, I'll be here all week!!!

Note that doesn't mean always don't throttle stuff I have marked as Flash, because then everyone will just mark everything as a high priority. Just throttle the packets I marked lowest first

Six of one, half dozen of the other. If you get penalized for marking your packets lower priority than the same packets from your neighbor, who doesn't know/care what he's doing, and your experience degrades more than his during congestion, then what's your incentive to continue lowering your priority? That's why nobody implements it. It's a great idea in theory, but in practice, relying on people to both accurately and honestly assess the requirements of their traffic doesn't work.

Exactly right. That sort of thing only applies to boys.

Hard to say. It's clear that their mind reading capabilities are non-existent afterward, but that's only a decrease if they had any psychic abilities before taking naked pictures, which hasn't yet been persuasively argued, let alone conclusively demonstrated, in my opinion. I mean, certainly the fact that they became famous means they made decisions compatible with that outcome, but to accept that fame and/or success was the result of paranormal or supernatural phenomena rather than either rational decision-making or random chance requires evidence more compelling than a throwaway post on Slashdot.