“Go Daddy opposes SOPA because the legislation has not fulfilled its basic requirement to build a consensus among stake-holders in the technology and Internet communities."

So, the only thing they oppose is the fact that tech companies are boycotting them over it. They absolutely and unequivocally support the CONTENT of the bill. Their old statement said as much, they although they are withdrawing their support, they still absolutely agree with the bill. More-or-less that the only thing that they oppose is the backlash they're getting.

There's no other way to do it. If that worries you, holy shit you should not have a phone, you have NO idea what the carriers know about you! THEY KNOW EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL, AND WHO YOU CALLED.

Don't forget to inverse the phase polarity or it could blow out every EPS conduit on deck 13!

Correct. They hinged it all on "We deserve PSN forever" instead of "if you don't update you can't play games released after March 2010". Don't see how the judge could say "When you buy a PS3 there is no reasonable expectation that it will be able to play new PS3 games and BluRay movies". But they didn't make that claim so there's nothing to rule on in that regard. Judges can't do the lawyers' jobs for them!

Anything released after, say, May or June 2010 requires a firmware version high enough to disable OtherOS. A month or two after a version update comes out, all new games will only run on that version or higher. Not sure if that's an actual Sony requirement, or if it's just that devs compulsively update their development PS3, and you can't downgrade them to test your game on older firmware versions.

There is a list: Just about every last game released after 3.21 came out. Sony does not allow games to be released unless they require that you update to the latest firmware as of the time you "go gold". So anything that went gold after 3.21 came out requires 3.21. For example, Portal 2 came out April 19 2011, and PS3 3.60 came out March 10. Plenty of time to put the 3.60 update on the Portal 2 disk and require it to be installed before the game will run, which they did.

The Quick Icons: The method for picking what goes in there is magical. Sometimes I use something once and it's there a long time, sometimes stuff I use all the time is never there. But you can "pin" things to it so they always appear at the top of the quick icons list.
I've never had your right-clicking problem with icons, but I'm annoyed that in "list view" of directories, you can't click anywhere on a row of data to select the file, it has to be on text, not whitespace. So if you have "foo.txt" then the amount of the very wide name column you are allowed to click on is pretty tiny.
It annoys me that the show desktop button cannot be moved or removed. Microsoft's response is "right click and uncheck 'peek at desktop'". If you say "I don't want the button there at all, please actually read what I asked" they say "Unfortunately our users want the button there so the design choice was made to make it mandatory". WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Right click, Close sends the Close Window signal as opposed to the "Kill Application" signal. Sometimes applications have a valid reason to stay running in the background even with all windows closed, like an IM client, virus scanner, etc. This is proper behavior, though it would be handy if like OSX the right click context menu also had "Force Close". I personally wouldn't use it very often though, except as a faster way to kill instead of doing it from Task Manager. There's probably a shell extension that does that.

It was his idea in the first place. He wanted a shell company to sue everybody, and he doesn't want it to settle for money. They will be going after permanent injunctions. He said that Blackberry, Android, Windows Phone, everything is stolen from Apple, and no money can make that right, only them shutting down so the only phone is the iPhone.

The system has no process for determining the rightness and wrongness of a law. Only it's constitutionality. So if there was a law putting to death all people not of the "correct" faith, that would get overturned. But if there was a law putting people away for 10 years for possessing a gram of marijuana, that's fine. Already been ruled on, you can carry physical objects across state lines, so the federal government has unlimited power in regards to anything involving any physical object. No grounds for appeal whatsoever.

The Jury is there to decide on the facts of the case. One of the core facts in dispute in any case is that "This law should apply to this situation" and if you take that away from them, you might as well do away with the Jury entirely.

Yeah, it should be 0.30. 40/360 = 1/9, 27/9 = 3. I don't know why they accept anything between 0.27 and 0.30, unless they think that maybe the student is thinking of decimal degrees so 40/400 = 1/10.

But yes, calculators are allowed. And they have a diagram so that the students know the "ON" button is how you turn it on, and the "=" button is how you get an answer.

Yeah, except that this is in the Supreme Court now because they are suing doctors. Well, they're suing the clinic where those doctors offer treatment, but the law you quoted covers "related health care entities" which you would hope meant the clinic they work at! Apparently no court so far has felt that it does. And "we won't sue you Dr. Doctor, but we'll get a few million out of the hospital you work at and I don't think they'll be pleased with you" seems to more or less have the same net effect. Besides which, the patent troll doing the suing has stated that they DO intend to go after doctors. The summary in fact is about how they even plan to go after doctors who use the drug at all, because they can't PROVE they didn't base the dosage on the patented dosage levels.

They have control groups, and when it's not expensive they repeat the trials many times. Oh, you assumed because they show one trial that their "estimated velocity" and such are actually based on one trial and not 10 or 20? Wrong. Assuming something just because you saw no direct evidence isn't very scientific of you! The only problem is they only have 3 classifications for their results. They have sure and unsure confirmations, but no unsure refutation. That is, they're missing "Could Not Reproduce" or "Implausible" for things which they cannot pull off, and have legitimate theoretical/mathematical backing to say are unlikely. Technically most of the things they "Bust" actually belong to that unused category because you can't conclusively prove a negative through trial, and they end up being retested and actually being possible. But they make that pretty clear, that "Busted" doesn't mean impossible, just that not only could they not do it, but also that they think there's reason to believe that nobody could. And they often revisit "Busted" myths and confirm them, though usually that has to do with changing the myth (or their interpretation of what it means) rather than just trying the same thing some more. For example, when they revisited the "bullet through the scope" myth they tried it with an old WWII era scope. In their first trials they found that even armor piercing rounds didn't have the force to penetrate all of the lenses in a modern scope so they called it busted (even if by luck it could happen very rarely). But with the old scope with less glass in the way, they pulled it off right away. Both conclusions are correct, though it comes down to number of trials and what "sigma" it means to say "Busted". But that's just wordplay. It was still a scientific experiment, just with poorly-defined words in the conclusions. And they usually don't show us all of their trials and all of their figures, so we can't do our own calculations for the error bars. At any rate, if a sharpshooter hits a scope dead center 10 times and every time the bullet is deflected by the lenses, then even if you object to calling that "impossible" instead of "unlikely" it does bust the myth that it's a good idea to aim at the scope instead of the person behind it.

The name "gravity" is prejudicial as it presupposes a connection between the alleged force and weight! "Intelligent Falling" is the preferred term.

It's for rating it. Says so in the headline and the summary. So there's an objective number. 1 means "small touch-ups" and 5 means "might as well be a CGI model".

Your comment is as valid as complaining about city garbage service by saying "Not everybody has the space for a landfill in their back yard".