Actually, he's not. You focused on the word "innocent" and ignored the word "declared". If he is not charged, he cannot be declared innocent. He is presumed innocent. They are not the same. The former is a positive statement to establish the proposition that the individual did not commit the alleged crime, and that there was never any evidence to the contrary. The latter is a presumption that applies to all people, whether charged or not, that they are innocent of any allegation until evidence is brought forth. The two statements are categorically different.

This story doesn't need a correction, it needs a retraction. The only item of significance was the misattributed quote.

That eventuality is presumed within the question of "whether the US military would be able to perform operations in North Korea". The question being asked is whether or not, should the need arise, the US military would be able to function in or near North Korea given the situation described above. The "need arising" means war. So, yes, presumably in peactime North Korea is able to disrupt the navigation systems of US recon planes in the area, and removing that capability would be an act of war.

Should hostilities start, presumably those capabilities would be disabled (or at least such disabling would be attempted) and whether or not that would be an act of war would be a moot question-- else why is there a need for the US to "conduct operations" in North Korea?

Factor in the cost of the environmental damage of a worst-case failure scenario for each plant, and the chance of such a failure in each year of the plant's operating lifetime. Nuclear's worst case scenario is so much worse, for just about any design currently in use, that even if the chance of such failure in each year, for each plant, is vanishingly small, it may be justifiable to invest more cash and real estate in a system that has no such catastrophic potential consequences.

If and when such failures occur, which is more of a farce-- spending more money on power that's safer, or risking some extremely expensive accident consequences for saving a few bucks now?

It's a marvelous way to relax.

How would that help the current situation? Nearly every kind of improvement you can make here either increases the quality of the service (which does not address the problem, as nice as it would be) or only realizes cost reductions by reducing head count-- which they cannot do because of labor agreements. The kind of automation that usually makes operations better and more efficient here can't make things cheaper because they can't lay off the extra workers; in fact, it only makes things worse, because you have to invest capital into the automation but can't realize the savings-- and you can't gain more revenue.

The ability to either reduce costs or increase revenue would solve this problem, but both are legally prohibited in this case. Increased automation probably isn't necessary to see cost reductions if layoffs were allowed; decreased volume per capita in the system, as email has taken over, would probably achieve that all by itself. That's why the only proposals on the table are things like curtailing Saturday delivery-- keep people on the payroll, but have them work fewer days or fewer hours. Fewer days of delivery means lower fixed costs for utilities and fuel for vehicles.

Neither the article linked nor the BBC article cited near the top of the thread even included the word "favour". One included the phrase "level playing field" suggesting that, rather than favoring one thing or another, all were to compete fairly. The other mentions open standards, not open source, which is not the same thing at all.

The summary is a bit of agenda-driven bile with no almost relation to the article it links to.

The summary appears to be deliberately misleading, saying the government "promised to favour open source" whereas the BBC article you cite merely says that open source should be considered "on a level playing field".

That's not favouring. That's the opposite of favouring; it's a goal to stop favouring non-open source projects just because they're open source.

Actually no, they're not. Abuse of the power that comes with having one is, but merely being one is not prohibited.

It's perfectly good logic. This individual's defense boils down to 1) All blind people cannot enjoy movies. 2) I am a blind person. 3) Therefore, I cannot enjoy movies, had no motive for downloading this movie, and could not have done so.

The existence of any significant minority of people who legally blind, or at least as blind if not more blind than the individual in question, who are capable of enjoying movies, invalidates his first assumption. That the "majority" of blind people do not enjoy them does not establish his premise, which was that ALL blind people not only do not enjoy movies, but are essentially incapable of doing so.

I've always wondered about this. How is it that there were only enough fanbois to garner Apple 3-5% of the PC market, but enough to get 70%+ of the MP3 player market, enough to move Apple past companies with much more experience in handsets in the smartphone market segment, and now to sell millions of tablets?

In the last (calendar) quarter of 2009, Apple sold 3.3 million computers-- their best quarter ever at the time. In that same quarter they sold 8.7M iPhones.

Where did Apple, a company with such a vanishingly small share of the personal computer market, get all of these "fanbois" from? Is every person who owns an Apple computer buying 2-3 iPads and iPhones each? If someone buys an iPhone or an iPad without previously having owned a Mac, or any other Apple product, are they a "fanboi"?

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to prove a negative, and you can't. Even a handful of people who bought the device because they have a legitimate use for it establishes firmly that there is, at least theoretically, a legitimate use for the device. If it were not selling well one could say that those who have a need for such a product don't constitute an addressable market, but that appears not to be the case.

Conversely, any number of people who don't consider the device to have a legitimate use does not establish that to be a fact, since the assertion is of a negative-- that the device lacks any legitimate use. I'm not sure why you'd choose to frame your argument this way, since it precludes you from actually winning.

"One would have expected an explosion of Android tablet apps like that seen with the iPad"

If as many or more Honeycomb-running tablets were being sold, then yes, one might have expected that. Aside from that, there seem to be the issues cited in other comments, to the effect that it's hard to find apps in the marketplace, the emulator runs slowly, and not every Honeycomb tablet has the same technical specifications. So it seems like making this explosion of Android tablet apps may be harder than making them for the iPad, while serving a smaller audience.

Who expected this explosion and why? What reason does anyone have to think these issues are being rectified?

Because the license of Crafty and Fruit expressly prohibit that activity. In other words, it's not that nobody else has demonstrated that capability-- it's that everyone else has complied with the license. Not to mention the fact that he'd have to expose the fact that he borrowed or derived code from those projects when he submitted his entry, and he did not, claiming instead that it was completely original, while filing complaints against other groups that were already doing the same to him (Ippolit).

It was cheating because the entry form for the competition says you need to disclose the source of any code you've borrowed or derived from other projects. As well, the projects that it is claimed he did borrow from are distributed under a custom open source license that prohibits the use of the code in competitions.

Also, he sells his code as a commercial product, distributed as a binary, without source.

For the love of pete... read the report. The author did not do this. Early versions of the program were cribbed from one source. Later versions were cribbed from another, resulting in a dramatic change in performance in a short space of time, while the "author" denied discarding large portions of his codebase, even though decompilation indicates this is exactly what happened.

Reordering statements does not prove that a program is more than the sum of its statements; it means that the definition of a statement can only be comprehended within the context of a whole.