Or the have two products that are free because one is more "secure" with more false positives, and the other is more "permissive" because some people only want "hits" when it's a real virus, not the more generic hits when it detects a nonvirus, like a kegen. As for the mixup for which was provided, did the reviewer use a native Chinese speaker to discuss the versions and which is delivered? It may have been a simple miscommunication on the default config, not malicious.

So it's the same as McAfee and Norton?

It takes less than that. If you want to escape Mercury, you'd need to go Mercury's escape velocity parallel to the orbit, or greater if headed away from the sun, and less if headed towards the sun. So to burn up in the sun would be less than the stated or free-body calculated Mercury escape velocity. Also, the number is reduced because the calculated number is related to from a rest at the surface, not for something already moving in orbit. It wouldn't take nearly that much more velocity to end up orbiting the sun, or smashing into it, if you were already moving and in orbit.

Until you can name an FBI agent or administrator in prison, they *are* getting away with it.

All net-neutrality rules officially presented allow for network QoS of all kinds. Prioritizing VoIP above FTP is allowed in all net-neutrality rules. What's not allowed is prioritizing *your* VoIP over your competitor's VoIP.

Also allowed under all net neutrality is blocking P2P, and various other QoS schemes, so long as they are not explicitly anti-competitive.

Yes, it should be the FTC doing the enforcement, but the FTC doesn't understand the issue. The FCC is tasked with understanding the problem. The Justice Department, working with both the FTC and FCC should do the enforcement. Maybe the FCC could write the rules, and hand them to the FTC. But having the FTC write the rules will end up with the bad rules everyone claims are what Net Neutrality is.

The FCC is chartered to regulate communications. That's what the first "c" stands for in the name. The Internet is Communication. So it seems quite in-line with the goals and purpose of the organization.

There are trial systems for car batteries. You can change a car's batteries (for specific prototypes) resulting in an energy transfer rate faster than liquid fuel. You drive on a special changer, the old battery is disconnected and drops out the bottom, and a new one is fitted in place. I've seen the videos, so I'm sure you can google it.

Wireless power. Just don't ask about the really long grounding wire.

I flew Christmas Eve in about 1993 from Boston to Dallas, and there were more flight attendants than passengers. "We are suspending all service on this flight. If you want something, just ask." Most everyone pulled up the armrests in the middle row, and laid across middle seats to sleep on the empty plane.

I've not seen many people tattoo the tips of their fingers. And I've never seen EMS use any other kind of device to take pulse ox readings. A full on hospital will still use a fingertip pulse ox reader for the ox, but will get the pulse from an EKG. EKGs are much more common now that they don't need paper and a printer, but store the reading digitally, which give instant feedback, as well as the ability to play back later.

But even then, tattoos often have metal in the pigment,so would that change in conductivity mess up an EKG, given a large chest tattoo with iron in the pigment?

Neo-Liberalism is a conservative philosophy that's linked to laissez faire. At least that's how I've always seen it used, as a pejorative for conservatives who are (presumably falsely) claiming centrism.

It's the right wing party and the righter-wing branch of the same party. Or change who is the branch.

I'm a centrist. When I'm in a more liberal country, people call me a conservative. When people attack me on Slashdot, I'm called liberal and conservative with about the same frequency, just changes based on topic (though, yes, a little more "liberal" than "conservative" because this is a US site, and the middle is seen as liberal).

They keep the discussion about abortion and gays so that nobody notices that police abuses of minorities are the same in Democratic areas as Republican ones. Or they argue about taxes while both parties increase spending. Republicans pass ACA at the state level, and oppose it at the federal level, but reverse their position on state vs federal power when it comes to gay marriage. The point is to always be arguing so nobody is watching what the other hand is doing. It's a magic act designed to deceive the population.

That's the clear result of this bill. The Conservatives are so focused on getting what they want, that they refuse to consider any side effects. They are trying a back-door funding block to AGW studies that instead will end many medical studies. And pointing it out gets me attacked, which doens't harm my credibility, but proves my point.

The study should be available, but many health studies are done with non-anonymized "raw" data. To require the "raw" data be made available would break other laws on privacy, HIPAA, and such.

So the effect is that this law would end various types of health research. The Conservatives would end all research into heart disease just to stop $10 going to AGW studies. That's why it needs debate.

By your standard, banning lead in gasoline was a junk decision. But subsequent studies showed that the level of damage the EPA presumed was below the actual damage. Sometimes it's best to act from our best guess, even if we can't substantiate it properly at that point. It's right more than it's wrong.