Thank you! My own personal Grammar Nazi was screaming in my head. You have given vent to the frustrations of... well, I don't know.... several of us.

The conclusion is deceptive. They say 98% of people get ingredients they love. But that could be by chance since 98% of people probably like ANY pizza that does not contain anchovies.

The OP says that "The radio component has * low attenuation* in rainy conditions with large refracting raindrops". I think they mean "high attentuation". TFA says that radio is disrupted by rain.

Same shareholder attitudes?

Balmer once called Linux a cancer that was eating the world's software. Sounds like M$ now has a terminal case. That's what it sounds like, but I'm sure they are lying.

The IP is nothing special. It's the user base that has value. They can't get the users without the restricitons.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Some parts of the Constitution refer to the rights of Citizens... presumably US Citizens. The 4th Amendment makes not such distinction. People are people and have rights regardless of where they live.

Should air be private owned? The airwaves belong to everyone.

I can't imagine any rationale for private ownership of a ubiquitous asset with no physical form. This does not conform to existing property law and would not enure to the advantage of the public.... but rather only to the benefit of a few wealthy corporate bosses. Exactly whose side are you on?

You are quite right. Which is why I should not post on /. at 2:30 AM. :)

doing. From the description above: " Ranganath and his colleagues discovered that greater interest in a question would predict not only better memory for the answer but also for the unrelated face that had preceded it." But the following sentence (and the experimental protocol) state that the face followed (not preceded) the question. So someone was not paying attention. Is it any wonder that non-scientists are confused and bored by rubbish such as this? In the words of Yoda.....

Hauling 1M bodies to Mars is not an efficient way to populate the planet. Unless and until we have a reliable and cost effective artificial womb, the limiting factor is the ability to have babies. So we should start with, say, 100 very intelligent and skilled, and physically capable women. Each of them should be inpregnated on Mars with frozen, fertilized ova from a stock representing the genetic diversity of Earth. Did I mention that the ova should all be females? So assuming that each woman can bear 7 children in her lifetime (a reasonable average based on good medical care and historic norms) and that the generation time is 20 years, it would take about 125 years to reach a population of 1 million. During that 125 year period the women would be busy building a modern civilization while also devoting a major portion of their time ot childcare. Constant resupply of food and manufactured products would have to be provided from Earth. Oh, and I guess they could have a few males around... you know... for entertainment.

I was in Seattle recently. The guys who pick up the compostable garbage were driving around listening to classical music.... turned up loud so you could hear it over the sound of the truck engine. Not your typical garbage collectors.

Yes, the headline is a pathetic attempt to ring the bell for the conservative Pavlovian dogs to make them salivate all over slashdot. The implication of the headline is that it is about people wasting edible food by throwing it in the trash. Actually it is about compostables (food or otherwise) being placed in the trash steam headed to the landfill rather than the composting station.

The usual explanation is that large, active brains use lots of energy, which in some environments is better spent gathering bananas.

... is to the A112 virus. But you knew that.