Are you referring to Catholicism, which was founded by Constantine?

Constantine did not found the RCC. He just changed Roman law so that it would be legal. The RCC predates Constantine, and was solidly entrenched in Roman society by the time Constantine made it a legal religion. Constantine's change in Roman law wasn't proactive; it was reactive.

im surprised theres so much hate for H2. its true that most hydrogen today is from NG. but you realize that if you run your EV in many parts of the east coast you're basically running on coal? that's much worse.

Of course, I think most EVs are sold on the west coast, so that's probably a moot point. Besides, with EVs, you at least have the option of using clean energy (and even the ability to provide that energy yourself). With hydrogen, a truly green option doesn't even exist unless you use a grossly inefficient means of producing hydrogen, such as electrolysis of water, which is just horribly impractical.

also, aside from the $90k tesla, all EVs have horrible performance and range.

That's the fault of the shortsighted engineers who chose to put hitting a price point ahead of usability. It isn't inherent to EVs, just EVs made by people who either don't understand the market or are deliberately trying to kill that market out of fears over high reliability of EVs leading to fewer car sales in the long term—it's hard to say which.

All H2 vehicles are full purpose cars, like gasoline cars.

As long as you're within driving range of one of ten stations. By contrast, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of four thousand EV charging stations in California, and in a pinch, any electrical outlet can do the job, albeit more slowly. For that matter, a U-Haul trailer with a generator on it can probably keep you going indefinitely. :-D

"Whee! We're releasing the CO2 somewhere else instead of from your tailpipe, so now our car is green!"

What a load of crap.

IMO, the only subsidies and tax breaks should be for true electric vehicles, because they are the only ones that can realistically be powered from non-CO2-emitting power sources. Everything else is just a workaround—a step in the wrong direction, purely in the name of expediency, solely because doing it right is expensive and challenging, and fuel cells are (relatively) cheap and easy.

Err... pregnant. Safari's spell checker didn't flag that. Weird.

What are your feelings on birth control? Similar?

The difference is that there are people who can eat what they want and stay thin. Leavings things to evolution is often the safer bet.

There are people who can have sex all they want and never get pregant, too, but evolution doesn't select for them, at least in subsequent generations. :-)

Too bad there isn't a rule that says you lose your citizenship if you sponsor a bill that is declared unconstitutional. Wiping your @$$ with the highest law in the nation should come with a very high price. If it does not, then there's no real incentive to not keep whittling away at it until it becomes a worthless piece of paper... just as our Congress is doing.

I dug through the actual legislation (FAA charter) and that's what I found. I urge you to do the same. While controlled and uncontrolled ate the vernacular, the statutes that govern the FAA jurisdiction use "navigable". Therefore when speaking of legal matters and the FAA legal authority, we must use the same terms to prevent confusion.

FAA only has jurisdiction over navigable and restricted airspace. Which means that unless you are in restricted airspace, up to 500 ft is still faie game. 500ft is the limit on kites.

The problem is often embedded in the processes and many times the new people fall into the same errors.

Well that's certainly a possibility, but if you do that enough times, you'll eventually get a new group of people with enough clue to look for the flaws in the processes, rather than continuing to do things the way they've always done things. The critical part is to replace more than just the top couple of layers of management. The farther down you go, the more likely you are to result in changes to the actual day-to-day processes. You probably don't have to change the bottom-tier of management, but you do have to make it clear to the second tier that they should be regularly asking the bottom tier for updates on changes to their processes, and if nothing is happening, give them the authority to change the bottom tier selectively.

I would argue a better model would be to split them up into several different agencies with more narrowly focused missions.

The problem is, that's what we had before, and then 9/11 happened, and everyone knee-jerked and said, "Why didn't you stop this?" and the answer was because things were so compartmentalized that the different agencies didn't talk to each other.

No, what's needed is to A. show them right from wrong, and B. establish clear oversight. Ideally, the second step would be to have parts of each spy agency working against one another, trying to dig up dirt on the others, to keep them from becoming complacent and bending the law when they see fit.

It makes me sick that the lowest level guards who were following orders were the ones who were drummed out of the service etc.

They should have been drummed out. Following an illegal order is illegal. As a member of the military, you're sworn to follow lawful orders. You're required by law to reject unlawful orders. And they should have known that torture is illegal.

The people who ordered this deserve to be tried for war crimes.

Everyone, from the top person who knew about this down to the bottom person who carried it out, should be tried for war crimes.

Even if, for whatever reason, your lie detector actually worked sometimes people think they know some 'facts' when they have been only fed with false information.

Yeah, but you can't reveal something you don't know, so in that scenario, it would be physically impossible to get better intel through torture. So that's still not a valid argument for torture.

The middle step is always "?" (or "???" or "????"). And even though the last step might not be "profit", you can bet somebody did.

Fire every single person from the second level of management up to the top and replace them with competent, sane people. When the new crew arrives, assign them their first task: assembling evidence to prosecute the old crew. The line-level employees who know where the bodies are buried should be able to do this quite well, and the act of publicly ordering them to prosecute their former bosses should make it very clear that such abuses will never be tolerated again in the future.

Oh, and waterboard Bush and Cheney. I think the Supreme Court could be persuaded to look the other way and not declare it cruel and unusual until afterwards. :-)

BTW, how did you get Slashdot to let you indent content?

That's not C. What is this "foreach()" you speak of?

Presumably a function that calls another function using a function pointer.

With that said, a more idiomatic C syntax would be:

Or some such. And you'd probably wrap that in a function and call it addClassToElementsByTagName(char *tagName, char *newClass), at which point your calling code would be back to a one-liner again.