Carbon fiber itself is just as recycleable as bamboo fiber. However bamboo, once combined with epoxy, it's just as unrecycleable and toxic as carbon fiber. I've got several ASUS bamboo laptops, where bamboo was used instead of plastic for a portion of the case. It was marketed as better for the environment, but to me it was just more esthetically pleasing than plastic. The bamboo components held up better than the hinges and the electronics.

Readers here should know that LADEE was crashed into the moon more than a month ago. Yes, NASA did research on laser communication using LADEE, but reporting it in present tense is misleading. (...and the last Slashdot article on LADEE incorrectly reported where it crashed.) Previous Slashdot articles already reported the laser communication research.

As a person who has been in two ski accidents where I've sustained serious injury (but no head injury), and recently having suffered an unrelated concussion, I would second CaptainLard's view. We all play the odds in life, and the odds of being injured by a ski helmet are seriously outweighed by the the odds of being protected by one. If the AC has some insight into improving the design of ski helmets - that could be all to the good, but I wouldn't condone going without a helmet.

For the Brain-stem stroke AC above, I'd hope you can provide a useful response to how helmets can be improved; I imagine that a larger rear cut-out might have prevented the issue you had, though if the flexion of the neck was severe, that itself could have been the cause of your injury, rather than the helmet. Helmet designs vary lots, and we don't know what type you had.

For the original poster (cablepokerface) I can only offer my condolences and advise patience as there's reason to expect that her condition can improve with time and treatment. Please ignore the insensitive idiots that jump to negative conclusions.

My Garmin seems to have stopped showing ads entirely. Perhaps there aren't enough 265WT still turned on to make it worthwhile selling ads for it.

Sure. Right. As if no company would think of putting the newly minted ad revenue in their own pocket instead of mine.

That was already tried.Seriously.

The US-Mexico border is nearly 2000 miles, and the estimate for complying with the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which builds 700 miles of fence, at $4.1Billion, greater than the budget for the Border Patrol ($3.6Billion). Attempts to extend this to a complete fence have failed multiple times in Congress.

At that rate a complete fence would cost at least $12Billion, and it would be completely useless against drug-smuggling drones that could probably be built for less than a thousand dollars, that could fly lower than radar coverage as for the "Virtual Fence," and would not be easily traceable to the origin or destination of the flights.

Drones that could carry humans would probably cost just a little more. Right now, about 500 migrants per year die crossing the US-Mexico border - drones could most probably be safer than that, but it's hard to speculate what safety features human smugglers would employ in illegal drones.

Not accurate. In order to implement "Full" Java, Oracle wants you to certify it with them, then you can have a "free" license. Not the same as not purchasing a license.

Reading the appellate review, I think you've got a good summary of this decision. Particular attention needs to be given to the fair use issue; the decision clearly states that while the copyrightability analysis wrongly incorporates attention to Google's desire for compatibility, that concern may be very much relevant to the fair use analysis. Since this is a decision that Affirms in part, Reverses in part, and Remands - all this goes back to the trial court, which could follow this decision and still end up in roughly the same place - minimal damages to Oracle. Alternatively, if the fair use issues go against Google (and they could, given that the entire interface files were copied verbatim, the use is for comercial purposes, and that Oracle was attempting to license Java into the smartphone market at the time), it could eventualy be A Big Deal.

There's a lot of attention given to the RangeCheck function - IMHO there aren't very many ways to write this function, and even if you write it differently, the compiler ought to optimize it into essentially the same object code. It's a function that checks three things and throws three exceptions. You could change "if (a [lt] b)" to "if (b [gt] a)", [sorry, but [lt] and [gt] characters would make it look like HTML] but if you change the order of the checks, you'd throw the exceptions in a different order - that would change the function of the code. Code that attempted to parse the exceptions thrown by the RangeCheck function would see a difference if you reordered the checks or if you changed the strings in the exceptions. So, using the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test, there's really nothing that is expression versus "idea."

Sure, and it's nice that you can type "echo -n password | md5sum" to a shell if you forget the hex. But it might be better to keep your password secret, unless you intend to google "No one will guess... site:it.slashdot.org" to retrieve it in the future. You might as well tell everyone that a great password is "correct horse battery staple" - no one would guess THAT - and it's easier for a human brain to remember than xkcd.com/936/

I have it on good authority that the LADEE Probe did not impact on the far-side of the moon, though that's what was intended (for reasons of safety to historical sites). According to team member, it actually impacted on the near-side, close to the end of it's traversal of the near side and close to the near-side-far-side boundary (and because it was a full moon, near the terminus, which is the "day/night" boundary). Because it was close to the end of the near-side traversal, they waited until it would have returned to the near-side after the far-side traversal to "officially" call it.

"Imagine, stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles."

Fight Club - yeah, I'm talking 'bout it. Whatchu gotta rule or sompthin'?

...and the guy with the $15 lot doesn't have to work so hard for their money. In theory, the operator could stay in bed until he gets a wake-up call from the guy with the $5 lot, who he could pay $5 for the call. The $5 guy would have every incentive to call just when his lot is filling up, so he could go home. Now consider this (It'll blow your mind for sure...), the $5 guy and the $15 guy could be the same f**king guy! We've just invented variable pricing!

Yep - that's about the logic I was expecting - if he was flying just for "hobby and recreation" it would be OK, but because he's doing it for a beneficial purpose, it doesn't qualify for that automatic exemption. I noticed that the FAA letter said it didn't matter whether he was flying line-of-sight or not.