Chrome for iOS exists. Fail.

We may drink a large quantity of piss beer here in America (bud light, coors light, etc.) but the fact of the matter is that you can easily find excellent beer, either from around the world or U.S. microbreweries, with basically zero effort.

Example #1: my local Ralph's (the biggest grocery chain in southern California) sells Franziskaner, Fin du Monde, and Rogue brewery beers, among many more.
Example #2: nearly every bar, even the most generic hole of a sports bar, has *some* kind of microbrew, be it Sierra Nevada, Fat Tire (New Belgium), Pyramid, or Shiner.

Note: the overwhelming majority of piss beer is now imported or manufactured by foreign-pwned companies such as InBev. The largest U.S.-owned breweries are now Yeunglings and Sam Adams. Sam Adams brews almost every type of ale or lager you'd want, some of which are pretty decent.

Here's my problem with this philosophy: there is no fundamental difference between the TSA and the myriad of private companies that handled airport security for decades prior to 9/11.

Clearly, the TSA procedures are somewhat more inconvenient (taking off your shoes) or somewhat more humiliating (standing in a millimeter wave scanner in the proper pose for three seconds) than they used to be (empty pockets, walk through metal detector). Fundamentally, though, you are being asked to submit to searches of your person and property in exchange for the privilege of flying a plane.

My point is, if the TSA is simply security theater and is not meant to actually prevent terrorism, how can the old system not have been as well? And more importantly, why didn't people have security theater outrage in the past?

Yes, one datacenter containing what are surely thousands of AC-cooled servers. By another comparison, this 20MW solar farm would provide enough electricity to meet the annual needs of nearly 15,000 homes (in California, using about 6000 kWh per household annually. The US average is higher).

http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/actions/HouseholdEnergy.html

The way the California code is worded seems to imply that simply wearing a mask is not a crime. It's only a violation if it can be proven that you were wearing a mask/disguise for the purpose of evading identification while 1) committing a public offense, or 2) if you have already been charged or convicted with an offense. In other words, they'd have to prove that you committed some other crime first.

If that's the case, the mask is simply a misdemeanor add-on to whatever your initial crime is, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

The NY one on the other hand sounds a bit scarier... masks are illegal unless you're having a costume party? If so, how did this become law?

Agreed, and that's coming from somebody who thinks it's pretty shameful that Romney won't release his returns.

Vigilantism does not spread democracy or freedom, whether you do it in person or on the internet. Just ask John Brown.

Minor correction: the FBI is part of the judicial branch, not executive.

Though to be fair, in the past (such as the warrantless wiretapping program under Bush) the executive branch has directed the Justice department to do things that contradict previously passed legislation (see FISA).

I wish to rephrase my original comment:

"Where's my +5, Unit Conversion Joke????"

/thankyou.

Is this a unit conversion joke?

The GAO's report in 2009 stated that the Food and Nutrition Service overpaid food EBT benefits by 4.36%, which was actually a record low. It also found that in 2/3 of cases where overpayment happened, it was due to an error by the case worker.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T

That wouldn't seem to support your claim that masses of people driving luxury cars are defrauding the program

Amtrak is a poor example. It has only existed since 1971 and was created specifically because private railroad companies were either going bankrupt or drastically cutting service. They didn't want to operate passenger trains any more.

Wiki says: "By 1965, only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation, 85 percent fewer than in 1929."

Congress (wisely) decided that it's in our national interest to keep trains as an alternative mode of transportation. You know, just in case something happens to airplanes (like the FAA grounding all of them for two days).

True, but particle radiation (i.e. charged electrons and protons) are just as deadly, if not moreso. The Earth's magnetic field captures those in the Van Allen Belts. Its a key reason for why our DNA wasn't mutated to oblivion long ago.

Despite the $/kg numbers, air launch IS more efficient than ground launch, and over time (after the initial cost of development has been diluted), should be significantly cheaper if only because of the fuel savings. Remember, rockets have to carry their oxidizer in big ass tanks that may also need big ass cryogenic cooling systems. Airplanes steal it from the atmosphere.

The effect is so pronounced because a plane is able to carry the rocket past what would be the Max Q point for ground launch, usually around 35,000 to 45,000 feet, which is the point where dynamic pressure (and thus fuel usage) is highest.

Dynamic pressure goes up with increasing velocity and down with thinning atmosphere, which is why it's not just at sea level.

The GP was implying that we tell every kid they are going to be successful in life because they're special. I've never heard an educator of any kind give that impression. The message was always that there are no pre-imposed limits to what you can do.

What's the point of telling a class of third graders that, well, statistically it is highly unlikely that any of you will be astronauts one day, so you shouldn't bother making that a goal?

You really think kids are dropping out of high school at 16 because they have an entitlement mentality? They're mad that they haven't already been hired by NASA? No. Kids drop out because they've been given the impression that they can't succeed in society even if they try, so, they shouldn't even bother.

Um, we don't tell every kid that they ARE going to be an astronaut or President. We tell them that they CAN BE if they dream big and work hard.

Why don't we just crush their aspirations early on? Because America is supposed to be a society where you can become anything you want, no matter what you look like or where you came from. Obviously we have struggled at times to live up that ideal. But, then again, nobody's perfect.