The act of asking a question shows you want to learn, understand that someone else may have the answer and are willing to listen. This is how science and engineering work. To suggest that asking a question is a problem is ludicrous.

And btw, a book and a website are just efficient consolidations of (often but not always) one person's knowledge - it's really no different conceptually than asking a question.

Just because 'the law' takes away a civil right does not make it right or just. Some human rights such as freedom of speech are inalienable.

The whole point of freedom of speech is the freedom to say something that someone else doesn't want heard. Even in North Korea you are 'free' to say how you love the regime. Regulating speech just because it's offensive is repugnant to the values of a free society.

How far would you reference 'the law'. Would it be ok if people got jailed for 18 weeks for saying to someone else that they were a 'dickhead'? Should all rudeness be a criminal offense? Would you say that being locked up for opposing a dictator is just a matter of disobeying the law and being punished? Or would you agree that 'the law' has limits and is not absolute and that it does not always merit being obeyed or being referenced as some kind authority.
ind authority.

When autos drive slower they consume less fuel, which means that not only are those cyclists reducing their own carbon footprint, they are reducing the footprint of the drivers as well.

That depends on the speed. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, most cars’ fuel efficiency peaks at between 35 to 60 mph. [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml]

A car going 10 miles behind a cyclist at 13 mph will consume about 75% more gas than one traversing the same distance at 35 mph. In addition the resulting traffic jam may cause many cars to be delayed further multiplying the effect. That makes cyclists, when they delay traffic, an environmental hazard.

The reason Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab is that a vary rare event has occurred - they actually have a competitor producing a product which is as good or better than Apple's product.

CFLs have safety issues that its advocates ignore:

1. If individuals are exposed to the light produced by some single-envelope compact fluorescent lamps for long periods of time at distances of less than 20 cm, it could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage.

2. Most CFLs contain 3–5 mg of mercury per bulb. Over a period of a few years an average family is likely to break at least 2 or 3 of them. And then they get exposed.

3. If you have kids - god help you. The mercury exposure for them even once is incredibly dangerous.

4. How realistic is it to expect most households to 'properly' recycle them. Most will end up in municipal solid waste and will leak out their toxic content.

5. Some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain and even migraines.

So then I guess the following people are all criminals and we certainly shouldn't respect them.

1. George Washington - committed treason. And it's still treason and criminal no matter how unjust the law.
2. Abraham Lincoln - he abrogated the constitution during the civil war.
3. Any black slaves that ran away - they should have just 'stayed' I guess.
4. Alic Paul - and those other suffragists. Cause they should have asked more meekly for freedom and equality.
5. Rosa Parks - she was such a criminal sitting at the front of the bus. I guess all those in the civil rights movement should have been more meek. Cause we know that would have worked.

[Hint: There is a reason to obey the law. And is does not always apply. There would be no modern civilization if no-one had broken the law, no industrial revolution and no Slashdot to post on. I think sometimes that the reasoning part of the cerebral cortex is switched off in some people when they blindly go on about always obeying the law. If the law is enough of an ass, it is the obeying of it that is repulsive and the word criminal in that context is meaningless.]

[Hint 2: Read the declaration of independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Our Founding fathers stated that when you decide to 'break the law' then it's necessary to explain why and explain that it is justified. If you don't accept this you really cannot be an American - you might as well go back to Britain.]

I agree that changes need to be made. However little changes in some countries will not do it. Greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons and hydroflourocarbons) when taking into account deforestation (land use) mean that China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, South Africa and Saudi Arabia account for approximately 50% of global emissions. Their share and absolute emissions are both rising.

Realistically, speaking limiting carbon emissions lowers GDP and wages and raises unemployment. What is the point of suffering these ailments if the rest of the world does not care? And what about in 10 years time when South America, Africa, the middle east, China and India (please note I am including more countries than I did above) will be responsible for for > 70% of the worlds emissions?

I am not saying that the developed world should do nothing. But unless it can persuade that rest of the world to join, the effort is pointless.

I don't dispute that their is some limit that we will approach a limit with respect to computing speed. What I don't see, is evidence for 'economic collapse' as a consequence. Surely there will always be a need for programmers? Maybe more so because efficient programming will yield greater speeds and you won't be able to rely on mediocre quality ones and lazily rely on hardware getting faster. Similarly speaking with 2011 hardware alone we are still are nowhere near reaching the full economic capabilities of the internet - that process could go on for decades alone.

I also would like to see someone suggest some model that would explain how dire economic consequences would ensue if computing speeds stopped advancing with some empirical evidence. Until then - all I hear is scare mongering.

But isn't that exactly the point - that the USA should not be stealing credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries in the first place? And this release of information will help prevent this sort of immoral thing from happening in the future.

I agree with the comment above and then some. I think Slashdot should cool it when it comes to the third world. When one lacks access to electricity, it's superfluous to talk about electronic devices. And very few people can afford any kind of electronic device - this being very ironic because those societies are very unequal (they have very high ginni coefficients) so that the elites are very wealthy even by Western standards and can easily afford laptops, plasma TVs and gaming devices galore. The problems of the third world revolve around authoritarian, unaccountable, inept and corrupt government. No nifty piece of tech will change that, only revolutions where people demand democratic accountability will - Egypt and Tunisia style.

Just clicked on it, Gave me a very good laugh after a very hard day. Go Meg! :)

I totally agree that he was awesome and it will be so sad if he goes. Can't they offer more money or something?