Then:

*unplug phone*

"Daaaadddddeeeeee I was talking to my booooyyyyyyfrieeeennnnnndddd!"

Now:

*unplug wireless*

"Daaaadddddeeeeee I was IM'ing my booooyyyyyyfrieeeennnnnndddd!"

Yeah dads can hear their daughters all right.

There, fixed that for you in typical SlashDot style.

Every aircraft we have, every cruise missile, launched at once, loaded with conventional bunker busters, would not make a dent in the north's 10,000 artillery tubes which are heavily fortified into the hills.

Artillery is surprisingly ineffective when it remains behind heavy fortifications. The gun tubes have to exit the bunker somewhere.

You don't have to destroy the gun, only it's ability to fire.

I would not be interested since vendor lockin is not my bag. If you like that sort of thing go for it.

Except for the fact that it's wildly hallucinogenic. That's why it took a few months for them to report it. What didn't officially come out was this:

  "We were all tripping so hard, somehow we ended up naked, running around in the lab apparently for like two days. No one remembers a thing, but the technicians that found us said we were laughing our asses off and talking to non-existent creatures in the room."

    It's always embarrassing when something like that comes out.

Who are you to say who we're fighting?

He's not. Make a list of who we're trading violence with. You'll find the enemies mentioned.

Sadly this may only be one of the last steps in the hydrogen bomb era, not a first step...

Most "ultimate" weapons have a shelf life.

Take the history of the battleship for example, between WW-I and WW-II was the era of the the Naval limitation treaties which concentrated on battleships. Of course the war that finally erupted WW-II in the pacific, the nations took great advantage of the aircraft carriers, and in the atlantic, it was submarines. The battleships used during WW-II primarily came from upgraded WW-I battleships.

These types of arms limitation treaties have not be shown to prevent any historical conflicts as they just tend to lock-in the status quo (although poorly crafted treaties may cause big problems like WW-I and WW-II). You only need to start with the Hauge Convention of 1899 declaration II and how it didn't seem to affect chemical weapon usage in WW-I very much.

We may see this a sign that nations are recognizing on emminent transition to a new munitions era. We may see nations start developing a whole new class of armaments after this. MOP or MOAB style bombs or even anti-matter bombs. These new non-nuclear bombs seem to promise to be more useful in the next battle (or war on terror).

Maybe, fortunatly, we get the opportunity bypass the urge to use this generation's strategic weapons that cause massive collateral damage and concentrate on more tactical (and containable) munitions. Strategic weapons are historically only useful to prevent a country from sustaing a war effort (if you want a more "street-fight" analogy, basically a kick in the nuts). For many countries that have nuclear weapons, demoralization by "media" has replaced the need for strategic weapons. Of course there are some other countries (e.g., like North Korea, Sudan), where media influence is insufficient other strategic mechanisms may still be needed, but probably in lower amounts.

Although this might be a glimmer of hope that we may be make to the end of the hydrogen bomb era, who knows what the next era will bring us.

Sriously, what is the iPad, anyway? Sure, it might be a better e-reader than a laptop or a small mobile device, but it doesn't have e-Ink, so it can't be used as an e-reader.

Well, I did buy a Kindle 2 last year March and returned it after 3 weeks. I thought e-ink was the greatest concept but the contrast leaves much to be desire. It's dark grey text on a medium/light grey screen for christ-sakes.

And IPS screens are rather nice. Heck, I read a normal LCD screen all day as it is and it doesn't bother me. I have to wonder when the "you can't read on a computer monitor" took over? For me, it's more to do with whether the monitor has light sensor - monitors just tick me off when it doesn't match the ambient brightness and very few people actually adjust it with any frequency - but phones and this tablet has one so it's no problem.

The iPad is clearly for stupid people, and the only way we're going to save them from themselves, is if we stand up to the hordes of fanbois that threaten to drown out us clear-headed thinkers here on slashdot and speak the truth t o power clearly.

Is this sarcasm/satire or just a self-fulfilling opinion?

I live in a townhouse/condo so obviously I can't put an antenna outside, but my attic is just big enough for a 2/6/23cm vertical and a 20m dipole. I haven't been on the air in a great long time though...

Well, good PR is good. USSR cached in on that for a long time with its no-first-use policy, why shouldn't USA do the same?

Then the mandate that ALL Americans have access to broadband needs to have limitations.

And, furthermore, it is not a right in the same way other rights (e.g., the right to pursue happiness) are thought of. If it's a right to have broadband then I should get it anywhere I live in the US, just like I can pursue "happiness" anywhere in the US. Of course, that pursuit may not work everywhere ;)

Unfortunately, most people view rights as something you should receive no matter who you are or where you live... so if broadband is a right, then the interpretation is that I should get it in the middle of the woods in my cabin, 5 miles from the nearest public road; otherwise, you are denying me my right and I have to rely on corporations to provide it.

I may be confusing ideas of "rights" and whatnot, but I think the majority of people are confusing those, these days... e.g., the right to free health care; but what if you chronically eat McDonald's, transfats, and everything else known to be bad; why should I, the taxpayer, pay for your negligence of your health? I see no reason you have the right to my money to pay for the consequences of your negligent eating. I'm not talking about eating disorders here, FWIW.

Except when the word is challenged, your going to have a hard time proving it's a word. noun or not.