Well, I suppose as long as it's a wire, I'm OK with it. I draw the line at wireless access though. I don't want anyone to be able to war-drive my frontal cortex.

You are making 2 distinct statements. On the first, you seem to be wrong as evidenced by their actions. On the second, so what? Jealous much?

All those extensions are still the way someone else wanted, unless you wrote those extensions yourself. Did you?

The poster I was responding to didnt even know that these features existed in Opera. Of all things, he begins with a direct knock-off of an Opera feature. This feature, as you may not know, is capable of implementing most firefox extensions.

With your NoScript diatribe, I see that you havent actually investigated yourself either.

Bloggers have their place. They're not journalists in the traditional sense, but they're not useless either. Bloggers can spread disinformation if they are careless or malicious. But most often than not, they also have a reputation to uphold, and for those catered to a more educated crowd, they have to do just as much work as any traditional journalist to ensure their stories are accurate.

Bloggers differ from journalists in that their articles are always opinionated. They offer a biased view of the world, which makes them more attractive to the people who share the same biases. This is why they're so specialized. There's no blog for "everything" (not even a place like Fark) because there's a whole lot of everything and bloggers can't catch up. But the intense specialization is the value of blogs. Instead of having journalists who do journalism very well write about technology, law, foreign affairs, recipies, parenthood, etc., specialists in each respective field write about their field, and often for other like-minded people.

Ideally, blogs fit into the space between traditional journalism and trade journals. But traditional journalism is so desperate to jump on the blog bandwagon they've started to lose themselves.

From the description :"and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008;" Well, I think their $16 million just blew up. Since bittorrent is a P2P service, I'm sure any one who used bittorrent AT ALL "attempted to use Comcast service" to download something.

Personally, I think they should have to pay $16 to all of us.

Knowledge = Power
Power = Work/time
time=Money
Knowledge = Work/Money via Substitution Principle
(Knowledge)(Money) = Work via multiplying both sides by Money
Money = Work/Knowledge via dividing both sides by Knowledge

Thus, for a constant amount of Work, the less you know, the more you make

No kidding. I don't have nor want descendants, so what the hell am I saving the environment for exactly?

Freedom of Speech applies to government censorship. Companies and private individuals have been allowed to censor speech as they wish, so long as there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. The Constitution only applies to the federal government.

But then when will they have the time to engage in their real job, raising money for their reelection bid?

Offtopic yes, but Troll? Really?

Proofs are pretty simple, but they can be long. Basically, for a proof, you start out with a set of axioms (things which are by definition true), and a pool of things like Laws, Theories, Postulates, and Lemmas. Those are basically well known results of combining the axioms above (sort of like open source black boxes, you feed it the right inputs, and out the other end comes the output). To do a proof, you start with your problem, and your toolkit from above. Then you go set by set, just like in school where you had to show your work. The difference is that for each set, you have to justify why something like (A + 5 = B) == (A = B - 5) by reference to the tools or something that you have in a previous step derived from the tools. The prood shows you how to get from point A to B and guarentees that you never go off the path while doing it.

Not really, to quote my mom:

I brought you into this world, and I can take you out again. It'd just take nine months to replace you.

This would just be pre screening for appearance instead of a post screen for trainability </scrasm>

Ah, you'd never make a legislator. they do such convoluted mental gymnastics all the time, see the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

If a driver is driving unsafely, then they should get penalized for unsafe driving (a requirement everywhere I've lived). Why do you need extra punishment for driving drunk or stoned? I'd rather have every stupid driver pulled over and have their license revoked than have to deal with the DUI check points. Punish all unsafe drivers equally and severely, regardless of intoxicant levels. Otherwise you end up with the drunk driver getting their license revoked for several years, the stoned driver getting theirs revoked for some different time, and the couple rolling on the latest designer version of X (so not illegal yet) getting a ticket all for pulling the same bone headed maneuver. The all do the same thing, they should all be punished the same.

Tea for the Tea God!
Scones for the Scone Throne!