I don't know if the installer somehow determined a preset key based on a unique identifier associated with the computer itself
It did, for large volume OEM's Microsoft has them burn the key into the BIOS which is why most don't come with the hologram sticker anymore, there's no need for it on Vista+ systems. The only problem it can sometimes cause is if you're doing a cross version and cross type install without an existing OS on the box (ie it came with 7 home and you're doing an upgrade install of 8.1 Enterprise)

No... if they predicted it and it fell short of their prediction, then of course it's OK to point that out. We can speculate that the heat went into the ocean etc., but the predictions of surface temperature change were specific enough to be falsifiable (like all good scientific ideas), and they were duly falsified.

Rule of thumb: pointing out true facts is always OK.

Unlike internal combustion engines, electric brushless motors can last pretty much forever. Drivetrain wear is probably the #1 reason cars depreciate in value. If there's no wear, there's no depreciation.

ahem, about that.

Three drive train replacements in 30k in an ICE vehicle would qualify it under probably every states lemon laws.

Who says you have to travel through the space? Why is everyone assuming they know the physics of something that we have no clue how it would even fundamentally work? A bunch of armchair physicists suggesting theoretical problems to things that we have no clue about. How about moving the space - and everything in it - around the ship instead of moving the ship through the space? How would something like that work, you're asking? We have no idea! Just like any hypothetical you're referring to or making up!

I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data [ucsusa.org].

This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that canâ(TM)t and shouldnâ(TM)t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasnâ(TM)t designed to promote good scienceâ"it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.

So, you've got one guy on a political-agenda-driven website, who is not a lawyer, who says *in his opinion*, that's what the bill would do.

What specific parts/language of/in the bill forbids anonymized personal, individual data to be used in otherwise open and reproducible studies?

If the bill does contain such wording.language, if it were altered so that such pragmatic and practical concerns are handled, would you then support it?

Or is this just a vector of attack on a bill which you do not support the main intent (eliminating regulation-creation within Federal agencies/Depts with force of law based on secret studies/data) of?

Strat

Trumpet was not a Microsoft product.

The scientists didn't say anything about a warp drive. They did say the other stuff, as did two other independent teams.

Honestly, it reminds me of fucking managers losing their shit when they inquire about the status of a large project and hear something they didn't expect to hear.

These guys simply reported what they observed and people are losing their shit over it.

I have two cable companies, U-Verse, and a WiSP available at my house, though only the competitive cable provider interests me since I have no desire to deal with any big telco at home since I deal with them way too much at work and the WiSP has some fairly restrictive limits on usage relative to my families usage (~200GB/month and we haven't even cut the cord yet, if we do I expect that to roughly double).

Actually, you generally can't choose DSL providers anymore since the FCC stripped state utility commissions of the power to force naked DSL offerings to CLECs by the ILECS (FCC 05-78).

My buddy who lives in the hill country (near Dripping Springs) uses a WiSP for his connection and uses T-Mobile's WiFi calling since literally no provider offers service at his ranch. If you want something a bit more convenient than the cell download two-step perhaps look to see if they're available in your part of the hill country =)

From the article [numbers added for clarity]:

* I would certainly demand #4 - this combined with #3 (or a substitute - see below) is the gold standard for "there is really something here even if we don't know what it is".
* I would demand #5 or a similar process of independent peer review
* I would allow "enough reproductions over enough diverse environments to rule out environmental factors" as a substitute for #3.
* As for #2, the less the measurement error could lead to misleading results, the better, but a result that is "at least many standard deviations above the measurement error" may not be necessary to declare that we have an interesting, publishable result worthy of further study.

I would let #1 go: If the phenomenon was caused by something that did NOT scale with input power, it could still be interesting. It might not get us to space, but it would be worth publishing and studying.