Windows takes me about 45 minutes to setup. Whether it be XP of Vista (haven't done 7 yet). Getting all the other programs (like flash, java, etc.) take a few more hours, but I know where they are. I could never get my wireless card working in Ubuntu even after reading everything I could find and a couple reinstalls after I realized that I screwed it up. And then I needed to hunt around for other programs that might be like what I've used on Windows only to find out it doesn't have all the features I use.

I'm sorry all the FOSS people hate my comments about Linux not working for me. I've really tried from time to time, but it's just not doing what I need it to do.

I download a distro every few years, but I still haven't found one that will replace everything I can do in Windows. I really want it to work, but I don't want to spend a week learning how to set it all up and getting it running smoothly. Hopefully it will be better next time around.

Team America.

Seriously.

We all know how well that went...

The fish took offense to that name, so we call them "sea stars" now. Keep up with the times, you insensitive clod.

Ahh, the irony. Here you are, posting a comment on the direct derivative of something 'shiny' that DARPA (then just ARPA) ponied up the money for. Ever hear of ARPANET?

Exactly. The perfect outsider is the one who is socially acceptable, technically competent, but isn't scared to ask 'Why are we doing this?' When you have a group of people that think the same, always agree, and don't deviate from the norm, you won't grow. If you have one person that frequently asks why or enjoys being the devil's advocate, then you get get change. Without change, you can never grow from where you are.

Of course, some people are just asses. And those people need to be, uh, wiped off the books.

So to speak.

One of these days we'll actually be able to make a true bionic man, a la Steve Austin. With prosthetic arms that you can control with your brain, using yeast to get energy from your blood, and ocular implants, we're just about all there. It just came in over budget and behind schedule. (Not that I'm surprised.)

You don't need to make an official endorsement to show a bias toward one side or the other.

I think this actually fosters more discussion by allowing more voices in a particular market. If there is only one large newspaper spewing out it's story, then you can't get counterpoints from other papers. I think this bill would actually allow people to keep their voices by not letting finances silence them.

Considering that when a local newspaper goes under a small part of the community is gone, I think this is a good idea. These small papers fill the niche market that are only in small communities have and help promote local issues that larger newspapers tend to gloss over. Losing the political endorsements would actually be a good thing since it might make the papers less biased. Providing both sides of an issue is much more informative than printing one sided articles because of the political leanings of the paper.

I had to go through 3 websites/blogs before I got the direct link. So if you have Verizon and want to opt out directly, here you go.

https://ebillpay.verizonwireless.com/vzw/accountholder/profile/CPNISettings.action

They already do. The problem is traffic management.

Airlines would love to save gas by going right up to the point where they can cut the engines to idle and then coast in to the airport. But since everyone wants to do that it would create a traffic nightmare. They need a way to line everyone up on the same runway so they can space them out properly. And if it's cloudy, you need a way to make sure you can be lined up on your runway when you come out of the clouds. So they make instrument approaches that use navigation aids on the ground or GPS.

This works well at small airports, but busy ones have too many planes coming in so they make these things called a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR). Everyone flies to one of these routes and then they join up to an instrument approach to land.

Airlines would love nothing more than to save gas by doing exactly what you suggest, and people on the ground would also like to not have airplanes buzzing their house at all hours of the day, but it's not even close to practicable.

This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.

I mean, seriously people. I'm no economics expert, but I did take the required class in high school, and I'm pretty sure that was covered. Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?