I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.

People who are driving at a speed that is far outside the average speed on a particular road are a danger simply because the difference between their speed and others is likely to be large. Note that whether they're going "faster" or "slower" doesn't matter - it's the difference in speed.

If I'm going 90MPH and I bump someone going 89MPH we'll be fine and have minimal damage to our cars. If I'm going 45 and bump someone going 44 it's the same. But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.

I remember reading something a few years ago said by a patrol officer. Basically, fast drivers and slow drivers cause the same number of accidents. But in his experience the fast drivers were part of the accident while the slow drivers caused other people to have an accident (trying to avoid the slow poke) and drove off possibly unaware that they had caused an accident.

The Microsoft party-line has always been that retraining employees to use Linux is far more expensive than paying those license fees...

Does "Microsoft party-line" mean that Microsoft has actually expressed this? Or is it code for, "I heard a lot of Slashdotters bitching about this"?

Or in other words, cite please?

The hardest part is the macro language. VBA is an unspeakable horror, but it is well-documented and there are 20 years worth of forum help posts online fixing whatever problem you are currently working on.

Actually the analogous action would be to drop their line voltage to 30V and perhaps change the frequency to 20Hz.

So, you proved that you were somewhere else, which is a positive.

Of course he knew what the OP meant, but I have to side with mrchaotica and I'll tell you why. A large part of the population thinks that copyrights are something that only big companies own. When people say "it's illegal to download copyrighted content" they perpetuate that myth. Nearly everything I download in a given day is copyrighted, it's just that the author has given permission for it to be downloaded. All the posts on /. are a great example.

So the issue is about whether it's unauthorized sharing, not whether it's copyrighted. I make that distinction simply because I don't want to help lay the groundwork for a fundamental change in copyright law at some point.

I'm not disputing what you claim, just saying that your use case is marginal. It's like snowmobiles. Some people use them for work. For the most part, they are toys.

What's stopping him from going on the roof? I doubt the police would try and snag him into a helicopter.

I'm going to throw an assumption out there: very, very few people are doing this. Yes, you could - in theory - "dock" your phone/tablet and do productive things with it. But a really top-notch phone is going to cost you $600+ and a really low-end computer that can kick the shit out of it will cost $200. I think that anyone who can afford the monitor, keyboard, and high-end phone will probably not sweat the cheap cpu too much.

So in the end, while I'm sure there are people in the fringes doing productive things on their phones and tablets, for the vast majority they are toys. This is not meant to be a disparaging comment - I have a smartphone, I have tablets... but I don't do anything more productive on them than take short notes and check email. Mostly they are consumption devices.

Perfectly allowed? ISIS is being bombed by the US military!

(sorry for the obscurity)

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has been suggesting this approach for years with this and other invasive species. Ultimately it's the only way to go. When you say the fish "has no natural predators" - well, I know a *bunch* of potential predators....

There's also lots of stats you can find out there that back up that not only do the cheaper non-3D ones sell better, but that when people do buy a 3D TV it wasn't the 3D feature they bought it for, and they didn't see it as a positive.

I always knew the majority of people didn't care about 3D, but I'd still like to think it's not going away anytime soon. Surely there's enough of a die-hard market that high-end TVs will still include a 3D option? I can only hope. Admittedly, I don't watch a lot of movies in 3D, but games are a different story. Games can be so much more immersive when played in 3D.

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!

Oh, how I wish I had moderator points.