Do you have a Television? Do you have a Radio? Is that Radio in your car? If you have a Television and you have cable, or even if you use a set top antenna, you are a hypocrite. Not that I'm trying to start a flame war here... I just want you to see the larger picture. If you use ANYTHING other than a Unix box to get information and entertainment... and I mean anything from a portable mp3 player to a cell phone with internet access to a car radio to a television... then you are using other devices, and you have invested in other devices to get entertainment and information. Thus, if you wish to use the Instant Play service that Netflix offers, you have to get one of the many different devices available that will allow you to make use of that service. Just like you had to get a Television and a cable box to be able to watch all the channels you wanted to watch... well, a cable box, a set top antenna, or a satellite dish. I mean, I imagine you can build a mini-itx box for your car, and use a wireless broadband modem to allow you to listen to the radio in your car... but did you actually do that? Of Course, if you HAVE to use Netflix, you could just limit yourself to the DVDs they ship you when you want them... seeing as their selection of movies on DVD is larger than their instant play selection.... and newer releases are available on DVD far earlier than they are on Instant Play.

No, I doubt the researchers forgot to read that short informative piece about a Finnish gum that contains Xylitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol however, the US Army is not claiming to be the first to use an artificial sweetner in their gum, nor are they claiming to be the first to use Xylitol specifically. Now, if you read the article on Xylitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol and there is a link again, you will see that it is COMPLETELY different from a protein that attacks the bacteria that causes plaque... KSL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSL they are calling it. Note, on the link I just provided, KSL is notes as a synthesized peptide. So... the US Army's development with KSL, is very different and unrelated to Xylitol. I guess reading the article *WOULD* have been helpful in avoiding Idiot status.

When a majority of the people decided that paying Taxes they felt didn't represent their interests was a bad thing, they didn't pay them. That was illegal. The result was a little thing called the American Revolution.

Now, in the USA we have a constitution, where a majority of the people can change or remove a law by proposition and eventually a vote.

"I'm just a bill... yes I'm only a bill... and I'm sitting here on Capital Hill."
Remember your Schoolhouse Rock? You should.

Now... regarding piracy... time and time again, the SOFTWARE pirate's position (which is very different from the Ocean based incarnation of the Pirate) is that...
- I can't afford this outrageous price, for a copy of a product that takes no materials to provide me with entertainment. There is no reason why the software has to be this expensive, thus I am going to "steal" a copy rather than pay for it. I will not go into a store, and shoplift a copy off the shelf. I will not take a weapon and force someone to give me a physical item that took cash to produce. I will simply make a copy of something that does not take away from the original in any way. I will make a copy that does not affect the condition of the original at all... in fect, if no one knew that I made a copy, it would be as if the copy was never made at all.

Are there people who pirate software just because they can? Certainly. Are there people who pirate software because they have a moral opposition to some issues? Certainly. But the Majority pirate software because of economic reasons. Would these software pirates pick up a sword or a gun, and sail the 7 seas to pirate for real? No way.

Are there companies who have realized this and have adjusted their price accordingly, or adopted a different model of distribution or game design, so that if you want the game, you have no choice to pay? MOST DEFINITELY! World of Warcraft, for example... Any MMORPG that you want to play, is currently set up where you have to pay, or you don't play. You can't pirate, because you can't log in and play for free. However, with World of Warcraft... you are paying $15 a month, or $180 a year before any discounts, to play this game. That is expensive. Guildwars... you pay $20 and you play. If Fallout Vegas was selling for $10, people would Buy it rather than Pirate it. Games don't cost $50 because of Piracy... games cost $50 BEFORE you could pirate cracked games.

You can't fall back on the irrational and incorrect position that game developers aren't getting paid for their hard work. They are. The people who are creating the games.. actually doing the coding.. they get paid. They get paid by the hour, and they get a paycheck at the end of the week. The COMPANY that PROMOTES and DISTRIBUTES the final product... they are the ones not seeing the money when the game is pirated. Do you REALLY believe that EA Games is going out of business because of their games that get pirated? They are making money HAND OVER FIST.

If I was working and I didn't get paid, I would beg for help. Sure. This is not what is happening here. What is happening here, is that large corporations, and particularly the upper echelons of management are not getting as Rich as they would like to be. They are paying more attention to whether or not they are able to buy their 4th house, rather than paying attention to the wallets of their consumers.

First, anyone reading the TorrentFreak article would have noticed the link at the bottom of the article that brings you to a second, related article... http://torrentfreak.com/despite-confusion-village-wants-torrent-site-investment-100809/ which explains that most of the details that Torrentreactor had about Gar were wrong, and that they never did buy a town or make an offer... but in fact the people of the REAL town of Gar are very interested in the money.

Nope.

Dark Knight used audio. Batman tapped into every phone to be able to turn them all on and hear what was going on... like a BAT does with SONAR....

Get it?

Bats? Batman? Sonar?

... and you'd be wrong...

Sunblock 5000 was one of the beautiful things brought to us from the ROBOCOP franchise... along with "I'd buy THAT for a dollar!"

you can power a space station by dragging a cable into the atmosphere while orbiting.

Why can't the electrical energy collected by the space elevator power it as well?

In the situation you describe, if the child admin doesn't understand what they are sharing, and they are inadvertently allowing shared access to a directory with financial records, then that "tech savvy" child isn't all that tech savvy, and should not be using an Admin account either.

Simple.

You are very correct. The third option I did not originally list, is to change the laws. So.... accept the decision, find the proof to overturn the decision, or change the laws.

Plenty of people can review the evidence if they choose to. And if all the evidence is circumstantial, then there was no definitive proof either way of guilt or innocence, so opinions and persuasive arguments were the deciding factors. Of course, coruption of an existing legal system could also be at fault.

However, if we don't like the legal system, then we must change it. Whining about it does nothing. If people do not stand up and force the changes they believe in, they have no right to whine.

As someone who has been homeless three different times in my life... and the most recent experience lasted for over a year, I'd have to say you are quite wrong in your assumption of the percentages of how many homeless are in trouble with the law. It is not Most. Technically speaking, ALL homeless people are "in trouble" with the law because they are indigent. You didn't mean that, however. You meant that they were in trouble for some other issue... like an alcohol or drug or violence related issue. You meant that there was some valid issue where there had been a confrontation or clash between this homeless person and the police.

The fact of the matter is that Most homeless people lost their income, then lost their homes. Pretty straight-forward progression there. Some might have been kicked out by the police at a landlord's insistence, but just as many left before it ever came to that.

Police don't want to deal with homeless people. They don't just throw them into jail. Police ignore homeless people just like everyone else does, unless they are being forced to deal with them due to complaints.

Try to imagine how difficult it is to get a job when you have no address. Try hard. You still can't appreciate it until you are in the middle of it. Oh, sure there are places in certain cities that will allow you to use their official address as your own, but those organizations are known to the potential employers that homeless people all apply to. Let's face it... when you are homeless, you don't have the option of trying to get a job as a banker. So, when 6 people are all applying for jobs, all with the same "600 Court St." address... those applications get filed away, or in the Circular file.

I really do dislike when people who have no experience with being homeless, attempt to talk about the subject. It's not like they ever took the time to talk with a homeless person over a cup of coffee.

what court found that grass did not reflect green light? Here, you are using an example that would never exist, to prove your point. Since that example WOULD and could never exist, you not only did not make your point, you only succeeded in proving that you are really bad at using analogy.

Now. Have guilty people been found innocent in the past? Sure. Does that mean every person found innocent is guilty? Nope. Does that mean that most people found innocent are guilty? Nope. All it means is that some guilty people have been found innocent in the past. It does not reflect or prove out any future percentages. Some people who are innocent have been found guilty in the past. Does this mean every guilty conviction is incorrect? Because some innocent people have been found guilty, exactly what percentage of guilty convictions are incorrect? Exactly what percentage of acquittals are incorrect, based on the number of incorrect acquittals that have been passed out?

The fact that you are attempting to "educate" people in how they should never confuse law with reason is one of the reasons why our legal system faces the troubles it does. If the law finds someone that YOU believe is guilty, to be innocent, then your choices are clear. Accept the decision of the courts and stop persecuting that party found innocent, or find the necessary proof to PROVE they are guilty. Standing there with your hands on your hips shouting.. "But he is GUILTY! I have no proof, but I just KNOW it!" does nothing at all.

Silly human...

You know better than to believe what someone on /. offers.

I had no problem understanding what he meant, in that someday our keys would let us in, but someone else would have to let us out.

You really didn't see it?

You are absolutely correct. I mean, I didn't even THINK to google up monitors with HDMI. I didn't. Why would it occur to me that any monitor manufacturer be making monitors that use a multimedia cable, designed for audio AND video, for just the Video component of the cable? No sense to that at all, especially since I seem to arguing FOR adding even more to that HDMI cable, and against the masses. Here I am arguing that it makes good sense to add ethernet to an HDMI, because even if not everyone uses it, it is still a good standard to move towards. I'm arguing it against more people than are for the idea. Thus, it would seem that the majority are against having multi-functionality in a single cable. Thus, why would I assume major manufacturers were already encouraging this... by looking up monitors with HDMI connections and no built-in speakers.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

The review and info pages I read on that monitor indicate it doesn't have Audio either... no speakers. Just a monitor. Have to wonder Why HDMI then, since it isn't using audio and video. Right? I mean, if this spur is about Why Ethernet with HDMI, when people are not seeing a need for ethernet on the same cable... your example of a major device without Audio using a cable with built in audio capabilities for JUST video is not helping the argument against ethernet. Not saying that you *are* arguing against it though.