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.

Hello?

Um... [tap tap tap]... hello?

HDMI stands for High Definition Multimedia Interface. If it was just a monitor cable, there would be no audio either. It would just be video. In other words, it would not be HDMI. It would just be another DVI cable.

The point behind HDMI was to reduce the number of cables necessary to hook up a multimedia device into an entertainment center.

Plus, I don't know of any brand of monitor that comes with a HDMI input. I know plenty of televisions that have them, and those televisions can be used as monitors... but they are NOT monitors. I've seen cables that convert from DVI to HDMI, but that is only video. There is no audio portion to that cable.

Why Ethernet? Can you think of any devices that connect to your home theater (Game console, DVR, etc.), that have video, audio, and ethernet? Here is a hint.. I just named two. Can you look forward and see how more devices in the future will have network connectivity? I sure hope so.

To be fair, the one in Serenity wasn't as random as all that. I mean, the "mule V 1.0" was shown many times in the series. In the movie, there was a larger Special Effects budget, so they got a new cargo runner for the ship, "mule V 2.0". That chase was similar to the larger ship chases they had throughout the series... and was all about proving to the audience once again, that nothing ever goes smoothly for Mal and the crew. That chase might have been over the top, but it wasn't out of place... remember the landspeeder in Heart of Gold? There was a direct reference to a floaty-craft-thing, and it was in the series (not the movie).

Whereas... Star Trek: warp drive, impulse drive, anti-gravity boots and platforms, transporters, shuttlecraft, and flying motorcycle things the police apparently ride... and there is the need to have an AUTOMOBILE chase. Was Gasoline even produced anymore? Would burning fossil fuels even be legal anymore? In a world where flight is commonplace and personal... why do they maintain the roads at all?

I hope you were being sarcastic. ... because it does have a car chase scene. It actually involves an automobile. Yeah, an Automobile.

There is another way around this...
It depends on the number of speakers you are using to entertain your guests. You only have to pay the ASCAP fees if you are using more than 3 speakers. Silly, I know, but this is the line for non-jukebox atmosphere music. So a store, with only a stereo playing (only two speakers) does NOT have to pay ASCAP fees. If that same store had a quadraphonic setup, they would have to pay.

I only learned about this when the owner of three retail shops I was handling the S&R for, was approached to start paying ASCAP fees for the music (We would play CDs in the stores) we played in the background. The rep said we owed X amount for one store, but the other store had to pay no fee. When we asked why, he told us. The rep watched while I was told to remove one of the speakers in the main shop. At that point, he changed the paperwork to reflect that we owed X up to that date, and were not required to pay ASCAP fees as long as we had 3 or fewer speakers connected to each music source. Of course, this was in the 90's.