> Dihydrogenmonoxide is just not IUPAC conform. Or would you call methane with a systematic name of "Tetrahydrogen monocarbide"?

Well, it's not like it's entirely unbased: there's "dicholorine monoxide", for instance, and similar metal-free compounds tend to follow the same rules. Incidentally, the compound most like water, Hydrogen Sulfide, is also know as "Dihydrogen monosulfide". You can even have some fun with it too, and call it "Hydrooxidic acid" or something.

I would also point out that "oxiran" is already taken as a name for the epoxide functional group. In fact, the IUPAC name for ethylene oxide, an extraordinarily toxic gas, is "oxirane". That would kind of subvert the misleadingly-named safe chemical thing. Also worth noting is that "hydride" specifically means a negatively charged or metallicly bonded hydrogen. Since water is neither of these (with the covalently bonded hydrogen having a very significant partial positive charge), I'd say "Oxygen Hydride" is actually quite a bit less accurate than "Dihydrogen Monoxide".

> It's like sound.

Which in most states is illegal to record without the consent of at least one party?

And further, I'd also mention that the Supreme Court has ruled that people have an expectation of privacy with regards to their infrared emissions, which is a much better analogy. There is a huge difference between actual sensory data which you incidentally encounter, and data that you can only receive by using a specialized piece of equipment and specifically decoding it. (Mind that even unencrypted wireless is still encoded by the protocol. You cannot make sense of the data by simply 'listening', you need to actually identify the noise, devices, packets, retransmissions, etc.)

> You're still hanging on to that?

The data I cited, specifically the _real_ finding, was only published in February. So please forgive me if I only cited one recent example in my quick post, and if I consider the scientific data more interesting than the IPCC panel admission of error.

> request opening up the discussion about AGW

Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize we didn't want discussion or anything. ...

Ah well, thanks for proving my point at least.

I couldn't agree more.

The problem is though, that people like Lovegood are very rarely called out on their crap. We have people (*cough* Al Gore *cough*) going around literally calling it a _crysis_. And what do we get from it? Politics. 'Action!'. But if anyone says that we ought to really just slow down (and even look at the data!), they get labeled a "denier" and all discourse is shut down.

> Look at the data.

Like... I dunno, maybe IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035? But that turned out to be unreviewed speculation and the glaciers actually haven't lost any net ice over the decade... Oops!

Now, I don't mean to extrapolate that to saying all climate data as bunk, but I _do_ mean to use it as an example of how data can be flawed, interpretations can be flawed, and just plain human stupidity and bias can get in the way (which is the only way you can 'excuse' the above reporting of a media interview as a scientific finding). There is far more room for discussion than is presently allowed by the various groups looking to use climate change as a blank check for political gain, personal gain, or simply a cause to blindly fight for. I just wish people were even half as interested in calling out the alarmists as are the 'deniers'.

Given the prevalence of SQL injection attacks, which could be prevented with a single function call, I have to say that buffer over-(and under-) flows are really a red herring. Unless a language makes it literally impossible to write insecure code, lazy and bad programmers will find a way.

With C++ basically being a superset of C, I wouldn't say that's entirely true.

Regardless, though, when you look at the wide world of programming languages, they are _far_ more distinct from everything else than they are from each other. Java, C#, Python, Ruby, JS, HTML(?!) I can't think of a single mainstream language aside from "C/C++" that uses pointers lacks a garbage collector. So in regard to practical application and required skills, they are effectively quite similar.

The problem with any good justice system is that it has to balance a number of factors. Would you suggest that everyone that, I dunno, J-walks get the death penalty? Not only would the punishment be exorbitant, but now you'd be encouraging J-walkers to carry weapons and dispose of witnesses, as doing so doesn't really make the punishment worse, but could let you avoid it entirely.

Valve is trying to make an effective deterrent to being a jerk. The problem with simply banning is that it gives users no ability to reform, and really ups the burden of proof as the ability to appeal a ban is basically nil (and pricy for Valve if it's not). Also, banned players can usually just get a new account and continue to be an ass until they're banned again, but this time around they aren't going to care half as much as they've already lost everything tied to their original account.

So they have to set the punishment at something that is reasonable in the face of unreliable justice and the cost of creating a new account. Allowing players to play on probation (no voice) or charging them $100 seems like a decent balance to me.

> So you think that someone should not have to behave nice if he is a rich?

Rich? lol. I think that if you combine the demographics of "jerk" and "has $100 to blow" you'll find more basement dwelling trolls than rich people, who usually do other things to do with their time besides being a jerk on online games. A hundred dallors just ain't that much in this day... It won't even buy you two new games.

> Does it not make far more sense to charge everyone the same and ban the jerks?
> Is it really worth it to Valve to decrease their multiplayer experience for everyone for as little as $100 jerk tax?

I for one, think it's fine, as you can sit back and laugh at jerks, knowing that they heavily subsidized you copy. Also, I still expect that there will be normal bans if they're really so bad.

Just like when you report your (friend's?) car as stolen when it's not? Is it hilarious before or after you're arrested for filing a false report?

Just as a car has a serial number identifying it (VIN) that is registered with the current owner, the cell phones have a number (IMEI) that identify it which can be linked to an account owner. They would simply check the database and confirm that the phone is running on the proper account.

The trouble is that cars have very specific rules regarding their sales which handle re-registering with the new owner. This proposal, however, doesn't seem to cover transferring ownership in the database, so if your friend bought the phone secondhand, then there could, indeed, be trouble.

Yeah, I liked that bit. Even better, it's "environmental protection" so those measures you suggest wouldn't count. I find it to be very odd that they jump from resource consumption to environmental protection like that are even related.

Moreover, even if we are to suppose that they really meant "drastic measures for conservation" and that environmentalism was just a typo (those keys being right next to one another), the proposition is still a bit bizarre. We have to take _drastic_ measures to prevent... uh having to take, I guess more, drastic measure drastic consequences later? How about we don't cripple ourselves now to avoid being crippled later, and let technology progress for the next decade or so. That will probably mitigate the problems more than a few years of extreme conservation (which by definition only delays the problem) will

> Zimmerman is still a murderer, though.

I'm not going to defend the man, but don't you think it's just a _little_ ironic that you would state that with certainty in a story about how the "facts" we get can be so blatantly distorted? There are reasons for presumed innocence and a formal trial, and this is one of them.