I'm actually referencing a slashdot comment from another story. I've gone mad. Oh well.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2861513&cid=40052379

That's funny, because in a recent Slashdot discussion about laptops the exact opposite was recommended - business grade laptops are typically priced higher for essentially the same hardware you get in the "consumer" grade.

Tell me, what can you do with a clean conscience? Can you eat meat you buy from the store? Or even produce for that matter? Can you flip on the light switch in your home and consume electricity? Start your car? Wax philosophical all you want, but life is inherently unfair, whether within a species, or amongst species. Sure, many things can be improved, but you'll be afraid to take a step lest you kill an ant if you delve too deep here.

Googling for "recallroque log-in" is just pure genius. Why hack if google will just point you straight to the credentials you need!

That's nothing. Wait until you see what happens when the clock rolls around on midnight on Dec 31st, 1999.

The method in which a user ends up with a browser - by default or by choice, etc - is a whole different topic. What is important for web developers are accurate statistics. I agree with MS on this one, because it sounds like the stats were quite skewed by page preloading, etc. How people ended up with IE doesn't change who is actually using what. I'm trying to figure out why Firefox and Chrome usage is so low on iPad devices - it's quite an anomaly - but again, that's a whole different topic.

(to save those who don't grasp subtle sarcastic humor, my comment about iPad browsers is totally tongue-in-cheek)

They certainly increase evaporation, and probably absorption of water back into the ground. Whether or not that amount of water is negligible or not is the question. Simply put, less water makes it to the ocean after a river is dammed than before.

Ahhh, this will make parenting a little easier.
Kid 1: "It's my turn!!"
Kid 2: "I need to check my FB!"
Kid 1: "You used the tablet all day yesterday!"
Kid 2: "DID NOT!"
Me: "Here, give me that blasted thing."
Whips out tin snips.
"Half for you, and half for you."

Cat pee and pocket change. I can handle that.

I doubt the pilots did knew the terrain that well. They were Russian pilots demoing a jet in a foreign country, so it would not have been an area they fly over regularly. They were touring.

I believe they were trying to show off, and here's why I think that. One of the news sites had a video (looked like Google Earth) showing where the plane took off, and where it crashed. The mountain it crashed into is this really isolated and abrupt thing sticking way up out of lower elevation terrain. It was very clear from that imagery that the plane took off and made a bee line for those scenic mountains for impressive views for those on board. I think the pilot tried to do a close fly by and did not realize just how steep that mountain was (it is practically vertical where the plane impacted).

Again, if you look at the topography, it is clear that if the plane had some sort of engine trouble, especially up at 10,000 feet, there was much lower elevation land they could have easily headed toward instead of happening to drop on that isolated mountain.

Remember, this was flying around for the sake of showing off a plane - a sightseeing tour that they wanted those on board to have a memorable impression of. Thus they would have headed towards something like that mountain to give the passengers something more interesting to look at than boring cloud tops or flat land.