How much you wanna bet, there was some union worker who's been in the job for 20 years, and saw this coming? They saw it coming and said, "Rather than send them to the scrap yard, we're just gonna squirrel these babies away in this warehouse here," and rolled all those giant hunks of metal into storage in counties all over NY. I bet they got wrapped up, too.

Gonna be a lot of nostalgic voters this election.

Gotta burn off all those giant sodas somehow...

"We're changing the standards so you can't sue us immediately after the disaster. But if you get cancer 30 years down the line, we and our money will be long gone and no longer giving a darn in Pattaya Beach, Thailand."

Wow!

Those sure are some really useful and interesting email addresses and phone numbers!

Thanks, Salt Lake Tribune!

No, that would be like dividing by zero.

I wonder how many "errors" in maps, map software and apps are "trap streets"?

A trap street is a fictitious entry in the form of a misrepresented street on a map, often outside the area the map nominally covers, for the purpose of "trapping" potential copyright violators of the map who, if caught, would be unable to explain the inclusion of the "trap street" on their map as innocent.

Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "teeny" that I hadn't previously been aware of.

The mere fact that you even have to ASK such a question means the answer is "Yes."

Ayn Rand would be proud of this chap. Caveat emptor is a totally valid business model when dissatisfied customers are likely to be scattered over a 50 meter radius.

The problem with your argument is that people are *not* asking the government to create or mandate a "marriage law" as you put it. Nobody who is actually working in the courts and legislative system is asking for any particular right. Nobody is asking for that, in any appreciable numbers, or with any appreciable influence.

What IS happening, is that people are asking the government to clarify that there is no right to marriage at all.

The so-called "right" to marry who you want is what is known as an "unenumerated right," meaning it's a "right" that you have by default, with no pre-existing restrictions, conditions or provisions. It's like the air around your head: it's yours to use however you see fit, so long as it doesn't impinge upon someone else's free use.

What has happened is that individual states have illegally declared marriage to be an enumerated right that is the exclusive domain of a particular majority of society: i.e. heterosexuals.

That, along with the Defense of Marriage Act, is in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

So what the lawyers, activists and people with their hands in the issue are *really* asking for, is for the federal government to step in and say, "Marriage is not an enumerated right. Constitution wins, you lose, obey the law of the land. Allow consenting adults to marry whatever other consenting adults they wish."

(With the appropriate, already established and legitimate conditions regarding age, consent, genetics and being an actual human.)

If you drop a CD into the soil, it won't do anything except break down over a few million years. If you drop a CD into a computer, it still won't do anything without user intervention. It might start an auto-run routine, but it won't fully install. (Unless it's a virus or trojan, but that's another kettle of fish.)

However, if you drop a seed...well...pretty much anywhere that doesn't immediately kill it, and it gets wet? It's going to self-replicate. It will complete it's life-cycle and produce more seeds, no human intervention required.

So from a software company, this case has already been decided?

Nature has prior art. The BSA's arguments are invalid.

Arrggh. BDS = BSA/The Software Alliance