Good point...

Don't they have already? Isn't that what all those spy satellites do better and cheaper?

Maybe they just forgot to declare the random number object as static?

Is that not already weird?Now add the extra weirdness that you can't know what either envelope contains until you open it at which point whatever you find in the first envelope you will find the exact opposite in the other envelope. It's like if you had two dice, you can't tell what number is going to come up next just by looking at it. You roll the dice, which don't stop spinning until you focus your eyes on one die, at which point both stop spinning. You look at and note the result of the first die, then you look at the other die and it is always facing exactly the opposite of the first die. That's a bit weird.

And Bing is better because it is those nice trustworthy people at Microsoft who are watching everything you search for ?!?

Damn, why don't I have mod points? I may have to tweet that.

>"dark matter" really has little more definition than "gravity generator" does it?
If you're making a pretty big assumption there in assuming that a "something" is the causative agent by virtue of it's being a thing in a specific place. The real cause of these gravitational effects could be something out of the scope of this assumption like the structure of the universe itself.

Wow and I thought it was all about the board game Risk.

There were radio controlled guided bombs developed and used (mostly anti shipping) in world war two mostly by the Germans but US also.

Out of curiosity I've just tried, with every terminal application I have (xterm, lxterm, uxterm, gnome-termonal, konsole...). I can't do it. Perhaps I'm incompetent? Or perhaps it's a bug in some specific window manager? Or perhaps Guy Harris is special?

Not in my experience. Over the past twenty years I've run Linux on a large number of designed-for-Windows laptops; I've never seen worse battery performance under Linux than under Windows, and on some machine (including my current Asus Zenbook) considerably better.

Did "we" vote on this? Let's look at their members list: Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Csico, Comcast, Cox, Google, Huawei, HP, Intel, LG, Netflix, Verizon, Yahoo!, Zynga and ... The Walt Disney Company. Seriously, are we really so daft that we sit here scratching our heads wondering why a consortium of those players and THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ended up including DRM? REALLY? There is a bill known as The Mickey Mouse Act in regards to excessive copyright that was passed into US law. And we're wondering how Disney might have influenced DRM as an option in a standard ... they're on the list, folks! Pull your heads out of your asses!

And those are just the companies I recognize that have a serious amount of money to be made on DRM (hello, Netflix?!). If I examine closer, there are much smaller players like, say, Fotosearch Stock Photography and Footage that sound like they would gladly vote for DRM in order to "protect" their products/satiate content owners.

The fact that

1. This patch was sneaked into CVS bypassing the proper channels;
2. The submitter identity was (allegedly) forged;
3. The UID assignment was surrounded in parentheses to prevent a compiler warning

strongly suggest that this was a deliberate feature, and not a casual error. I've done a lot of security audits of mission critical systems in my time and I've seen a lot of potentially catastrophic casual errors. You can always see what (innocent) thing the programmer intended to do. There's no 'innocent' thing this change could do. This is intended.

Who intended it? That's another question.

Why have a solar powered CO2 remover when we could use solar (or wind, or tidal, or geothermal) energy and never release the CO2 in the first place? Continuing to burn fossil fuels is unbelievably stupid.

If you read the "Summary for Policymakers" PDF document linked in the summary, there is no talk of "total quantity of emissions tolerated" or any of this trillionth ton idea. Instead it appears to be talking about . In fact, it appears to reside solely in that New York Times article that very clearly says:

(emphasis mine) So to answer your question: The trillion tons is an estimate of what we would need to burn in order to hit an internationally agreed limit that would likely produce the worst effects of climate change. The number of tons we burn is even an estimate. It's all estimates because we don't have parallel Earths where we can keep controls and change one variable to see what happens. If you don't accept the ability of making estimates with levels of certainty, there is no way to make any statements about the effects of putting carbon into our atmosphere on a global scale.

I suppose it would appear that way if you only get your information from The New York Times and throw away everything they're actually saying.