Yes, parody is protected in the US, and parody against public figures has a long history of protection. However, once you piss off a politician, you can expect to be raked over the coals no matter what your rights. It's going to be expensive unless you can get the EFF or someone similar on board.

Now wait, did I just hear that some guy named Ardis likes to slob knobs in a McDonald's restroom?

Go ahead. Make your argument for how any of those people had their freedom of speech impeded. You have plenty of conservative talking points to support you on it, go ahead and bring them.

Show us your superior understanding of all things constitutional. Tell us how when a conservative loses his job for being a loudmouthed idiot it is an infringement of his freedom of speech, but when it happens to a liberal it's just market forces at work.

I did not say you said that. Rather I said that you are again simultaneously claiming President Lawnchair to be powerless ("rodeo clown") and wielding power. Those are mutually exclusive traits.

I was calling the politicians cowardly. I have no idea how your response is supposed to be a reply to that.

You really should stick to terms that you are familiar with the meaning of. There is no socialism at play here.

64-bit CPU with Ultra-Low Power (runs off 3 AAA batteries)

HP preceeded ARM by years but like everything else they do, don't know how to market it.

Clean the corona wires is only 1/2 the solution. Replace the carbon filter. Sometimes with neglect it becomes completely blocked and caked with dust. Pull it out and blow it out on a regular basis.

FYI, still running a Laserjet III with added memory. It hangs on my lan on a Trendnet 1P Printserver.

There is one thing that, above anything else, determines a scientist's career: getting original research published. Where "original" implies "before your competitors". Which means letting your competitors look into what you're doing before it's published is career suicide. If you're gonna attach strings to your funding stipulating that every small tidbit you find should immediately be publicly available, then the only scientists who will want to work for you are the ones who publish dull uninnovative research.

Not to mention all the unnecessary animosity surrounding the many results that later turn out to be untrue but were thrown before the public before the person producing them got the chance to double-check (which often takes months). This is enough of a problem as it is already; given the breakneck competition, people often tend to publish too soon rather than too late.

This is the same factory, molds, parts and people making this keyboard since Lexmark did the original one for IBM. There is good reason to call it the same keyboard.

No doubt within less than two weeks, he'll be complaining about "intransparency and lack of reproducibility" again, as if he never saw GP.

Well, anything by them but specifically the Model 500 telephone set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

63 years old and still works just like it came out of the factory. The only maintenance is a bit of cleaning with soapy water and tapping the microphone against something hard every few years to pack the carbon granules.

Also remarkable is that it will still work on just about any phone system in the world. That's a long lasting communication standard.

Another great line of products were pre-1990 Motorola two way radios. They were build almost as well as the WE stuff.

That would be true for a lot of countries, but the USA isn't one of them.

I think there is a qualitative difference between notifying large end users like Facebook in advance, and notifying people in the distribution system for a general release. It's the former that inherently means the people who aren't large end users with privileged access get left exposed for longer than necessary, and that's what I'm objecting to.

You're latching onto this specific case, perhaps because you have some connection to it, but I'm talking about the general principle here. In general, it is not unreasonable to assume that if a vulnerability has been found by two parties in rapid succession, there may be a common factor involved, which may mean that other parties will also find it in the same time frame, and that an extra day may therefore be very significant.

Obviously most serious security bugs don't sit there for years, then have two groups discover them at almost the same time, as seems to have happened in this case, and need half the known Internet to update their systems as a precaution because no-one really knows whether they've been damaged by the vulnerability at any time over the past couple of years.

If it's that funny to you, why are you defending giving them a day of advanced warning? Some of us did have a patch rolled out within a couple of hours of the public announcement, but presumably we could have had the patch rolled out a day earlier in the alternative situation. Once again, in this case, one day in two years obviously isn't that significant as we're all going to have to assume keys were compromised and set up new ones anyway. But if this was something that only got committed three days ago, it's a different story.

Whoosh.

You're still assuming that the dev teams, or to be more precise the parts of the dev teams who will actively review new code, are the same size. That isn't necessarily true at all, so the "provided everything else is equal" part of your last sentence is the problem here.

It's still highly uncertain whether a court would find a contract to exist at all under these conditions.

Even if it does, you can always go to court and argue for your right to be there because the other guy's term about arbitration is unenforceable for whatever reason. The court might disagree and send you back to arbitration, but they won't stop you coming in the door in the first place.