Except he didn't say "kill 50"- he said "stab 50." Which would still be less than what the recent shooter did with wounded.

And you even make his point if you stay with deaths. Shooting sprees seem to be in the dozen-ish range for deaths. Your googling maxes out at 8 for stabbings.

So only Obama, Biden, and Panetta knew about this? What about Bush and Cheney? Or the group in the defense department that presented the idea? Or the group that developed it, and is continuing to update it? Or the equivalent of the groups above in Israel?

It may not be "official" in that it has been oval office seal on it, but there are far more than three people that could give the reporter all the details.

It looks really cool, but there is a cut between every time the device is posed to jump and it jumps. A camera change at 0:09. A really weird one at 0:18 where the camera doesn't move but light changes so you know there was a cut. The jump at 0:35 doesn't look like it has a cut but it is a smaller jump too. The next jump has one at 0:51. So 4 jumps with three cuts between the preparing to jump and the jump. Not saying it is a fake, but it has many attributes that a faked video would have.

Ye flipping gods- another one.

No. Just No.

Sarbanes-Oxley did NOT make it illegal to change production software in public companies. What it DID do was make it a requirement that the management of a company was legally responsible for the financial reporting of the company. So even if the financial reporting software had a problem, they are still on the hook for it. All the IT auditing firms got together and agreed that meant the FINANCIAL software needed to have all the changes be approved by the proper applications owners and that there needed to be an approval process, documentation, and all the other stuff that makes auditors (and no one else) happy.

Those same auditors have pushed that in order to avoid risk, EVERY software application should go through that same process even if it has nothing to do with finance. Risk-adverse management agreed. So now most public companies force Sarbanes-Oxley compliant processes on every bit of development, costing huge amounts of wasted time and money.

Skipping it doesn't mean it is illegal. It means that if your company is audited and a set of software is found to be the cause then it is possible the management might get fined. To the best of my knowledge, this has NEVER happened. And I feel comfortable saying it is unlikely to ever happen.

A Livescribe pen would let her take notes like normal and record the lecture. Plus Livescribe will also let you take notes for all your classes in one notebook, and then you can sort the notes into individual classes ion the computer. So only one notebook to carry around at a time. AND the notes can then be put into PDF or loaded into Evernote so you can read them on whatever device you want. Easy and familiar to use to record information and easy to sort it and use the notes later. I love mine for notes in meetings and my own projects!

The difference will be the price point and ease of use. Sure- the iPad can do it all better, but for 2.5 times the cash. Other devices might be better ebook readers. But getting all of it for under $200? Technology history is full of better devices and technologies losing to "good enough". And the reviews seem to be saying it isn't stellar, but also seem to be saying it will do the job. And how many non-techie people read through all the comparison reviews? I doubt the typical Slashdot reader is Amazon's main intended demographic.

I wouldn't count it out yet.

If it is true, then it worked didn't it? And it is certainly less crazy than a number of other well documented spy/war/cold war evens.

I do mean it like that. While religious upbringing can be passed on, faith cannot. I know too many ex-Catholics to believe otherwise.

Faith cannot be pushed on someone. A person might be taught something even to the point of brainwashing, but they are still able to learn new facts. If you put two people through the same process, you cannot say with certainty they will come out with the same faith. Opposed to a scientific process, where two separate people can perform the same experiment and obtain the same results.

It has been theorized that different universes might have different laws. Once universe creation can be done in a controlled, repeatable fashion, I would be glad to have this conversation ;)

Though I never said only the repeatable things can be true. I said that only repeatable processes can be considered science. It is true that I loved my childhood pet, but it would be impossible to recreate that relationship, making my emotions for the pet not a valid subject to scientific proof.

Coward, you are a troll and an idiot, but I'll still answer.

If you cannot verify it, then no- religion cannot be considered science. Let's look at some examples of falsehoods. In science, we have the Piltdown man. It was taken as a great discovery, but subsequent studies demonstrated that it was a fake. In religion, someone claims god told them something, how can you verify that? No number of religious experts can say it did or didn't happen. For every claim of achieving cold fusion, subsequent peer review has shown it to be false. Can you recreate or study Jesus rising from the grave? That is peer review. Religion has no sort of peer review.

I don't think you have to do every experiment to believe it. But if you have faith in the PEOPLE telling you what the science is, then you don't have to. That is the difference. You have faith in the repeatable, scientific, peer-reviewed process. As opposed to religion, which puts faith in millennia old writings that have been edited and translated repeatedly.

Science is fundamentally different from faith in that science is reproducible. Faith is not.

What this question asks is if you are too lazy to learn the details yourself then you have to have faith in the person telling you about it. Which is exactly the same as most people who can't be bothered to learn the details of their own religion and its history, and instead just take on faith that the person telling them what god wants them to do is actually the truth of it. But that similarity is that people not wanting to learn themselves are putting faith in a person of trust.

If we had quality talent at the top level, I would be willing to pay for it. Instead we get culture-pushing, fear-mongering, holier-then-thou sorts.

I know a lot of people on assembly lines that are far more trust-worthy than a lot of the politicians I read about. Or than a number of CEO's I've met or read about.

Maybe instead of thinking that it is the "high-but-not-high-enough pay" that encourages dishonesty, maybe it is the fact that these people are power-hungry, I-know-better sorts that are glad to take outside money and influence if it will let them win the next election to show that they were right all along.

And for your information, the average TV star doesn't make a huge amount. Not unless they are at the very top and score a $1M+ per episode deal, and that is usually only after years on a show. But I'm sure Charlie Sheen is showing just how respectable and worth it he is. After all, he is(was) getting paid well, so under your theory, he must be above all other influences, right?

You do realize he claims to sleep in his office to avoid that? And that he has a far-from-necessary vacation home?

So explain how many businesses are getting huge profits, such as GE (which paid no taxes), and still laying off people?

Excellent idea! Let's start off with all of us agreeing that the Holocaust never happened. We can move up to Greedo having always shot first after that settles.