They're democrats. All they do is sink to lower levels.

Where have I been? We're out of a recession? Unemployment numbers have returned to normal? We've reduced our deficit and no longer owe our grandchildren to China? Wow...that's news to me. I'm gonna get my Barack Obama voting fingers ready in 2012 if that's all true...

If students want to waste their money and their education updating their facebook status, let them. For those of you that think what's going on in rows ahead of you is distracting: START SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW. Problem solved.

Let the students devalue their own education. When they enter the real world and realize they wasted their time in college, they'll realize their mistake. If what goes on in rows ahead of you distracts you, then move to the front row. Problem solved.

If they have the money to afford a laptop to go sit in a government building and get online, then they have the money to pay for internet at their home. There are plenty of ways to get online (public libraries for example) if you lack a home internet connection or a computer at home. No need to get all federal government facilities wired with free public wifi.

And who's to say that even if we change the antropogenic behavior that it will result in a reversal of the climate change? If there is a damage being done, who's to say that we know for sure that these policies will fix the problem? If there's no guarantee that reversal is even possible, why spend all the money and change our lifestyle to try and prevent it? The money would be better spent preparing ourselves for the impending doom and gloom rather than trying to prevent it.

The last time I checked, when the geocentric model of the universe came under attack, it was the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that supported the geocentric model and was lockstep behind that theory of how our universe was organized. It wasn't until people went AGAINST the common scientific consensus that the theory changed, and even then, those that went against the scientific consensus faced massive amounts of animosity and hardship for their viewpoints. My point being: science is not and should not ever be done by consensus. As soon as you get scientists getting together saying "this is what's happening, don't question it", you've thrown out the scientific method and the idea of scientific skepticism. I don't care how many scientists say that "global warming is occuring." Great, let them take that standpoint. But it's ludicrous that the idea that the scientific "consensus" being challenged should be anything other than embraced by the scientific community. Let the skeptics make their claims. There's no need to argue with them or try and silence them if there's no evidence to support their theories. But I see the opposite happening. I see climatologists being basically excommunicated from the scientific community for failing to fall lockstep behind the dogma of human-caused global warming. I see meteorologists that have been fired because they have not fully support the idea of global climate change. I see peer-reviewed journals failing to publish contradicting articles because the "peers" believe what they wrote contradicts the ideas in which they have invested so much of their careers. I see vehement personal attacks against anyone that dare question the ideology (near religion) of global climate change. The question never gets asked: hmm...what incentive would these scientists have in order to so strongly support their viewpoint and try and silence their critics?

It's also interesting to note that all of the previous temperature increases in the earth's history have also been marked by drastic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I doubt there were any big oil company throwing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere 100,000 years ago, so it begs the question: is the atmospheric CO2 increases that we're seeing now causing the warming, or are they a result of the warming? We read that CO2 increases are causing the warming, but who's to say that the warming couldn't be causing the release of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere? The correlation between increased CO2 and temperature increases does NOT denote CAUSALITY.

Yeah, because internet access is a RIGHT and the government should be spending our taxpayers money to make sure everyone should be able to get online. The government has no place doing this.

It was probably an old irradiator used to treat cancer.

UPS doesn't accept radioactive materials. Neither does DHL.

Um..".x-ray machines" don't use cesium. X-rays in an x-ray machine are created by applying an electrical current across an x-ray tube. No radioactive materials required. Most likely, based upon how what this article described, this was a Gadolinium or a Germanium sources.

Um...actually they're the ONLY ones in the US that ship RAM. UPS and DHL no longer do it. But Fedex does ship explosives, corrosives, compressed gasses, biological specimens and toxins, etc.

We return used sealed sources to the manufacturer for our equipment ~ every 6 months. It's completely normal, appropriate and LEGAL to utilize Fedex to ship radioactive materials (RAM) so long as you comply with all DOT regulations. Assuming that these were used sealed sources being returned to manufacturer, they were most likely fairly well decayed and probably being shipped either as a Class I or in excepted packaging. And as they're SEALED SOURCES, there's no risk of contamination unless someone intercepted it to blow it up for various nefarious purposes. You used to be able to ship via UPS and DHL but they pulled out of the hazardous material shipment business. RAM isn't the only hazardous material moving through fedex's shipment facilities. You have corrosives, flammables and biological specimens being shipped via Fedex all over the country and the world. So don't let a little bit of radioactivity scare you. There's a lot more dangerous stuff that can kill you a lot sooner than some sealed sources if you're gonna get all in a huff about using Fedex.

At least with Sprint, if they change your terms of service, you have a set period of time to cancel your contract with them without an early termination fee. As already stated, you and the company have a contract. The company has changed their contract with you while the contract was still in effect. So, you have the ability to cancel w/o any type of fee if you do not agree with the unilateral changes that they made to your TOS. If you agree with the new TOS (or simply don't know that they changed), then they interpret your continuing to use their service as an acknowledgment of the changes they made to the contract and agreement to abide by the new requirements. Many a Sprint customer has gotten out of a contract for free because of minor changes to the TOS. Not sure if anything similar happens w/ Verizon or AT&T.