Note that the quoted article says absolutely nothing about "weather on Earth". It's talking about "dramatic changes in our solar system", i.e. a distortion in the shape of the termination shock, which lies 75 to 90 AU away from the sun. That is an effective boundary between the heliosphere and the ISM, where the solar wind and the interstellar wind are equally dominant.

Neptune orbits at 30 AU, but the "solar system" is understood to extend at least to the Oort cloud, 50000 AU distant. Earth orbits at 1 AU which is well inside the heliosphere, where the solar wind is much more important. That's why these spacecraft have to look at neutral helium atoms, which are the only interstellar wind components that can actually make it down here without being deflected by solar magnetic fields. Outside the solar system they have a rough density of about ten helium atoms per mL.

This has much less influence on the Earth's climate than the "sunspot activity" referred to by politicians, but you can expect to hear a lot of crap soon, e.g. "Weather on Earth might be shifting in part because of human activity, but larger context in which the Earth moves has some trends to deal with as well".

The helium drops were coming down straight just a few hundred years ago, and now they're angled slightly differently... I hope we start hearing about helium rain in the House because this Syria stuff is boring.

The Internet *was* built on trust. It also happens to be the case that not all people on the Internet are to be trusted and thus cryptography is necessary.

As you may know, many core pieces of the Internet are moving from the trust-all model to more secure models. Routing protocols, DNS, email, you name it. It used to be the case that when you plugged in your ethernet cable, you had a reasonable expectation that your computer would be safe.

That's not the case anymore and our infrastructure will evolve accordingly.

-l

This is state law in Montana:

If I dig a pond, and fill it with water I own rights to, and pay property taxes on that land, then buy fish from a hatchery and stock my own pond with fish I paid for -- I still need a fishing license to fish in my own pond for my own fish.

How does that have anything to do with overfishing? since I provided 100% of their habitat out of my own pocket, and paid for the fish as well??

"Basically, you have reached a conclusion without actually knowing the facts of the case, and then reinterpreted the evidence to support your conclusion."

Isn't that precisely what "parallel construction" does to create "evidence" ?? Isn't that what slashdotters were roundly condemning just a couple weeks ago ??

So we're all in agreement, even if there was confusion during quick-and-dirty slashdot conversation.

So then -- explain what you meant??

Yeah, because what's interpreted one way today could be interpreted another tomorrow. So... good sig.

Seems to me all they'd need to do is match up address books to make a reasonable guess as to which old and new accounts are whom. Not much different from what Facebook and LinkedIn already do, albeit for "who knows whom". Same principle, tho.

I believe this study came out of Florida after concealed carry became legal there; you can probably find it easily enough -- the gist was that tho lawful carrying of weapons had greatly increased, there were NO resulting cases of either escalations or shootings.

There have been at least a few cases of SWAT operations against people who've committed the 'crime' of owning too many animals.

I think that's an insighful interpretation, yep. Going into my Useful Quotes file. :)

I agree (tho Philip is right about the definition of "well-regulated"). And it occurs to me that were the 2nd Amendment allowed full scope and force, a great deal of what the ACLU decries and has moved to defend against would never have happened in the first place.

Which to my mind throws their ACLU's entire premise into a suspect light; how can you have civil liberties if you're prohibited from defending those liberties, and must rely on others to do so for you? (Not can, but must.)

Line judges in R/C pylon races wear helmets or hard hats.

Pilots usually do not, however -- the risks are not large enough to justify them. That said, this situation shows us that they are not zero.