He should apologize to Rush when Rush apologizes for stating that it sounded likely on-air while not actually knowing if there was any truth to it.

He was tried that way because the French refused to extradite him. He fled the country after his arrest to avoid prosecution. He has confessed to the crime, he acknowledges that he did it, but when it looked like his plea deal might not work out he fled to avoid the consequences of his actions.

Not really, in either case it is still blaming the victim and is unacceptable and repugnant.

But, isn't the concept in the public domain now?

Slashdot has a story about Google removing it.

I just checked the market and I only see four results for a search on "tether", one of which actually does wifi tethering via Bluetooth allowing your phone to connect to your computer's network according to the write up... but not the other way around. Searching for "Wireless" was even less helpful.

Well, on the G1 at least, it is the only way to get wireless tethering working.

Mod parent up!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Hey, your ideas and politics mirror my own. We should start our own party; the Conservationist party. What are we conserving? Democracy, Resources, and Common Sense.

Ah, wait, third parties don't work. Ah well, I hope it helps to know that you are not alone.

Hmm. I use my netbook (travel, coffee shops, etc) and my Wii (great party games) all the time. Perhaps the "hype" isn't the problem, but that you are not part of the intended audience.

What are your crimes? Did you club a baby seal?

Yeah, that sounds odd but there is a fairly well documented instance where a celebrity Scientologist asked that of a critic whom, to be fair, was wearing a t-shirt that directly attacked their "religion". Most people would call him an idiot and move on, or just walk past, but they began insinuating that he was a criminal and had committed some truly heinous crimes.

I'm not saying you can't have the conversation you wish, but if some idiotic t-shirt can cause that response I can't imagine that there is much hope. Though it isn't something I've seen advertised, it appears that there is a trained response to critics where the practitioners accuse the critic of committing crimes as evidenced by their criticism of Scientology.

As an educated person of culture and refinement I prefer using my eBook reader for everything, from physics text books to philosophy to fiction. It is difficult to travel with a few heavy books (and I'm always reading a few different books), but a 285 gram eBook reader can fit in my pocket wherever I go and carry an entire library with me. In a pinch, I'll use a phone.

While I can understand a preference for paper (it is what most of us grew up with, after all), the conveniences of eBooks are already outweighing the advantages of paper. This is especially true of dedicated eBook readers with e-ink displays. The one downside is the requirement of electricity (to recharge the batteries), but there aresolar powered chargers to make remote use possible.

If the insidious DRM and vendor lock-in of the Kindle is a problem, I suggest getting one of the BeBook from Endless Ideas and loading openInkpot firmware on it. Even the Sony PRS-505 and PRS-600 are more open than the Kindle and the PRS-600 offers a touch screen to boot.

Republicans at the time were not a conservative party so you've made something of a disingenuous argument, given the turmoil of both parties at the time. Both parties come from the same roots, but at the time of the Civil War abolitionist Democrats split off and joined the Republican party. At the same time, the remaining members of the Democratic party in the North split into two factions, those who backed the war (and voted for Lincoln) and the Copperheads, who were strong State's rights supporters. Neither was a strong supporter of abolition of slavery, and in the case of the Copperhead leadership actively opposed it. At this time, the Republicans were a liberal party and both had similar economic policies (free market) and supported the common man over wealthy, moneyed interests. It was after the Civil War's resolution that the parties began to establish their current identities, though it wasn't until the Great Depression that the modern Democratic party established an economic policy that is at least nominally different than their Republican counterparts.

So you are absolutely correct, but as with many things in history and politics, it is more complicated than a surface reading shows. Especially when a large portion of one political party changes allegiance to another political party over a hot button issue. It makes things like the raising of Gay Marriage and Abortion at every election have some political context, hoping to lure people away from their party to join the other. It might even work... if the parties weren't so similar. Today's media is a (willing?) pawn in this scheme, reporting on what is clearly a political tool without calling the politicians (of either party) on it.

You know, looking back it is staggering to see just how far all of our political parties have fallen...

All evidence to the contrary, eh? Look, I can well understand wanting to send a message while driving, but texting really does limit the ability of a driver to actually drive. Accidents where texting is the reason for the failure of the driver to obey proper traffic laws are quite common. But if you've seen studies that show something different, please link them - or articles linking to them - here. I'd dearly love to read them.

Sorry, that should have read: "will force heirloom farmers to be prey to..."

Not at all. First, the judge has not said "Thou shalt not plant GMO beets!" he has simply stated that the environmental impact analysis was not sufficient. Second, even if it comes to pass that farmers cannot plant the GMO crops in an open-air environment, It will simply require that the plants be grown where they cannot cross-pollinate with heirloom crops. Greenhouses, for example, or hydroponics facilities. Not ideal, since the crop yield and potential benefit from GMO crops (after thorough testing and environmental impact analysis) far outweigh the potential drawbacks (IMO, of course) but to do otherwise will force heirloom farmers prey to their neighbors non-heirloom crops (and, as has been previously stated, prey to patent infringement and lawsuits from GM Crop Developers as well).