In the company I work for, we have two sets of computers. The set that customers can use happens to have IE7 and Firefox.

The set that employees use only has IE6.

Plus, some of the training software we're supposed to use crashes regularly in IE6, but doesn't in IE7. Yet we're not upgrading the employee computers for whatever dumbass reason.

Explain that shit to me.

Lack of Flash.
Lack of USB ports.
Lack of any apps that Apple doesn't want you to have.

It's turtles all the way down.

Don't you watch TV or the movies? Something like 90% of doctors* are unscrupulous bastards who would happily sell your organs to rich people who need new kidneys/hearts/lungs/corneas/whatever. If you had to opt-out, how many more victims would these butchers have their pick of?

*at least, the doctors in said TV shows and movies

If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?

Penguins, polar bears, people living in Alaska, Tuvaluans (the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels), anyone else living really close to a coastline....

I have Bachelor's degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science. Do I count as two scientists? :P (Or just a scientist and an engineer?)

Remember, the police are your friends!

(I believe this is a collolary of "It's okay if you're a Republican.".)

You're proving my point. If it wasn't a mockery of the law to charge, convict and imprison the man in that jurisdiction for something he did outside of that jurisdiction (and to note, where he did it, it was legal), then the law wouldn't need to be overhauled.

This is akin to charging, convicting and imprisoning a photographer because someone else displayed his photographs in "Uptight-ville". The difference is, this was done over the Internet, rather then a public gallery.

The Appeals Court dropped the ball on this one. If a crime was committed in that backwoods locale, it should be the person who viewed the porn who is charged, because they're the ones who took the active step of bringing it 'into' the jurisdiction. Yeah, it's some pretty foul porn, by most standards, but it was the police who ordered the damn things and downloaded them, not some otherwise innocent person. Frankly, it's a mockery of the law to charge him with crimes in that jurisdiction.

Excuse me, it may be "Ctrl+Shift+R". Regardless, it should be a task even a federal bureaucrat can handle without a million dollar study on the project.

It's called "convert the file to a PDF" and "hit Ctrl+R and OK" twice.

I call bullshit. Most of the people who identify themselves as Democrats will vote for whoever is running on the Democratic ticket. Most of the people who identify themselves as Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate. The only time you're voting for 'individuals' is when you're voting in a primary where you have more then one candidate from the same party to pick from, and even then, in a lot of cases, it's a choice between clones. "Do I vote for the white guy who is spouting the party line, or do I vote for the other white guy who is spouting the same party line?"

The only people who don't fall into that are people who consider themselves independents, and a lot of the time, they're stuck with a bad choice or a worse choice. (And even then, if the candidate they like is from a party that isn't demographically favored in their area, their choice means fuck all.)

Yes, that's pessimistic. But saying that the U.S. is different because we vote 'for individuals' is disingenuous at best.

That's the thing: Youtube and other social networks are now _way_ more important now for promotion than classic radio, especially for a band that is primarily listened to by young people. And they're free!

And far more people still listen to the radio then watch YouTube. Okay, look... you can listen to the radio at any time, while doing practically anything. You could be working in your backyard, driving a car, putting the new coversheet on the TPS report... and listen to the radio at the same time.

But if you're watching a video on YouTube... well, I hope to Jesus you're not driving at the same time.... regardless, you need a computer/laptop/netbook to do so. Which limits the viewership. (A radio is far cheaper then a computer. You can get a cheap Walkman for twenty bucks.)

Well, there is a difference between "share your toys" wherein the act of sharing does not create an exact duplicate of the toys and "share your digital music" where the act of sharing does create an exact digital duplicate.

Honestly, people.

No, but he does pick up objects in ways that really can't be done. No, I'm not talking about the "unrealisticness" of super-strength.... more like the "unrealisticness" of lifting a car off of the road by it's front fender, or picking up a fishing boat by the bow. The kind of thing where if he was 'telekinetically' picking it up evenly across the entire item, sure, that would work... but he should be ripping the fender off, or breaking the boat in half because he's not supporting the whole weight.