39% think it should be blown to smithereens?

What about Flickr?

You need my username.

For an outfit like Google or Microsoft, retail is just something they think they should do because Apple did it.

While it's cute that you're trying to make some sort of joke/point of conflating Google & MS as Apple-competitors, this statement is totally wrong for Google.

Google had a real problem trying to get people to look at the Nexus One, I suspect they're having the same problem with early chromebooks. This problem is not quite as dire for Google as it was for Apple (as selling retail product is not central to Google's business model), but there's little doubt they'd shift more product in dedicated stores.

They don't have the same sort of margins as Apple however, so it may not be profitable enough to be worthwhile. Hard to say without looking at the numbers.

So, is accent monitoring and neutralization a civil right violation, as the U.S. Depts. of Justice and Education suggest, or is it an 'innovation', as IBM argues?"

Does theodp not realise that there is a difference between a government department and a private international organisation?

Or that perhaps voice training in Bangalore is not covered by US civil rights legislation?

Mod this submission -1 flamebait please.

Yes some stuff works offline but it's not long before you hit a wall.

Well done for not repeating the 'does not work at all without teh internets' meme.

Chrome OS laptop that literally does not function at all without a network connection.

According to many sources, handily compiled in the Chrome Wikipedia page, you can edit docs, view pics, and playback media offline.

I have no idea why people keep repeating the 'does not work at all without teh internets' meme

So, for once, Sony actually listens to what people want... and you're STILL complaining?

You think listening to someone else's idea & patenting that idea are the same thing?

The EPA's website disagrees with you. Do you have a source for your claim?

Bullshit. Cite? I find this hard to believe when Ikea recycles them for free.

Guess what? Not using them guarantees that mercury will end up in water (from coal plants) regardless (unless you're in a rare non-coal-powered area).

The near-religious irrationality of the anti-CFL brigade pisses me off - your use of logic is as poor as the intelligent design crowd.

I know, I know, this is slashdot, and asking you to RTFA is useless. But seriously, you don't have to read the article, or even the summary, because right in the article title it says "overtake US in science in two years," so what does the last hundred years have to do with anything?

(oh, and I'd call the synthesis of insulin - one of the first proteins ever synthesized a game changer, you on the other hand, may beg to differ).

Well, we COULD all have horses painted pink & use them to ride around collecting rubbish & the horses carefully lick clean each piece prior to sending to the recycle centre, but in the real world, new polystyrene is so cheap, that the cost of recycling is simply not worth it.

Apparently; so that was the plan behind the environmentally conscious crowd bullying them into no longer using those easily recyclable styrofoam containers!

I am afraid that you are totally incorrect in thinking a switch to paper increases the volume of waste.

There is a persistent myth that the McDonalds foamed polystyrene containers were more recyclable than their current paper packaging. This myth is used by people to try and show the environmental movement is emotional, rather than pragmatic & forward thinking (typically, there is a condescending "ho-ho-ho, those silly environmentalists have made the environment worse by replacing a recyclable product with a non-recyclable product" attitude).

However, the facts are that:

1) Food contaminated products are not recycled (most McDs food packaging is unsurprisingly contaminated by food)
2) Almost no foamed polystyrene is recycled in any case.
3) Switching to paper reduced McDonald's waste by around 90%

Where did you get that 40% of male Africans stat? Not from the article you linked to.

Uhhh, no it wasn't, those words were spoken by Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration

I guess it fits better into your chauvinistic view of the world for it to come from an actual general, than one of the chickenhawks.

From your own link:

The paper packaging used to replace the clamshell is not recyclable but it is nonetheless better for the environment and was expected to reduce the volume of waste by 90 percent

Idiot.