It is typically written as "enterprise-cum-consumer", meaning "enterprise as well as / with consumer", but in the US? not sure about Europe, that word has becum known for other things besides the cleaner version

That's probably because people are too busy or too lazy. I would vote most as lazy, but probably busy to see the Cc to see whether they were scammed, if they are smart enough to realize that they have been scammed in the first place.

This should not be surprising to anyone. Such studies are published mostly to keep laws up against file sharers, and companies (napster, piratebay and so on), so that ?PAA can justify their existence.

With enough material sciences knowledge about how an object breaks down, and under what circumstances, I am surprised that any company can reasonably say that "We don't know why / when a part can break down suddenly" and let me sit you on the tarmac for who knows how many hours, while we replace what we should have in the first place.

Sex offenders should be locked up permanently or executed. End of story. There is no "strict" punishment for anyone that brings harm to kids. Won't someone please think of the children?

Well, 768 was never a standard length for RSA. Everything smaler than 1024 bits was considered broken long ago (512 was broken a few years ago). What this really means is that we should stop using 1024 bits already, and standardize on 2048. By the way, 2048 bits RSA is expected to never be broken on Earth (if we ever go to space and start gathering the majority of the power released by a star, things change), but nobody is really certain.

That dosn't seem logical to me. The way I have been taught, DNA looks at the more dominant gene. If a dominant gene is made less dominant then its opposite, and something "looks" again, then they would take the characteristics of the new dominant gene, ignoring the lower gene. Am I making any sence?

As someone who doubts cellphones cause statistically significant brain damage, I also doubt it causes statistically significant improvements. Naturally, the science will speak for itself either way.

Certainly similar radiation at much higher doses will have an effect. Also, keep in mind mice have much smaller heads. A cellphone would have a much stronger effect on a mouse as the radiation will far more easily penetrate the skull and brain. In humans, much of the strength is lost before the signal makes it to the brain.

We already create urban "heat islands" that cause afternoon rainstorms in places like Atlanta, so I do no think these towers do anything that has not been done already. They seem to be a brilliant idea that should have been stumbled upon decades ago!

The thermal updrafts now feed into thunderstorm cells and all of that energy essentially goes to waste, but with this technology constructed in the right locations perhaps the benefit would be two fold: Energy from the uplifting air, and essentially being able to control (or at least influence) the local weather in the area around the tower. I'm not climatologist but it seems like a little multidisciplinary collaboration could really pay off in big ways (i.e. where droughts seems to never end and where excessive rain/flooding is a problem).

If it is possible to build a tower and funnel hot air upwards, couldn't we also build a giant cone to take advantage of cold air falling? -- I guess this must get into pressure gradients and all sorts of other science... so I'll stop typing now.

"How many other brilliant concepts are just waiting for an untrained eye to look at them differently?"

How many people has Arianespace put into orbit? Virgin? Hermes was once slated to be a Shuttle equivalent, but was scuttled in 1992 due to chronic cost overruns.

How many scientific missions have been catalogued by Arianespace since 1980?

How much research into launch vehicles has Arianespace made independent of government-funded efforts (they are using "venerable" Soyuz launchers for medium-weight launches, but other vehicles Ariane N and Vega launchers were designed and built with HEAVY government funding by the European Space Agency)?

For a pure awesome use of eye tracking see Macross Plus (or Zero maybe). Target selection just by looking at it.

This isn’t new news. None of this is hidden, it’s all documented. For the full list try here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee330741(VS.85).aspx

Ok, here's a challenge for you. How much would it cost to duplicate the scientific output of the Apollo program with unmanned missions? Your budget is a heady $130 billion dollars (the inflation-adjusted cost of Apollo program, possibly including Skylab). Key things you need to be able to do:

1) return 382 kg of samples from the Moon in at least six missions. You can conduct far more missions, if you desire.

2) At least three of those sample return missions must use rovers capable of traveling up to 40 km to conduct the sample collections. At least three more should have some means of collecting samples several up to several hundred meters away from the landing spot.

3) Drop off and deploy maybe up to two thousand kg total of equipment (not sure of the mass figures, but a bunch of long sensors and other equipment were deployed by astronauts with each mission).

4) Return a bunch of pretty video while you're trucking along doing all this work.

5) In order for these to be proper "flag and footprints" missions, plant six Apollo-sized US flags to flap in the lunar breeze. Leave something (like rover tread marks) that can be classified as a footprint.

6) Include development costs for any launch vehicles or other infrastructure you need (like payload integration facilities), even if they already exist (this is to provide a fairer comparison since virtually all Apollo and Saturn development and infrastructure had to be built from scratch).

The question is how much cheaper and better can you do this with unmanned probes?

But this way they will also be able to use it for other things than gaming:
Customer credits, "rebates", prize money,..

*sigh* you're still being deliberately thick-headed.

The judge is a trusted third-party - trusted by the bank to make good decisions, and trusted by you to expunge your record.

Should I take it you're opposed to the practice of expunging juvenile records in our court system?

I asked for some example of how you think my beliefs are inconsistent. If you can't provide an example, then you're merely blowing smoke.

Feel free to refer to any material you like about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) while you attempt to find some way my beliefs are self-contradictory or inconsistent.

I ask again - show me just one example of my beliefs being logically inconsistent. If you can't, then I win the debate ;) Remember, your unilateral assertion was that no human has an internally consistent (self-consistent) set of beliefs.