I don't think Laxori666 was intimating that "The Market" was broken, but rather that our regulatory systems (that would include the Patent system) have shackled it to the extent that it can be more profitable to engage in legal assaults against your competitors than to actually PRODUCE something new for sale.

Now, Apple is clearly doing both, but the fact that the legal avenue is even viable for them to bother pursuing should be of great concern to anyone wishing to see greater vibrancy and energy from the marketplace.

And SOMEONE does not know their Western history! (Not surprising given the utter lack of proper history teaching in the West for the last 30 years. Thanks for that, Baby Boomers!)

By 1776 the Magna Carta had been in force in England for over 100 years. England was then, as now, a monarchic Democracy, and certainly a Western state (Actually, they were THE Western State at that point in history.) This is, of course, what led to the American revolution. The colonists felt that they were being made serfs again by lack of representation in Parliament. After years of protests and complaints and a series of political, social and police assaults by the crown on the colonies (designed to suppress dissent) the colonies banded together and revolted. The large scale presence of arms in the colonies attributed in part to the success of the revolution.

Nazi Germany was a Western Democracy prior to Nazi takeover. Hitler's election to Chancellor was by popular vote. It wasn't until after his election to Chancellor and subsequent seizing of power through political subterfuge (like having the army swear allegiance to HIM rather than to Germany or the German Constitution) that the people began to get a sense that there was a problem.

Unfortunately for them, one of the first laws that Hitler passed even BEFORE seizing full Dictatorial power was to outlaw private gun ownership. He knew that an armed populace was a dangerous and uncontrollable populace, even when doped up on the Nazi propaganda that was inescapable in Germany at the time.

So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.

I have to admit, I HATED the Ribbon when it first came out, especially in Word and Excel, as I had memorized all the menus. Once I had to use it in Powerpoint though, I started to appreciate it. Still wasn't terribly happy with it in Word and Excel, but I learned to use it.

In Office 2010 the ribbon is MUCH better. Closer to the old menu system in appearance and arrangement, and more logically laid out. Also, there is the switch that lets you enable to old-school menu if you want it back, so if you still hate the Ribbon, you don't have to use it. VERY nice!

Windows 8 though, What a mess. if they would just let people CHOOSE what they want, classic or Metro interface, there wouldn't be a problem. But to FORCE people to not only use Metro on non-touchscreen systems and then to have this crazy duality where it swaps back and forth... it's just nuts.

The only problem with that is that you have to deal with TigerDirect's cut-rate shipping service. I have bought exactly three things from TigerDirect in the last 15 years. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. of the items I bought arrived damaged and looking like it had been used as a pinata at a party for Ultimate Fighters.

Good luck getting TG to send replacement items or offer refunds. They assume you are lying when you tell them the item arrived destroyed, and not only force you to send it back at your own expense, but then charge you a 20% restocking fee! They are crap. NEVER buy anything from them, they cannot be trusted.

Incidentally, I have also, once, received something damaged from Newegg. After I reported the damage, Newegg emailed me a prepaid return label to print out and shipped me another unit that very day. No questions asked, no hassle given. They were a joy to deal with. Newegg gets all my online electronics business to this day.

The best explanation I have heard yet for this is the "scope" phenomena. Simply put, the alternate parties platform scopes are almost always very narrow, (IE: Single issue platforms or focused around a particular segment of interest such as the economy, to the exclusion of other interests such as foreign policy or social issues.) whereas the major party platforms are very broad.

Also, if the alternate party platform is enough "in line" with the major party, they may "absorb" that issue into their own platform, thus rendering the alternate party irrelevant.

Ultimately, politics in America is very much a game of "Not letting the good become the enemy of the perfect." Thus we get candidates like Mitt Romney, who is viewed by the base as somewhat "soft" on the real hard conservative values, but was easily the most likable and "electable" of the available choices and is ideologically "right" enough to be deemed acceptable. So while Romney is not the "perfect" conservative candidate, he is considered "Good Enough" and thus gets the party nod.

It goes the same way with party politics. People have very diverse interests and very few are willing to vote on a single issue only. So the parties with the broadest appeal within a range attract the most votes. Bell curve, baby. Bell curve.

More than their engines. If you remember the Final Episode ("Unending") the Asgard in the Milky Way committed suicide to prevent their technology from falling into the hands of the Priors of the Ori. Just before that they outfitted an Earth ship (The Odyssey) with a massive computer system that contained all their knowledge.

So Earth got the sum total of all Asgard knowledge in a single computer system.

On a more submission-related note, I just want to have my own warp-capable ship. It doesn't even have to be a very big one. Just enough to be able to travel with me and my family to other stars and planets. Given the choice between a life of work here on Earth or a life wandering among the stars and exploring other worlds, I'd choose space. of course, I'd still come home from time to time, but there's just so much to see out there, and if we can actually travel to other planets within a reasonable time frame, then count me in!

I would say probably none. But then, I would count the number of Americans in general that believe that as ALSO none.

I WOULD count the number of Americans that falsely believe that some their fellow Americans are crazed religious nutbags that want to slaughter people who theologically disagree with them as AT LEAST one, and probably more as I know that there is a strain of anti-religious (Really, Anti-Christian) fervor that has infected some people in America that has no grounding in reality and is instead held up by anti-religiously bigoted propaganda by people with political and financial hay to make.

Congratulations on buying into the lie, BTW.

There is a reason why you DO NOT see Christians rioting over the many many many assaults on their religion in the press and the world at large.

Beyond it being against their religious beliefs to do so, it is exactly this argument. They know they believe in an Omnipotent God. They have no need to defend Him. The most you are likely to get from Christians is a somewhat strongly worded letter or a product boycott.

That tells me all I need to know about the "equivalence" between Islam and Christianity.

So, you propose we cover every building, parking lot and road with solar panel arrays? What about the safety lighting that will have to be on 24/7 to provide adequate light under all that construction? What about the massive costs to build what would eventually become a single nationwide structure?

You seem to be missing the point that solar panel arrays large enough to provide adequate power would be prohibitively large and would necessitate the destruction of vast swathes of habitat. Hardly a "green" solution.

Coal is NOT a dirty power source. You seem to be under the impression that coal power is a bunch of guys shoveling coal into a furnace with black sooty smoke pouring out the the top.

In reality, coal firing is fairly clean. Not as clean as other methods, to be sure, but acceptably clean. We have a coal-fired plant here in my area. It sits right along the Niagara River and I see it every day as I drive to work. I've also been inside it. It is a marvel of technology. Using powdered blown coal dust, hot gas recirculation and stack scrubbers it burns very thoroughly and puts out very little pollution. It is hardly the most advanced plant out there, either. Your idea that "nothing can be done about it" is not only highly misinformed, it is simply wrong.

As far as Nuclear goes, The costs of construction are DIRECTLY related to legal and regulatory costs. A modern nuclear power plant is not that expensive to build. Just look at France to see how well they have done in building modern plants and keeping costs down. Hell, Koran companies have developed small sealed nuclear power generation stations that will run for 50 years and cost only a couple million dollars a unit. Now, those are only for small towns, but you could power a city with a few hundred of these scattered around and it wouldn't even cost all that much.

Modern Nuclear power is CHEAP. it's regulation and legal issues that cost so much.

Defanging the EPA will NOT lead to more "Love Canals". Love Canal was a result of ignorance and greed on the part of both Hooker Chemical AND the local Niagara County government. The EPA would not have prevented it. If the presence of the EPA prevented environmental disasters, then every environmental accident since the EPA's creation wouldn't have happened.

Defanging the EPA WOULD, however, lead to less regulatory adventurism and less government waste though. They have gone FAR beyond their original mission of being an environmental watchdog and have become one of the prime examples of government power abuse. The EPA needs to be returned to its original size and scope, and be actively policed to prevent activists from regaining the near absolute control they currently wield in the EPA.

I am actually quite well informed. I think I've proven that with some of the information I've provided.

There is a difference between a "brownfield" (environmentally contaminated area) and a large grassy field with long grass dried brown from the summer sun.

If you want a list of Erie county brownfields, you can look HERE for a list from the EPA. You will notice that most are isolated small areas such as former Gas Stations and old industrial sites. You can output the locations to .KML and check them on Google Earth. I haven't yet confirmed it myself, but I don't think any of them correspond to wind farm locations.

And of course you see them turning. They wouldn't have built them there if it wasn't at least a LITTLE viable. But that doesn't mean that it's a good spot, or that wind power is a reliable energy source. I've been by them plenty of times when they are idle. Perhaps you simply didn't notice.

I wasn't aware there was Vodka made around here. Is it really that bad? Great wine and beer though. My favorite is Southern Tier brewery. They make an awesome IPA.

So, your solution to the major problems of using inadequate power generation systems is to force people (using the power of government, which inevitably involves guns and killing) to do with less and to spend more money?

Glad you aren't running things.

Your argument is absurd on the face of it.

Asking coal fired (or natgas or Hydrocarbon) plants ot NOT have emissions is akin to asking solar farms to produce power without killing all the plant life under them or wind farms not to hurt thousands of birds with spinning blades.

There is a basic environmental price to pay for ANY power generation. You can't ignore it for one type of power generation just because you prefer it.

Also, the vast majority of the costs of Nuclear power generation are legal (fighting eco-NIMBY lawsuits) and regulatory (dealing with the mountains of paperwork before you can even break ground.

You want cheap nuclear power? Pass real Tort reform to prevent Eco-NIMBY lawsuits, defang the EPA (who often are the ones bringing or financially supporting the lawsuits) and lower regulations.

The real reason we haven't had any new Nuke plants in the US in YEARS is simply the onerous costs of dealing with lawsuits and regulation. It's simply not profitable. And that's sad because we could be using really up to date reactors with awesome technology. instead we are dealing with aging reactors and a power infrastructure that is slowly being overwhelmed.

living along one of the Great lakes, in the Buffalo NY area, and having a large windfarm in the Southern tier, I can tell you that your assumption is false.

Yes, we often have "wind" coming of of the great lakes. the problem is that it is often little more than a light breeze. I have personally been out near the wind farm on what I considered a breezy day and saw the windmills sitting idle. (it was not a scheduled maintenance day either.) They need sustained winds higher than 15 mph to turn, and the average in most great lakes areas is a bit below that.

Also, most of the shores of the Great Lakes are verdant and healthy. NY and PA have strong vineyard growing centers along the southern Lake Erie shores, and many people make their homes there. The brownfields are only in small and isolated areas,and most have been cleaned up by now. Please don't perpetuate false stereotypes about the area I live in.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.

Look at the SIZE of that solar farm. Its well over 4 times the surface area of the Apple building itself! Yet this is what it takes to power ONE BUILDING. JUST ONE. Can you imagine the sheer size of the solar plant required to power a mid-sized city? What about a BIG city like NY or LA? What about the entire country? It boggles the mind!

of course, let's not forget that those panels are opaque, so nothing can grow underneath them. The environment loss to solar farms large enough to meet our needs would be STAGGERING. Not to mention the reflectivity of the panels. I can't imagine what it would be like having a giant reflector on the Earth bouncing light back into space and heating the atmosphere on the way back out.

As I stated before. Solar is nice for small applications, but doesn't scale well. It's an eco-vanity project. Not terribly surprising that Cupertino, center of vanity in the tech universe, would have one.