Your move, Apple.

that's a crock.

I don't meet a different cat every time I make a choice to feed mine wet or dry food. It's the same cat.

I took a towel to opening night of Hitchhiker's. Nobody else did at the theater I went to, surprisingly.

I got some VERY jealous looks. ("Why didn't I think of that?" kind of things.)

wife wouldn't let me wear a bathrobe, though.

have you ever used one of those things? The portion sizes are insufficient to satiate the appetite of any human being, no matter the size or age. The purpose of the EZ Bake Oven is to encourage kitchen skills, not for making tasty snacks (proof of that is the fact that the food that comes out of those things is not tasty.) I challenge you to show me any child who became obese at the hands of an incandescent bulb.

where do the subsidies come from?

Taxpayers, of course... (well, short term it's China's purchase of US sovereign debt, if you want to get picky; long term it's still taxpayers who are on the hook for that plus interest.) So, there's no practical difference from an absolute cost standpoint, except that any subsidies must first go through the HORRIBLY inefficient governmental bureaucracy first.

Ending subsidies will (or, *should*, rather, since everyone knows spending doesn't actually shrink when taxes are cut) cause the cost of purchasing electricity go up, but with the added benefit of requiring lower tax revenues to pay for the subsidies. If we were to lower energy taxes and end energy subsidies, along with NOT REALLOCATING the funds "saved" by ending the subsidies, the market will indeed work itself into a more efficient solution (assuming no market-abusing monopolistic activities.) I'd dare say running it all through the Rube Goldberg accounting machine of the Department of Energy causes more inefficiency than a city full of incandescent bulbs.

I love it when people bring up that movie - it's one of my favorites in the SciFi genre, introduced to me by my NT4 MCSE instructor.

Yes, it was one of the only practical things I learned in that class that I didn't already know.

the userbase of /. is so well entrenched, modifying the brand too much would surely kill it.

see: Gawker

Aren't there existing protections limiting prosecution to knowingly and intentionally committing crimes? I can't see how legalizing possession completely will "fix" the "problem" of accidental prosecution in an effective way. Baby/bathwater and all that.

You sound young and inexperienced.

Hopefully, grace and rational thought will come to you with age.

The "big deal" is the systemic flaw (although I concede my description of it as a "flaw" could be argued as a "feature" by others) which prevents the actual primary source from being cited as what it is. Wikipedia is a passable experiment in group mechanics - but is itself not credible for anything unless continually fact-checked. And by continually, I mean that one can never be sure of its accuracy, fairness, or completeness on any topic, and since edits are so trivial to make, its accuracy, fairness, and completeness must be virtually thrown out at each edit and reexamined - and by definition, reexamined by persons who are not the primary source.

Rather reminds me of AOL chat rooms at times, honestly.

(A/S/L, anyone?)

Submitter's idea of "need" and mine are apparently worlds apart. I need Wikileaks like I need a shovel for that big steaming pile of dragon shit in my front yard that doesn't exist.

Also, Pitfall.

if I had mod points today, I'd spend one to +1 this.

I've never understood the "information is free" mantra. It's simply based on false ideology from a perspective of one who hasn't thought about the implications of what they're saying all the way through to the end.