Why do we still put a mandate of "liquid water" in the hospitable zone requirement? Are we really naive enough to think that life out there CAN'T POSSIBLY FORM without water?

Am I just totally nuts here?

Even my Samsung Focus hasn't had any issues, and I've been running it since Day 1. It's not an iPhone, but it's pretty damn stable and does everything I need a phone to do.

You can actually force it down to your phone. This worked on my Focus.

http://www.wpcentral.com/force-mango-update-early-through-zune-software

http://www.wpcentral.com/force-mango-update-early-through-zune-software

Worked on my Samsung Focus

Agreed. It's really tough to make a case when you don't have a set of three.

Thanks for the heads up.

*Drops Mrs. Lattimer from her plan*

Sincerely,
-Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas

I'll ignore the pun part.

The last sentence here is probably the biggest thing for me. I got bored of the party games. They were cute at first, but I wanted a game I could sink my teeth into. Something that took 60+ hours to get through. I beat MP3 in what.. 19 hours? Really? 5 nights of gaming for $60? It felt like a ripoff at that point. I wanted something like FF13, Elder Scrolls, hell... anything would have done. Zelda was cool. I love zelda. It was again...too short and shallow.

I won't be hopping on the Wii2 bandwagon until I can see they have games with meat on their bones. Something epic needs to be there for my gamer tastes..

Let's not muddy up humor with fact, mmkay? ;)

Who said technology can't be aesthetically pleasing?

Pretty sure it was Roger Ebert.

I was wondering the same thing. This isn't AI. This is OCR with a Sodoku solver. Tell me that it solves the puzzle without knowing it's a Sodoku, and we'll drop the AI word.

Oh, I'm on the same boat as you. I didn't even bring up the pat down crap. I don't think that's legit in any way, shape, or form. The photographs from the full-body scan are one thing, physical contact is an entirely new ball of wax.

I purposefully left that out, btw....

So, they pull all the money out of security, and something happens? Would that open up the government to lawsuit? My guess would be "oh hell yes, and then some." Where do we sit then?

I'm all for efficient government, but not one that does so by sticking their head in the sand and hoping nothing goes wrong. If there's some other method that is proven more capable at detecting and thwarting terrorist attacks on the airlines, then people should complaining why those AREN'T in use, not why these things ARE in use.

That's cute rhetoric, but really doesn't mean anything. What's not dignified about body scans (under the hypotheticals I posted). What's oppressive about them?

You keep saying this, but it really doesn't convey anything. Grats on the post, though.

If you don't like hypothetical posts, then this isn't the post for you. Feel free to mod it down, flame it, whatever you do best...

Let's say for the time being that these devices are 100% foolproof. If you're carrying something onto an airplane, and it is capable of taking down said airplane, it will get noticed. I'm fully ware this isn't the case. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Let's also say that the images taken from full-body scanners are not capable of being saved out to remote locations, or even locally. Finally, let's say that your average TSA isn't an immature kid who will giggle and point when looking at a full-body scan image. YMMV on this, depending upon location.

Under those conditions, what's the big deal? To me, it isn't a big deal.

First, since when has the internet (especially /.) become so self-conscious? I mean, "Hey, you can't look at my junk" is on the same sensitivity level I'd expect to hear from school districts, churches and daycares. Have we really fallen that far? I mean, my bits look just like the next guy's bits. Under the hypothetical assumption above, your average TSA agent wouldn't care about the bits. They just care about the bombs. If we're saying that we can't find a person to objectively look at body-scans without it becoming an "ordeal", then we've lost more than just the "war on terror."

Second, for those who cite Franklin and his Safety/Liberty bit, what personal liberty are you giving up? Do you have a right to protection from Body Scans? I mean, you already agree to have your entire contents searched via x-ray and also agree to not transport certain materials. Those rules are strictly enforced as it is. Assuming that the body-scan is 100% effective and your TSA agent isn't a snickering 15 year old...How does this violate anything that isn't already being violated?

Finally, to address the phrase "The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant": Risk and Impact here are presented in a grayscale. That's just not the case. If you or your loved one is killed in something like 9/11, the chance is 100%. There's no statistical consolation in this case, and the impact is quite significant.

So, if we could close those loopholes outlined in the hypothetical section, what do we have to lose? What am I missing here?

I had the same experience. We had to run to two different stores (not even AT&T stores) just to buy phones. Most AT&T stores in the area (read: Dallas Metroplex) only got between 5 - 7 phones. Really.

We both love our phones.