I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice. I am firmly against it, and I believe that this is what Anonymous is all about. I am OK with the feds releasing the proverbial hounds against Anonymous.

I couldn't agree more. Arguing over which extreme is worse is like arguing about which turd smells worse. Either one in a punch bowl will ruin the party just the same.

A student with a science project that they do not want to check would. Why not? It's not a nefarious device. It sounds to me like the problem is with the authorities and their system, not with the student.

Let me see if I have this correctly. The writer is suggesting that we turn off gadgets because:

1. We need to be more attentive on a plane that we are not piloting in any way, shape, or form...perhaps to pay closer attention to the almost meaningless FAA mandated safety instructions that we've all heard thousands of times (and probably don't do much for those who have never flown before anyhow).
2. Because it's a good idea to turn off gadgets for a few minutes and entertain ourselves without electronic aids

I don't have a solution for the first thing other than to make these instructions simpler or more meaningful - and since passengers are not in control of the plane, there isn't much we can do if the plane crashes. I'd rather be calmly ignorant of my impending doom, with my face buried in my laptop. The second...I'm not sure how I feel about giving the FAA the power to enforce zen in my life. I also reject arguments that mobile phones should be banned because cell conversations are annoying. That's just not the FAA's job. If the airlines want to create a policy around politeness, awesome - but this is up to the airline.

They may or may not ask for fees...but when they realize how stupid and unprofitable the service is, they will shut it down. Then you will not have access to your content.

Exactly why I want to register my business in the Cook Islands. I was thinking of calling my business Enormous, Inc, although I have not ruled out GiantThrobbing, Inc.

You make a good point. I didn't realize that drivers licenses were being revoked for failure to pay child support. It seems utterly inappropriate to do so, given that most people's ability to make a living is tied to their ability to make it to work - and that it has absolutely nothing to do with driving. Insurance coverage is one of the procedural requirements for operating a motor vehicle on a public right of way (like paying taxes, inspection, emissions documentation, etc). Driving away from a gas pump without paying - I guess that's related to driving, since it involves driving. It doesn't come down to competence, as a person can be in dozens of accidents and not lose a license. Typically revocation of a drivers license has more to do with breaking the law in a car (child support notwithstanding).

In my opinion, there is little difference between silencing a cell phone conversation using signal jamming and snatching the phone out of someone's hands and terminating the call. Either way, I view this this as socially unacceptable behavior, worse than having to listen to one side of a cell phone conversation. I too have been inconvenienced by people talking loudly in inappropriate places. On public transit, we are free to walk away and sit somewhere else. In a restaurant, the right thing to do is engage a loud-talking patron and let them know that they are behaving inappropriately. There are no guarantees of a positive response, but that's part of the deal with being a social creature. If you can't deal with people, either suck it up and deal with the loud conversation or don't go outside.

Can you show me some examples where driving is explicitly defined as a privilege? I have not been able to find it, although on a cursory search, I have found instances where individuals have sued their state and won based on the notion of a right to travel (caution: dubious validity of this article). Another counter-example: the US Constitution defines voting as a right, but certain states revoke this right for convicted felons. Does this make voting a privilege too?

In most states, certain laws do pertain to parking lots. The two that I can think of off the top of my head are DUI/DWI laws (which even pertain to your own driveway), and reckless driving (where a person is subject to citation/arrest for breaking contact with the pavement, loss of control, and excessive speed). In your case, a charge where a civilian witness sees a person driving 100 MPH would be difficult to substantiate, since it does not come from a person trained in speed detection (e.g. a police officer). Further, in your situation, while the officer would not criminally cite the other person, the police report should detail that they ran a stop sign, and violated right-of-way. This would make them civilly liable.

IANAL

I disagree with your statement - specifically where you suggest that driving is a privilege. I hope that I'm not being too pedantic, but this notion is freely thrown around with very little thought, and it has always bothered me. As far as me being pedantic on a small point...this is Slashdot, after all...and besides, someone is wrong on the internet ;-)

Driving is as much a privilege as using a public library. Driving is not limited to a privileged class, and a drivers license cannot be arbitrarily revoked (or even suspended) without some sort of due process - even if it is only administrative due process. This is especially true in many parts of America where public transportation is nearly nonexistent - as are most forms of alternative transportation. In these remote areas, suspension of licensure for operating a motor vehicle on a public right-of-way can severely impact a person's ability to make a living - or even live on a day-to-day basis. For this reason (among others), suspension or revocation of drivers licenses is not to be taken lightly. This is the same for trade licensure - I wouldn't call being an electrician a privilege either.

Another way to look at it is that driving is no more a privilege than being free from incarceration. A person who breaks the rules risks losing their license to drive - similarly, rights to any other freedom can be taken away if societal rules are broken - e.g. sentenced to prison, where many rights are suspended. WIth this in mind, does that make living in a person's own home, or even walking on a sidewalk a privilege? I would argue that if driving is a privilege, then living where one chooses (within the law), free from incarceration is a privilege too.

This is something that we tell 16 year old children. As a minor - driving privileges, like television privileges, can be taken away arbitrarily. The reality is that with adults they cannot.

/pedantic

Correct - the metrics quoted are a calorie-per-calorie analysis of what it takes to make raw materials (e.g. calories of petroleum used for fertilizer to grow one calorie of corn). This does not include calories lost during the distillation process or what is consumed during the high temperatures required for distillation.

...unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.

How would this cause pause to the oil-rich countries if conventional fertilizers use 2 calories of petroleum for every one calorie of corn grown (source: Michael Pollun's book, The Omnivore's Dilemna )? It sounds to me like E85 a good thing for them. Also, keep in mind that when you talk about foreign oil in America, realize that our number 1 provider of foreign oil is Canada. America imports far more oil from Canada than anywhere else in the world.

I believe that in most cases, it's more than just semantics. Most (not all) corn is grown using conventional (petroleum-based) fertilizer. According to Michael Pollan, producing one calorie of corn uses two calories of petro-fertilizer. This is only counting fertilizer use, not the additional energy used for farm equipment, moving product/raw materials, the distillation process or loss of energy during distillation.

I'm shocked that this is not cited elsewhere when discussing Ethanol as an energy source, especially when used to reduce our dependency on petroleum (foreign or otherwise). Given that we're using more petroleum to make it than it would save, it appears to be a bit of a boondoggle.

...either that or I'm horribly misinformed. (Note: Pollan's book cites a peer reviewed study for this claim - I'm just citing what I read from memory)

That took me a second :)