Of course, but that doesn't help earth, that just makes outer system exploration more plausible.

Mining the asteroids for metal to be returned to earth will never be economical. If it exists on earth in any quantity, it'll always be cheaper to get it here.

Yes, I can see that. A large CT scan, say about 200 slices at half a meg per slice would run 100 MB. Throw in multiple CT scans, MRIs, etc, and it wouldn't be hard to exceed the capacity of a CD IF you wanted to and could put all the studies on one disk. However, DVD size is still plenty for the vast majority of patients. Plus, there's the usual problem of collecting all the studies at one site, willing and able to actually burn them all to one disk.

As you point out, though, the "one disk dream" will never be for the reason you cite. It could be, but it's not nor is it likely to be. So I ask again, is anyone trusting full backups or large data set distribution to Blu-Ray burners now? If I ever need a CT or other "big data set" imaging modality, the first thing I would do is make absolutely certain I get a copy of the DICOM images from the tech. Then, a digital copy of the read from the radiologist. Finally, I'd throw the whole thing on a USB stick with redundant backups to other storage (external, redundant internals, etc) and archive the optical.

I'm not trying to troll here, but what exactly is the point of 25/50 GB burners? Sure, it was a great tool when CD burners became affordable, and even DVD burners still have some utility, but it seems to me one would be better served by an external hard drive than yet another optical media subject to scratches and incompatibilities. I guess the current burners can act as backups to Blu-Ray movies, though I have to admit I don't see a compelling advantage in moving from DVD level resolution to the new hotness. I guess my point is that as far as data is concerned, why bother with optical media at all anymore?

Of course there are no absolutes when determining quality: that's something for the individual consumer decides for themselves. However, there are certainly statistical trends, which gives the "collective wisdom" on such matters. Like my example regarding hamburgers. Some people would prefer McD's to the Red Robin, even when removing price as a consideration. It is, after all, just a matter of taste. So, IF you want a smart kid (a consumer desire), THEN having a smart father/mother can only increase the probability. While SAT scores may not be a perfect indicator of "raw intelligence", it does correlate to some degree along with ability to learn and willingness to work at a specific intellectual task. Not perfectly, of course, but there is some non-random relationship among these traits. Enough people want these traits in their offspring that they are willing to pay a premium for the eggs/sperm of donors who have them simply to raise the odds.

You pay for quality, and this is just an example of that. You wouldn't pay $15 for a McD's burger, at least most people wouldn't, but a Red Robin (or similar high end) one could command that sort of price.

I know some people might think that's horrible, but the cold-hard truth is that some people are higher quality than others. We might be equal before the law, and have equal rights, but when people are given a choice in potential breeding partners, they will opt for as high as they can afford. In the social realm, that means relying on their own value as judged by whatever criteria (looks, smarts, social success as measured by wealth, social success as measured by "charm", etc) to get as good a "product" as possible. The pricing in this article just reflects the ability to turn one set of attributes into cash, and people's willingness to pay for certain attributes.

"Bill Gates is a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being the villain in a James Bond". Building a personal nuclear reactor certainly keeps him on track. It would be better if he built it in a volcano with a bust of his head chiseled into the living rock, but you can't have everything.

Since the military no longer defends the nation, perhaps some type of national guard needs to be started.

He pulled that stunt even before slashdot. He started out on hotwire, until he got laid off there as a prelude to the dotcom bubble burst back in '99. He was at newstrolls for a while gratis, since that's where most of the regulars at hotwire went once they shut down their (primitive but popular at the time) message board. He was generally disliked there as well. He really hit his stride of unpopularity on slashdot, though, and was pretty much single-handedly responsible for the clamors for an "ignore stories by" feature.

HSX has been around for a long time, at least since the late 90's. I've had an account there since that time, and it certainly wasn't new then. It was a great way to find out about upcoming movies, and some of the behind-the-scenes politicking involved in their transition through the various stages. I don't follow it much anymore, maybe log in once or twice a year, and I certainly wouldn't pay money for it, but it was fun.

These sorts of definitions are always sketchy, but it seems to me the one defining difference between what is usually called a notebook and what is called a netbook is the presence of an integrated optical drive. Notebooks have them, netbooks don't.

but it could be if you added the following:

1. Touchscreen with a hinge that allows the LCD to rotate all the way around, so that the back of the screen touches what is usually called the bottom or underside of the netbook.
2. A retractable sheet that can cover the keyboard when it's being used as a tablet
3. A very well thought out application that let's you use the netbook as a tablet. This is purely a UI issue, and could be done with HTML in a web browser.

So, you have a transformer netbook, able to turn into a tablet.

Which would mean that in this case, MS is making money off of Ubuntu, just like your employers make money off of your labor.

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, of course.

The thing is, they're not taxing electricity, which is the commodity that's actually being purchased in Minnesota, they're taxing carbon emissions which does not occur in MN.