No it says that windows has a "Security model" I am guessing it is a Model of the HMS Titanic.

Rules of acquisition #45 "Expand, or die"

He could still be following the rules of acquisition just looking to expand his mind.

critical illness with a high deductible covers that at $100 a month to cover all of us.

Still cheaper.

Maybe something you dont know, If I am injured in a car accident then the auto insurance covers it. If i am injured helping a friend work on their house, their home owners insurance covers it. Injured at work, well there is insurance at work to cover that.

I think you are wrong there.

Insurance to cover me, wife, and kid @ work $685 a month

Paying out of pocket

$65 a visit + tests and prescriptions.
Averaged $150 for a visit.

We would maybe see a doctor 2x a year each.

12 visits == $1800 a year
12 month of insurance == $8220.00

Saving us $6420 a year.

AR-15 receiver #1
SN: BATFSUCK5

AR-15 receiver #2
SN: B1TEMEATF

There is no regulation to what you make the serial number on a receiver you build your self. Hell you could make the SN:00000000.000000009 for all it matters

Also note that someone can make it and finish it up to 80% then sell it to you and you do the last 20%

Come one, artificial gravity is easy. You use a simple quantum graviton emitter to pull gravitons from the gbrain and emit them in concentration creating an artificial gravity field.

Everyone knows that.... Wait, what year is it?

never mind.

"How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?"

Ill volunteer to be deputized for this duty!

Whos with me?

I have a DS, I am a peer reviewer on SlashDot.

I have reviewed both articles and agree with them.

There, they are now peer reviewed. Does it add any more validity to the?

I will bash the scientists involved. I have read all the e-mails and was appalled at what I saw.

Blatant attempts to hide data/loose FOAI requests. This in and of it self is a major red flag in my book.
A suggestion that they could stack the deck of pier reviewed journals in an attempt to stop publication of dissenting opinions and findings.
A suggestion that they could identify who was reviewing there paper for a journal and influence the outcome.
Suggestions of using bad data to fill in holes in the existing data.
Suggestions that findings which are contradictory to the established belief be "fudged" to be more inline with other papers.
The use of questionable mathematics to smooth temperature graphs.

There may have been no questionable wrongdoing, but from the e-mails it really looks like there could have been.

As to them being "ultimately cleared them of wrongdoing" Sorry, an internal investigation is worthless. That is like a scientist doing the pier review on his own paper and approving it, or his lab assistant doing the review and approving it. There is a reason it is sent out to others to review and a reason the reviewers are kept secret. There suggested attempt to circumvent this methodology not with standing.

But you are assuming that a government run school wants to produce students who can think critically.

If they did, then these people may actually ask the hard questions. "Why are you in office if all you do is lie to the public, cheat to get ahead, and steal from the public coffers?", "Why is the drug scheduling system based on "Potential for abuse" and not "Danger to the health of the individual?", "How can you violate the 4th amendment to the constitution by passing security acts and not amending the constitution?"

See, they don't want people who can think. They want people who will shut up and do what they are told.

This from someone who's daughter asked the hard questions in school about drug policy. Thus he was visited by the police to discuss it in detail. (Not a drug user but the mere argument was enough to get them to stop by for a chat.)

Sorry sir, but your application has been denied. If we followed your suggestions we would not need to horas, torture, or bother anyone. Then everyone would forget what DHS stands, we would loose funding and become an irrelevant agency like BATF.

Again thank you for your time, please see BOB on the way our for your complementary cavity search.

and most tech people build there own systems buying off the shelf parts. We also recommend systems to family and friends, and unlike most of the places I have worked, family and friends listen to me.

So, Will Dell, HP, and other BIG BOX providers take it.... Sure, they also had micro-channel. That does not mean it will take off or last. It will probably last longer on the server side. However, that is where this scheme will face it's biggest challenges as the list of server OS providers is much larger than the list of Desktop OS providers.

It will be released but not all the hardware vendors will sign on. Loads of tech people, like the ones here, will not buy it. It will flounder for a few years then eventually die off and go the way of microchannel.

Ill toss this one up there with Divix-DVD's and there pay per view, Sony memory standards, Micro-channel, and many other crappy ideas.

It seems to me that you could do a p2p certificate authority where a certificates trust is based on the number of people who trust the cert as well as a past history of your trusts.

So, if historically you trust certs that are frauds then the trust in you is reduced and all certs you trusted are reduced.
If the opposite is true than the trust in you is higher as is the trust in the certs you have trusted.

How about all of them?

We de-fund all of them, then each program has to come back to congress and justify it's continued existence. It has to provide supporting data that the job it is doing is needed and accomplishes the goals it was created for.

Farm Subsidies and WIC are easy things picked by most people as an example. Take a look at The U.S. Agency for International Development, Or the federal grant for $765,828 that was given to bring an International House of Pancakes franchise to Washington, D.C, and there are thousands more. The number of wasteful programs outweigh the number of good ones.