an accident has just happened but there's no safe place for you to stop?

I've had that one on several occasions, typically where I observe an accident on the highway in the other direction and there's no realistic way for me to even get to the accident in a safe manner, nor would I be of any use or assistance if there were. In particular this happens with snowstorms, where someone runs off the road in a non-life-threatening way and it is very unsafe for a civilian vehicle to pull off the road to attempt to render aid.

Another difference is that the ATC knows when to shut the hell up and let the pilot do his job if something goes wrong, just like someone in the passenger seat would. But someone on the other end of the phone may not even know he is talking to a driver.

It is the job of the driver to make the other end of the line aware that he's driving, and may need to completely divert his attention unexpectedly for indeterminate periods of time. When I'm driving and have a reason to talk on the phone (usually to get directions, or to make a quick call to check if we need something at the grocery store on my way home) I inform the other person that I'm driving, and if something comes up I just say 'hold on' and ignore them completely until the relevant danger has passed. I've never had anyone even annoyed at this, and don't really understand why anyone has any difficulty with this. Part of learning to drive is learning that the road and the conditions around you, including other drivers, are your number one focus. Anything else, radio, passengers, phone, be damned. If conditions on the road require more attention than usual, the rest can all wait.

Anyway, although it does seem that his involvement, while not lowering quality imho, does seem to doom some shows. Why is that?

Because he seems to work for Fox a lot, and they seem to like to kill shows off whenever the execs shuffle offices.

Like the GP said, the methods of radiation damage are diverse, it is impossible for there to exist a single pill that treats it from all these aspects.

The pill doesn't fix the cell, it prevents the cell from committing suicide when exposed to radiation that might or might not have critically damaged it. When a cell is exposed to radiation, it shuts itself down, often unnecessarily. This pill prevents that, allowing a potentially damaged cell to survive. There's a chance the potentially damaged cell could eventually turn cancerous, but the immediate problem of death is averted, at least temporarily.

On the flip side, it's actually not too hard to have the computer deny users from using passwords that contain words from the dictionary. So you don't need to say "there must be a digit and an uppercase letter and a non-character symbol..." You can just say "no words" and have the computer check the password for strings that match dictionary words.

Just as long as it allows dictionary words of three characters or less. I can't tell you how many times I've had my chosen password denied on certain systems because it contained three adjacent characters that happened to form a three letter word.

With nuclear the problem isn't just the environment, it also requires a ton of people manning it. A wind farm can basically generate electricity with just a bit of maintenance.

You think you can maintain the 50,000 windmills required to match a typical nuclear power plant and the necessary power grid between them with fewer people than are required to staff a nuclear power plant?

But in reality, nuclear power plants take 20+ years to build, so they are hardly a realistic solution to today's power problems.

Define "years to build". A modern turnkey nuclear reactor can be constructed in around four years. Getting past people's fears and going through licensing hoops are what make the process take a decade or more.

I agree about this, and that's why I think the methodology RIAA is using *should* not really hold in court. They should really provide them with name and date ranges, forget about the IP addresses, it's just an Internet Protocol technicality and should be treated as such.

In the only case that's gone to a verdict, as far as I know, the IP address was one point of several. The IP address is useful as a tool to limit the range of people you're likely to be talking about. Combine that with other information, such as the userid used on the network, which matched a userid used by the individual in multiple other places, and you can start talking about identifying a person with some modest degree of certainty.

So, alone, the IP address can't prove someone did something. However, when aggregated together with other data, it helps to paint the picture.

and as an antipyretic you should take what exactly? The WHO recommends children take paracetamol for fevers above 38.5C.

why not Ibuprofen?

I would amend this by also requiring that distributed works protected by their own device are not covered by copyright, only the device. As they cannot be read without an external key of some sort, they are circumventing the reasonable terms limit and are therefore failing to uphold that part of the social contract of a copyright. The works should be protected only by the trade secret and contract law protecting the key itself, and if the key is broken legitimately the works would see no copyright protection.

Want to try and restrict user's rights by distributing with macrovision or CSS? Go ahead, but that distribution goes out without the protection of copyright, just the protection of the technology itself.

LOL. Every time I've used bluetooth device, an AM/FM radio, or a cell phone.

Are you really comparing exposure to milliwatts of increased background RF to a concentrated 200MW beam?