This is very interesting and informative. Thanks for the reply. I didn't cite the post to prove the truth of the matter you're asserting, strong or not, but to shift the discussion away from the chopping up carbon statement to something more relevant, like the rest of what you posted. I should have been more clear.

Since it appears that you have some expertise in the matter at hand, what are your thoughts one the loss of laying the strands vertically for different vectors of rigidity? What I mean is, it looks like the current strands are laid down on the horizontal plane and just layered on top, losing the ability for strands to run lengthwise. Given that compromise, what kind of products would this printer be good at printing, which, not so good?

Thanks!

I think the useful quote from the site is this:

I was a bit flippant before I read the case. So she filed for certiorari, big deal. But I like the argument, and frankly, I agree. The statutory damages that have come to the supreme court have been against institutional respondants, not individuals. The purpose of having such large amounts was to focus deterrence towards those types of offenders, not individuals. That the amounts in this case are thousands of time larger than the actual damages, and are not just.

Additionally, the circuits are split on what to do, and there is some case law that appears to be ignored by the circuit court.

I wish them great with this case. I hope it gets picked up. I think there is a case that it should.

I'm not sure which country you are from, but in the United States many legislatures have enacted laws to protect the elderly from those trying to take advantage of their age, trusting nature, and in some cases dementia.

There is even an entire area of law known as, wait for it, elder law.

So when the GP brings this issue up, it is indeed, a valid of question of law for the jurisdiction in which AOL operates, the United States.

Please note, kdawson,

The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.

Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops. I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story. Bad editor, bad, bad.

I really appreciate you passing this along. I plan on reading this.

One note: Would the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be the best place to look for evidence of if climate change exists, on the scale we're talking about, and whether CO2 affects this process and by how much? I would expect they would assume an outcome to justify their entire existence.

The name alone implies a huge conflict of interest. Yet, I don't think in this politically charged atmosphere we are going to find anything but politically patronized studies.

If you you of any good place to read some papers of the causal links. I'd like something to read and bookmark for future uses.

This is going to get oh so close to the charging regulation discussion from last night.

I later discovered that I can not charge the phone, and use the audio out at the same time. (Think cross country road trips) Other than that I do like the idea of a singular connector to charge.

As devil's advocate, let's look at the iPhone, because I have one and am familiar with it. Two connectors, one for audio/mic, another, the proprietary dock connector.

I assume Apple and those with other proprietary connectors would have to retool how they output video, audio, line out, control, in/out, PWR, GND, and anything else over USB. Annoying, but possibly worth it to consumers.

However, how much competition are we losing by specifying which connectors or what interfaces should be mandatory. When the tech industry shoots past this legislation do we really want devices tied to legacy connectors?

Should the government regulate or is this an area where the speed of the consumer to adapt to the market will better provide the winners and losers of an industry?

I'd like to see what the industry has to offer before I call for regulation

P.S. I hate mini-Displayport.