This is different from a baloney or cold cut sandwich, how? Not to put too fine a point on it (but your "jackass/fucking" comment kind of took the edge off anyway...) I took baloney sandwiches to school nearly every day of my 6th, 7th, and 8th grade years. If it makes you feel better, replace "hot-dog" in the GP post with "baloney sandwich."

Back on topic, I don't care who said what, when my kids gets detention for eating candy at lunchtime it has gone too far! The guidelines are there for the school cafeteria so they don't just give my kid mac'n cheeze and ketchup every day of the week. They are not [strike that] should not, be for persecuting little kids for being little kids and bringing candy to school lunch. As was said, sure they are nutritionally less worthy then other foods, but you do need some sugars to live.

Best Buy lost a class action lawsuit in California around 2000 for doing this in person.

A customer would make a live purchase with a credit card and the cashier would as them if they wanted a magazine for free. If the customer said yes, they were given a three month trial that would then auto bill the customers credit card until the customer canceled the account. (Some times the customer said no or was not asked and they were still signed up.)

I dunno. It seems to me that financing your intelligence operations with illicit sale of personal information would be a lot easier and less risky than financing it through the sale of hardcore drugs. I suppose technically either way you involve yourself with unsavory characters, but one way you never have to actually be in the same room as them...

They'll be spying on their own citizens.

And foreign governments, their militarys and high-tech industries.

And they wouldn't be the first or the last. We have an obligation to protect ourselves, and if they sow the seeds of distrust then really that reflects on them.

Can you mention Tesco on your in-store product advertising, including the labeling, when stocking it in Walmart? Why is this any different?

That they made it unwillingly doesn't change the fact that MS did, in fact, make a standards-compliant browser. Maybe not the latest and greatest, but it's pretty solid (albeit slow) with just about all CSS that doesn't require a -prefix- on the property name. It's accurate enough that I don't worry about doing any more extensive testing than I perform in Firefox or Webkit-based browsers; I'm willing to lose round corners and drop shadows in IE if it saves me the time of having to make tons of hacks for what amounts to minor eye candy.

It's not like I use IE8 as my day-to-day browser, but as a web developer I don't fear it either. Even 7 usually does a decent job, though maybe I've just been at it long enough that I subconsciously build hacks into my code.

Nope, your not the only one. I fall into this group also. I loved reading The Hobbit, but could hardly make it through The Lord of the Rings.

I believe the main giveaway that stormtroopers are clones is Princess Leia's line in IV, as Luke enters her cell in a trooper outfit:

"Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?"

Are there not height requirements for any of the armed forces? I thought Airmen had to be a certain size, but I may be wrong.

Basically, by jiggering the predicted cost of fuel (using gasoline as a baseline), versus, the exponent of increased energy efficiency costs, you can arrive at a number of scenarios where reducing greenhouse gasses actually doesn't pay for itself. If it pays anyone, it also pays the Chinese and the Europeans..

Yeah. Take that you dirty Chinese and Europeans! By god, we are going to keep our money. We may kill the planet and everything on it, but we will have our money! (o.k. snarkyness aside) I don't see how this argument helps anything. Are you saying that there are better ways to cut down on greenhouse emissions and still keep prices low?

In any case, most models show that even a rather dramatic altering of CO2 emissions will not alter the course of climate change for a minimum of 200 years. Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt. The CO2 is already in the air.

So it's better we don't do anything and just let the poor SOB's 200 years from now deal with it? Something needs to be done, and that something needs to start now. If that means we need to take baby steps to get all of the conservitive groups in on it, then so be it, but at least we are doing something!

I don't understand the physics behind the answer, but yes... photon A can never see photon B traveling away from it at a speed greater then light speed. It has to do with time being dilated for an observer on photon A or B. Light speed is the upper limit that any observable object can travel. Once in your light cone, always in your light cone.

The thing that will really blow your mind, is that an observer from the stationary point (C) sees both of the photons traveling away from it a the speed of light.

The difference being that my phone and power have a specified up-time (that might even be set by government mandate, I'm not sure) that is much higher then my ISP uptime.

Most small to medium businesses that I know of use consumer grade DSL or cable connections that are notorious for going out weekly for minutes or hours, and yearly for a day or more.

Call me paranoid but with the current economic climate the world of "Mad Max" is looking like a possible eventuality, and the regular books will be useful far longer into that period than an ebook.

Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :)

Just transform the quote into 3l33t speak... "Iz pwnzor ppl dat hatez. n00bs a11 same." or something similar. (I'm just found out I'm very bad at haxzor txt)

Really. I'm shooting for a low 4 digit here. Then I can get watanabe (27967) to send me his post filtering software, and then maybe I won't waste my whole day here reading posts...