Blizzard can easily revert, I mean.

They didn't get billing information and can easily revert any accounts that get messed up.

I do too, and my kindle touch has survived multiple unprotected dunkings, so I would say it's pretty robust.

The broader alcohol involvement statistic is so meaningless as to draw the ire of the above slashdot commenters. No doubt that is why it is not used. Your original response implied that was the statistic being used in the document, and was interpreted as such by the responders below you. If you were not talking about the data I presented, why bring up an unrelated and useless statistic? Either you did not recognize the difference to begin with and are now backpedaling on semantic grounds, or you were trying to mislead readers. Either way, "wrong" is an accurate characterization of your comment, especially since the numbers for the definition I gave are the same as those in the original document, so it is obvious what definition is being used. Also, the document I referred to only counts drunk passengers as fatalities if they died. The fact that the passenger was drunk does not make the accident alcohol impaired.

He can't because he's wrong. Same link Document 811606 "Drivers are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatal crash involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher is considered to be an alcohol- impaired-driving crash, and fatalities occurring in those crashes are considered to be alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities. The term “driver” refers to the operator of any motor vehicle, including a motorcycle."

False. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/cats/listpublications.aspx?Id=A&ShowBy=DocType Document 811630 pages 4 and 6 demonstrate that alcohol is just as big a factor in fatal crashes. In fact, I would argue that it is a much bigger factor because a lot more people speed than drink and drive.

Baseless claim followed by ludicrous proposal followed by religious nuttery. 2/10 troll.

Clearly those panicking did not bother to read even the abstract. Not a single ferret died from airborne transmission which is how this flu would spread. It's not even clear whether this new kind of flu would be more dangerous than the present wild type flu viruses, which kill many people every year. Why on Earth are there so many people freaking out about what these scientists have done?

...when they found Clippy and the car batteries in my basement.

,,,but what Ellison doesn't know is that only the other 2% is zoned for lair-building.

The price would be reasonable if they had gone another 33%,,,,

Am I the only one who's noticed that neither of his videos present any evidence that he actually walked through the scanner with the metal object? I am sure the system is not foolproof, but this guy has no evidence that he fooled it. Come on slashdotters, pay attention.

I think it's great that this guy found an analytic solution to an old problem, but it is of no practical significance. Most of the complication in ballistics arises from the complicated effects of air resistance which are not limited to simple drag. Numerical solutions will still be required for anything as simple as a golf ball if you want any accuracy at all.

The NYT just posted an interesting article about it http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/technology/zuckerbergs-property-status-post-marriage.html?_r=1&ref=technology.

The astute reader will note that California is a community property state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property) and that Zuckerburg married the day after his company went public.