Are We not Geeks?!!?
Have you TRIED to brew your own beer? OH for the love of yeast, little is better than watching billions of yeast-ies churning away to make my beer.

I've been brewing for 5 years now and I don't see any reason to ever stop, unless there is a local brewery wanting to hire me.

Please, try brewing a batch of your own sometime. just try.

In fact, the more popular the item is, the more cash you'd get if you raise the taxes on it.

FTFY :: Tomorrow's Headline: Computer Suggests Tax on Porn

Slashdot crowd mostly BROKE.

Nous vous detestons aussi

I don't have to.... Every time I use my iphone and scroll down the address bar disappears. I'm not saying safari on the iphone is anything great, just pointing out that it does just what you ask.... and yes, it is a neat trick. It would make surfing on any device that has a small screen more useable.

Please tell us what company you work for, If it is publicly traded, I'd like to short your stock.

thank you.

Because they have better funded lobbyists... If you could provide more funding then i'm sure we could pass some legislation on your behalf to ensure that you too can state how your lottery non-winnings would push well into the billions...

Further, big businesses have way too much influence on our politicians, media, and public opinion. We're essentially a bribeocracry.

April fools day is April 1st, not March 30th.

The PS3 could play SACDs? That's the first I've even heard of it having this feature. The first time I've heard of any hardware that can play them, for that matter...

This reminds me of an old joke about Russian scientists. Here it goes:

Russian scientists decided to do an experiment on a fly. They put it on a table and asked it to walk. The fly walked as expected. Then they cut off one of its legs and asked to walk again. The fly walked, but obviously a little but more slowly. They repeated the procedure, and when the fly had half of its legs cut off it was only crawling on the table. When they removed all of its legs, it stopped reacting to calls to walk. They wrote down their conclusion: fly lost its hearing upon having all the legs removed.

The point here is that people bought the PS3 when it still had that feature, and then it gets disabled remotely after the fact. There's no way you can "not buy" the device due to a missing feature, if it's already sitting in your home.

As far as all laws having Sunset clauses, I believe I've heard Penn (and teller) discuss that. He was wondering about the panic that would set in when the law outlawing murder expired and lawmakers would have to scramble to fit it...

Another thought was that it would make Lawmakers concentrate so much on passing good laws that the crap ones would wither and die and never get renewed.

of course in reality I think you'd see something like these 5000 page omnibus bills getting passed where noone ever read the whole thing, that would be filled with all kinds of BS...

My "advanced, 'alternative' therapeutic nutrition" is based on modern medical and clinical research. Something is "alternative medicine" because it is not generally accepted as proven by extremely expensive, cumbersome, even unfairly adversarial processes; not that it is wrong or not even that it hasn't been substantially researched and demonstrated.

"Standard medicine" is behind by decades on many therapeutic nutrition issues where doctors struggle to even comprehend the relevant issues. This includes pervasive industry sponsored corruption, down to the firstyear's textbooks. In fact, I notice that often doctors are not current with their own literature that hasn't been assiduously product promoted.

Sectors of the medical industry, like AMA and pharmas, have been waging a very effective disinformation war for decades on therapeutic nutrition. I figure the AMA has been net negative since at least mid 40s, pharma, the 1950s+ with a lot of glaring (for me) whoppers.

Peer review is a very weak, it allows one to possibly spot errors when practiced in good faith. Peer review is not required to do good science. One is not ripped off by a material's lack of peer review or govt approval; rather one is "ripped off" by misrepresentation(s), harm and/or ineffectiveness, IMHO a larger problem with many expensive pharmaceuticals.

My "alternative medicine" has included cholesterol control for $2-5 / month for any number I want between 130 - 260 for 20+ years without statins, and with much improved HDL (50+%). I notice both Merck and Pfizer are recently starting to (try to) market products that include the things that I have long known and used, but are still behind on many things that I can biochemically measure or clearly observe good results.

I hope you realize that your interpretation is pretty superficial.

Sure, I hope you realise that a fair degree of humour was incorporated into it. My more serious biblical intepretation tends to be somewhat less jocular.

First of all, as you even hinted it wasn't Adam and Eve's nudity that was the problem but their very awareness of it-- which actually disproves your argument.

Hinted? I thought I was pretty explicit actually. My argument was that subsequent to that awareness the very idea of human nakedness was threatening to God. I'm not entirely serious, of course. What is threatening to YHVH, as Genesis makes clear, is the idea of human self-awareness, knowledge and indeed enterprise (cf. human tower construction).

Second, most men would find it mildly awkward to see their dads naked, a little more embarrassed to see him drunk, but totally sloshed and nude? ...

Now it's your turn to be superficial. Canaan's awkardness or embarassment is not relevant. Canaan innocently walked in on the naked old drunkard. In this story the idea of drinking yourself into a stupor is considered morally neutral (or at least not as negative), while the idea of accidentally looking upon ones naked father is deserving of a curse and all that subsequently entails in the biblical story. We all know what happens to the nation of Canaan, right?. We don't think the naming is merely coincidental, right? (BTW, Noah, was Canaan's grandad, of course. My bad.)

Clearly the author(s) of this story had issues with nudity. That such issues persist and are exacerbated (the human body as the locus of "corruption") in ideology derriving from this source is not surprising. Indeed their particular view of nudity (the guilt of the unintentional perceiver) can seem somewhat odd to people schooled in a more liberal culture..

... I don't think that situation is "OK".

Ah! Now you, in contradistinction to OP, are looking at it from a traditional Judeo-Christian perspective. At least you are if you regard Canaan as more guilty than Noah. ;)

Basically, you just cherry-picked, because the book "Song of Solomon" pretty much goes on and on about the loveliness of the human form.

LOL. You cite the Song of Solomon (which piece of erotica is generally regarded as sitting uncomfortably within rest of the biblical corpus) and accuse someone of cherry-picking from the Bible in the very same sentence?! Props man!

In an exclusive interview with one of his employees, Rupert Murdoch announced that it was time to draw a line in the sand in his constant battle to frustrate freeloading consumers by scheduling extensive rhinoplasty.

As the logical extension of his intent to improve monetization of his global media empire, an aggressive research team, led by his own grubby, questing index finger (itself a semi-autonomous publicly traded subsidiary of ArmCorp) had discovered a hitherto unprofitable branch of Mr Murdoch's own face and immediately set to analysing the potential in the "streaming content" market.

"Thanks to the pervasive and anarchic medium of light and an endemic, unscrupulous approach to photon-consumption," said Mr Murdoch to a camera he owned, "the public have been stealing — we believe it is theft — visible spectra which carry a representation of my nose. When I consent to an interview, a TV appearance or a personal meeting with an individual, we are entering into a contract in which I am licensing access to me, Rupert Murdoch, a highly lucrative and profitable range of properties and services.

"For too long, people have been content to pay only for access to my thoughts, speech or round-the-clock footage of the contents of my bowels — via the Times, Sky and Fox News respectively — while stealing valuable images of my nose, its nostrils and their contents, then rebroadcasting and shamelessly profiteering.

"When a reporter negotiates an interview with me, as well as broadcasting the material he has licensed legitimately, he frequently steals additional content without permission. Telling another reporter down the pub 'I just interviewed that arsehole Murdoch, what a leathery-faced, jowly, big-nosed, offensive wanker he is' is time-shifting and re-disseminating unlicensed intellectual property. Commentary based upon my opinions is legitimate as paid output from the premium outlet of my mouth. Any entertainment derived from the rest of my face is theft, pure and simple. There is no such thing as fair use."

The interview itself took place on Sky Channel 149, a pioneering venture to broadcast 24-hour footage of the view from Mr Murdoch's bathroom cabinet. In line with Mr Murdoch's policy of preferring fewer paying customers and no freeloaders, Sky 149 has precisely one subcriber, with Mr Murdoch himself paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars each month for access, for the purpose of shaving.

Having successfully franchised out his forehead, jowls and cheeks to a conglomerate representing elephants born without ball-bags, and following a failed attempt to charge a subscription fee to customers prepared to pay to punch Murdoch square in the nose, the decision was eventually made to excise the entire section of the business, rather than allow further illicit exploitation, piracy and copyright terrorism.

When questioned as to what purpose the resulting gap in his cranial portfolio might be turned, Murdoch suggested that he was tentatively considering offers from the adult entertainment market to employ his skull cavity as a giant fucking cunt.