HA! That's funny as hell; I have had the same thought (about needing the pump, not about the roshambo) for a long time.

Government decided long ago to build a huge revenue stream based on gasoline usage, because it is defensible to the ignorant masses and high rates can be blamed on others (OPEC, etc.). Now the revenue stream is threatened and they are faced with having to create ridiculous rules to bolster it. The problem is, basing a broad tax on gallons of gas used as opposed to basing it more closely to what the revenue is actually used for. or something like that...

I've been using these for several years (on my 2nd pair). http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plantronics-Audio-645-USB-Gaming-Headset-Chat-PC-MAC-/370527962583?pt=US_Computer_Headsets&hash=item56453005d7#ht_2020wt_1265 They are cheap, real comfortable on the ears, have a good mic, USB or Stereo jacks, volume and mute on the cord. I have a spare in my cabinet for when this pair breaks (which they all do based on how I use them). By the way, great job to all the knuckleheads who immediately derailed a simple question into politics. ugh.

I love the fact that 99% (I made that up) of responses on the article are about the Reefer! I agree, legalize and let's move on, but it just hit me as funny as hell that was virtually the only topic discussed by Slashdotters. Peace.

Please don't peddle your view of some obscure, dated Sci-Fi as "The greatest work" ( The End of Eternity WAS NOT, by far, Asimov's greatest, in my opinion), or "timeless Classic" (The Humanoids isn't; again, my opinion). It's fine to have an opinion, but it's not necessary or proper to state such as fact and be "startled" by someone else's lack of agreement in it (or ignorance). Nor is it right to besmirch the integrity of "people" who do not agree. I love a large portion of the books on this list. Others I can't believe are on here. But it is _A_ list produced by _A_ group of people who were probably asked _A_ specific question. They did a pretty decent job too (my opinion), as can be witnessed by the fact that most of us have read most of these (I presume based on the remarks). Anyway, sorry to rant, but it irks me when someone trots out a couple of fairly obscure references as evidence of other's simplistic ignorance.

The general consensus, as I read the current climate, is that Solar energy is not "economical". Walmart is the very epitome of "economical" with their dollars. So, what's wrong here? Walmart is doing something other than "generating clean cheap power" (i.e. it's a marketing stunt) or, Walmart see's it as economical (outside the realm of good marketing dollars)? If the later is true, does this mark the beginning of a new era in power generation (I doubt it).

I have to tell you that I have no idea what half of your post means, but I found it ultimately enjoyable reading. You cram a lot of semi-obscure-obtuse references into a minimal amount of space while still be mostly clear in your meaning. CrapAssasin, BeerGoggles, signal density, critical brain glucose Letters falling down the shirt had to be my favorite though.... Thanks. I think.