i never had a problem using my cheap us power strip in the uk or the rest of europe for that matter, even without using a transformer in between. That's probably the key though: cheap. Only thing it had was a resettable circuit breaker, which was probably rated at 250 volts to begin with.

You are implying that other large, organized "churches" never committed atrocities. That's... amusing.

Or cut the extra meals...

I eat 40% less than my parents do because I eat a moderate breakfast, a very light lunch, and a very light dinner. They eat a big breakfast, a light lunch, and then an obscenely huge dinner. They go for seconds and thirds, I have leftover dinner for lunch the next day on my first serving.

There. Is. No. Miracle. Cure. Just eat less, and your weight will shockingly be low. I'll give you a hint: that slice of steak that is 16 ounces larger than the serving amount you should be eating is harming you a lot more than that potato. By every means, you can argue that cutting out certain elements of the meals will make you lose weight for all sorts of scientific reasons, but the main problem that the bulk of Americans have is that their meals are far too big. You can stop eating carbs, but if you ever make the mistake of eating any carbs, your body bloats back up again. It'd be easier to shrink your meals. And smarter.

We in the Western culture have developed this High Noon attitude towards health. Putz through our lives, and then in the last closing minutes, lose weight and become fit in a blaze of glory.

Doesn't work that way. I've counselled people on weight loss, and I lay it on the line:

Losing weight is a change of life. You will have to give up your life as you know it; you will eat different things, you will do different things.

You will find that your old friends, the ones who are still overweight, are no longer your friends. You will find that you need to get new hobbies and new activities.

I don't understand this simpleton fixation on one small aspect of proper health as though it's the be-all and end-all.

Since the people in the program were allowed to continue eating unhealthy food in excessive amounts, is it any wonder they failed to lose weight?

The Port of Long Beach has some Green initiatives going, supplying dockside power to ships, etc.

A ship runs its diesels even at dock to supply the ~6 mw of power that the ship's systems need.

One of their blurbs says that one large ship running off of dockside power instead of diesels will reduce the same pollution as 133000 cars for a day.

I was pretty astounded...this is just for an idling ship, not one that's under way.

sr

I wish I had a URL, but a few years ago Lego had a school robotics program where they would send your school a free kit.

I had my code up and running quickly. It takes a little more time to re-arrange the algorithm and data to get optimal efficiency and to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the computing model, but still relatively easy for any competent C coder.

You don't need Nvidia chips on the mobo the PhysX is on the card and not separate.
TOFA says that if you have 1 ATI card, for example, in your 2000-GPU array with 1999 Nvidias, you'll still have no PhysX

Sorry, are you confused about creationism or have you not played Spore?

Lets face it, what else is there?

Even if someone comes out with a game that calls them something completely different (indeed, as SWG did) we're still going to associate them with what we already know. Besides, these are easily identifiable and understood by most game players now.. why confuse things?

Even to knew players, anyone who understands the concept of the words "health" and "endurance" and pretty quickly figure out how they relate to their character.

SWG at least did something slightly different with them in that you could get "scars" or permanent damage to those bars that lowered your possible max until you got the damage repaired. I'm not saying this is a good system (I found it rather cumbersome and annoying) but at least they were trying something different.

The network computer was a first stab at conceptualizing all this cloud/web whatever today. None of it was even remotely feasible as a result of what we all had to work with in the mid-90's. Everyone knew this was the direction things were going, but the amount of complexity in the whole concept took decades to really refine. So no, you don't get a witty /. retort. And as someone who uses a webOS today, it works pretty good for me on my phone.

There are many free Web OS (as I understand them) out there. For example, EyeOS at http://eyeos.org/en or this other: http://www.oos.cc/login.html YouOS https://www.youos.com/ (now closed :( ) and one from the MIT whose URL I can't recall now... These project are 2 or more years old. If the new Web OS is just this old concept, I think like they're just shouting buzzword (again).

And maybe your head is up your backside. But in fact, it is not, and in fact all of the measurements of mammalian mutation rate come to 10e-10 base pairs / generation.

Any attempt like you describe by another company wouldn't make it past summary judgement.

Google (as far as I can remember) was the first to use this page design, thus they can patent it (though it seems a bit late, it's been in public view for ages). There's really no point in having a patent you don't intend to enforce, unless you intend to use it for cross-licensing. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean it can't be invalidated by someone else proving that they already patented the same thing.

Design patent law is an area of great frustration for people. Design patents are relatively easy to obtain because of what they cover: essentially the identical design or any colorable imitation. As recently stated by the Fed. Cir., the test for design patent infringement is stated: "infringement will not be found unless the accused article âoeembod[ies] the patented design or any colorable imitation thereof.â" Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. Therefore, to invalidate, the design must either embody the prior art or merely be a colorable imitation. This is a tricky analysis.

For companies like Apple and Google, design patents are helpful in preventing knock-offs. In this respect, the line is blurred between trademark and design patent law. However, they are not useful for much else since many of the elements of a design are functional (and a good lawyer can make that argument) and are not merely composed of distinctive elements.

And, all is not lost for similar "prior art" designs, though. The very same case made the point that "prior art" designs might also be used by a defendant to highlight the differences between the claimed and accused design. Thus, an accused defendant might escape infringement by pointing out those elements they share with the prior art design and thus those elements cannot be the grounds for infringement.

A final point, design patents are what a lot of people were duped into filing when going to Invention Help companies. Those companies simply filed a mostly worthless design patent instead of a utility patent. They have practically no commercial value except as a deterrent to would-be second-comers trying to copy verbatim the design. Therefore, those that were duped have virtually no protection against second comers that merely make changes the look & feel of an "invention." Plus, the inventors are then locked out of filing a utility application because they usually don't realize until much too late (more than a year after they start selling, for instance). That sucks.