and other devastating wound.

Way to go, shitdot.

Ensure - to make sure that something happens.
Insure - paying premiums, just in case it doesn't.

You need to have your head examined.

At 60 FPS, a frame is 16.7 ms long. I.E. adding 7ms to your input latency doesn't even show up on the screen.

It's worth noting that virtually nothing in the Top 40 employs a grand piano, and Rachmaninoff has never charted. And that, ultimately, is all the music industry cares about. If it gets played on the radio and sells CDs or downloads, that's all that matters. And it's not like there aren't plenty of real human artists with marginal skills and little talent making plenty of money for the music industry, so it's rather questionable whether the bulk of music consumers would care (or even be able to tell) if an entirely synthetic "performer" didn't achieve virtuoso-level performance.

So while I think your objections are, at present, quite valid -- though I am skeptical that there is anything humans will be able to do better than machines in the long run -- they're also quite irrelevant as far as popular music goes. Conversely, even a superhuman electronic musician is unlikely to affect the fine art end of the spectrum because the customers there go to live performances to hear real humans or buy recordings of them by preference.

The more interesting use case is probably to be found when you combine the existence of this project with the existence of Eucalyptus which somebody mentioned above. The fact that it works with EC2 is interesting; but paying Amazon is likely not cost effective(since demand for desktop seats tends not to fluctuate nearly as fast as some server loads do and is, in any case, constrained by the number of NX capable thin clients available) a service where you pay extra for the elasticity isn't obviously sensible.

WIth Eucalyptus, though, you can fairly easily run your own setup, keeping the bandwidth in house and thus cheap and abundant, easily spawning a desktop instance that is available to a given user across multiple machines, thin or fat, in your organization. Because of Linux's unixy legacy, which tends to make multi-user systems a good bit easier and more natural, this isn't as compelling as it is with Windows setups; but there are still purposes for which it could be nice.

You don't actually need to DDOS their servers. Just let the pirates ALL attempt to login/authenticate at the same time: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/04/demigod-hit-by-massive-piracy-review-scores-take-beating.ars Probably after this they'd have learnt that lesson though.

Then you've offered yourself up as a twit. The problem isn't that Obama hasn't listened to "opposing viewpoints", the problem is that's all he does. Ever. 13 months after the GOP voting against him on nearly every issue, and he's still bathering on about bipartisanship.

The actual text would appear to disagree.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The last bit seems to list a set of preconditions which, if met, do allow it.

-- what's next? A fat tax? If so, Minnesota might just tax itself into oblivion.

Everything is defined as interstate commerce now, at least when the Feds want it to be. Allow me to cite two Supreme Court cases:

Gonzales v. Raich - A woman in California grew medical marijuana (legal in CA) and gave it away for free, solely within California. This was defined as interstate commerce in the decision.

US v. Stewart - Stewart personally designed and built his own homebrew machine guns, not for sale. After he was busted by the feds, he lost the case but won on appeal. The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court. It was remanded by the Supreme Court back to the appellate court for reconsideration "in light of" Raich. This means that the Supreme Court considers Stewart's actions to be interstate commerce too.

In conclusion, "interstate commerce" is now de facto defined as "anything the Federal government wants to regulate, even if there is no commercial or interstate aspect". Naturally, I imagine that this flexible definition is reserved for the Feds use only--no doubt states will have to continue to use the actual definition (ie. what the Constitution actually means).