Wonder how many of those 4,000 people are actual gun owners today. Also wonder if the survey respondents have heard about the numerous shortcomings with smart guns. http://www.thebangswitch.com/t... - for example, a $1399 .22lr handgun is not going to have much of a market around gun savvy people. EnGadget does a good run down of the technical limitations and issues - http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...

Yep and you better have a license from Oracle/Sun as Microsoft does or Larry will sick his patent police on you faster than you can say unsigned int

Patent Infringement != Theft How do you "steal" a method for doing something? Further, if you cannot implement basic java functionality, then why why why is it an "open" language in the first place... Its like if I tell you to read a paper before writing your own, then I get mad when the paper I had you read influences your writing.. software patents are absolutely the devil.

Global Warming is undeniable? In a world with Faux News and Rush Limbaugh, that is a big statement, and I think they'll take it as a challenge they can win.

Bezos has shown he will apply the patents whenever he thinks it benefits Amazon, having a taste of FB's profits would definitely benefit Amazon in a very big way. There really needs to be something done about the way that patents are being awarded for things that it seems obviously are outside the scope of the patent examiners. If the problem isn't the examiners, then the process definitely needs to be looked at. For all of the skepticism I've heard about some of the referred journals and conferences in computer science and related fields, it seems more difficult to publish there than to get a patent. That's not saying too much having read some pretty badly written published research. At least tech patents could expire on a pretty quick timeline if they are going to allow people to patent everything under the sun from ideas to genetic sequences. I'd love to hear the examiner(s) for this patent speak their case.

This is absolutely not true. The correct answer is not to sneak in removeable media and copy classified then send it to whoever. Had he said he was feeling morally questionable about the war and he didnt feel as though he should have access to classified they would have pulled his clearances and he could have completed his discharge. He could have then written letters to his congresspeople about what he saw. After all, they are able to obtain clearance to hear about it. Then he would have done his part. This is not Soviet Russia, where are all of these "disappeared" soldiers who have had misgivings about the war? They would have families you know?

Its funny how people are quick to pontificate about how evil the US military is, but when confronted with the facts, such as what you posted here, there is complete silence from the critics. Yes, there have been some disgusting things done over there, some justified, and some not so much, however how can anyone blame these aircrews. If you decide as a reporter to go get one of the sides in a conflict, how can you be shocked if the other side sees you with the enemy, particularly when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and they assume you are not an innocent civilian.

It would be nice to see this degree of anger expressed at the guys who killed Paul Moran, Michael Kelly, Julio Anguita Parrado, and Christian Leibig among others and that nearly killed Kimberly Dozier. Does the fact that those guys didnt have Apache helicopters make it okay?

Hero whistleblower? If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero. You do not get to decide when classified data should be released, regardless of how it makes you feel. There are proper channels for complaining about things and he could have availed himself of those, if he had a problem with what was happening around him. Anyway, it is very obvious that this guy did this because he has a need for attention and respect, not because of his moral stance. The point is, the minute you sign those forms and take that oath, it ceases being about your personal feelings. You have a responsibility for following the law. The wrongs of others does not justify what he did. There are a million things that he could have done, instead of this that would have within the law.

He could be thrown in prison for life, and it would be completely justified because he agreed to risk that consequence unauthorized sharing of classified. You dont get to change the rules after the fact because you dont like them. That line of work is for people willing to accept serious responsibility. Its not like these are trumped up charges or they made a special punishment for him. he gets no sympathy, and he did not help anyone here.

A quick search on the NY Times site shows that word is used out of context: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=googled&srchst=cse Google is not a verb. Thus one cannot be googling, have googled, or be planning to google in the future, yet the term is used in this way in several articles. While I understand where he's coming from, to single out Twitter and not other similarly retarded variations on websites or tech geek tools makes him just sound like an angry old man.