Medical imaging is a special case.

The FDA has a "in-house" exemption for things like software-based medical solutions (for example, the software that calculates the best way to deliver a radiation blast to your tumor, or the software that identifies tumors in MRI results, or whatever). In essence, to share software you've developed, you have to go through a lengthy and expensive approval process. Once you've written something, no matter how nice it is, there's a huge threshold of liability, expense, and hassle you have to overcome in order to be legally allowed to give it to other institutions.

Maybe it's because I grew up there, but I've always had a soft spot for Cincinnati's Union Terminal. It's a collection of museums: they have a Children's Museum in the basement (lots of fun with balls, water, and a nice big tree-like playground thingy), a Cincinnati Historical Society Museum (starts with a giant miniature recreation of Cincinnati, lots of WWII history, and includes a full-size recreation of Cincinnati's steamboat days), and a Natural History Museum (some very excellent versions of pretty standard exhibits, including a very nice walk-through cave, walk-through glacier, and some neat human-body exhibits designed for kids (but that I find fun nevertheless)). And, of course, there's the full-on old-style spherical OmniMAX theatre that just can't be beat for giving you vertigo. Add to all that the fact that Union Terminal itself is pretty interesting---it's an old train station with huge murals and an enormous lobby.

I'm not saying it's the greatest museum ever; but it's well-done, has three museums in a single building, and I always have a good time when I go.

Maybe so, but if significant portions of the military refuse to follow the orders of the tyrant/chain-of-command, then you have *military* fighting *military*. The guns that the civilians have are less important than the choice that the folks in the military make at that point. This is no surprise, really - the success of most coups in history have relied on the disposition of the standing military. For example, the Shah in Iran was deposed in 1979 because the military decided to remain neutral---at that point, all you need is a sufficiently large mob to topple the government. Musharraf, in Pakistan, gained power by having the military behind him (a so-called "bloodless coup"). Wikipedia has a whole list, but my point is still that when you have a big military, success of any government-toppling-initiative rests in their hands rather than in the hands of the somewhat-armed populace.

Heh, well, you can thank Bush for having changed that. Folks in the CIA get absolute immunity for having created a secret prison system in other countries specifically for the purpose of torturing those they had in custody. Folks in the telecom industry get absolute immunity for having followed the orders of the government. I don't see why a soldier would actually think long and hard about how they react---following orders has become a valid excuse again.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I strongly support the 2nd Amendment; and at the same time, I believe it is not intended as a "here you go, now you can topple the government if need be" clause (or, if it was, it's not an effective one). It is there for the defense of a person's *individual* liberty.

Aaaaaah! Get out of my head! You're not allowed to think in me! ... why do I have a sudden urge to buy Lightspeed Briefs?

Oh puhleeez. Seriously? You think the weapons that civilians have on hand can take on the best-funded military the world has ever seen? You know, the one that has more resources than the next five biggest militaries COMBINED? I don't think you've thought about this very seriously. Yes, I know that's the same thing "they" said about facing down the British back in 1775, but we're living in a different world. How many civilians have access to Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters? Cruise missiles? Not to mention: in what terrain has the US military been *training* for the last two hundred years? To paraphrase an awful movie, "When the day comes that we have to go to war against Utah, we're [the US military] really gonna kick ass".

The 2nd Amendment right puts guns in the hands of civilians. Thick-headed civilians who can't think very far ahead work like gang members who get their first chrome-plated .45: they immediately feel invincible, and that leads to the assumption that the guns are for the purpose of standing watch over the government. Don't kid yourself that any politician in the history of the US has ever thought (or will ever think) to themselves "well, I WANT to do X, but since the citizens have so many guns, maybe that wouldn't be a good idea."

If you want to know what the 2nd Amendment is really for, look no further than St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and a U.S. District Court judge (appointed in 1813), who wrote about the amendment: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. It is a right to defend yourself from the government, not an establishment of the power to overthrow the government. It's an important distinction.

And as someone pointed out to that other poster, they DID include the Firefox 3.5 Beta in the tests (it clocked in at slightly better than Safari 3). This just wasn't mentioned in the Futuremark article, that's all.

If only they had thought of the Anti-Anti-Anti-Fanboi! The fools! When will they ever learn?!?

Seriously, they're trying to make multilanguage projects possible (if not easy). Ever want a Java object to inherit from both a Python object and a C++ object? Then Babel is your tool. https://computation.llnl.gov/casc/components/babel.html