As much as I'd love 3D imagery everywhere, vox isn't a reliable source. As far as I can tell, their whole model is wild hyperbole to get exposure & eyeballs.

Jesus - the hyperbolic circle jerking.. sigh.. Could we get any more f#cking stupid here?

His point is that this should be viewed as beyond the authority of the FCC by both sides; that a bureaucratic panel doesn't have the power to tell individual states how to regulate themselves; and doing so will open a Pandora's box. He illustrates his point by citing SCOTUS precedence, and hypothesizes what sort of dramatic swings would be possible with that power.

Everyone loves HHS - but they forget (let me make his point in a different way) the HHS could effectively slash Abortion coverage at will by simply saying Insurance can't cover it. That's what it's dangerous to give so much power to one position; especially a politically appointed one.

Christ - His biggest mistake, apparently, is forgetting to dumb down his point and talk like everyone is 12.

IMHO, the FCC should just declare ISPs common carriers as a start; then recommend to Congress a law that says the individual citizens have a right to assembly, even in the form of a municipality, and establish publicly held utility services.

Then, it could go back to SCOTUS or whatever.

Think of it as tarballing or zipping up hydrogen.

From gas compressed in liquid form using Nitrogen.

Then, unpacking it on the fly, back to gas... you dump the nitrogen into the exhaust, and the hydrogen into the combustion chamber.

The breakthrough these guys are claiming is that they've found a way to unpack on the fly, fast enough to supply enough hydrogen to drive a mid sized sedan, without it costing a fortune in precious metals.

Also, as a bonus, if your get in an accident, your hydrogen pours out instead of exploding.

Check out "Winning by losing".

For example, during the gun control debate, the Senate bill was loaded with the most insane crap ever; thus ensuring it would never pass.

This is a typical ploy by this Administration; to triangulate the opposition to being the the opposite side of an issue.

1) Propose legislation you tell the public is to stop NSA snooping
2) Poison it with a massive, unconstitutional, and exploitive expansion of authority for the FCC
3) Refuse to compromise on the removal of destructive legislation
4) Demonize congress when they won't pass it
5) Profit... ?

If nobody bothers to actually READ a bill, then everybody seems to believe a bill is what a politician says it is.
Said: "This is a bill to stop NSA spying."
Unsaid: "This is a bill to stop NSA spying but instead give the federal government the ability to force private businesses to do it and assume all the legal risks and costs, and thus pass these costs on to the consumer. And it also will set the precedent that people who own a business give up the right to their labor and are subject to the political whims of which ever party is in power."

Coding is a communal and collaborative effort for the most part, as almost all people reach out for help and give it when asked.

That "legal licensing" would be treated any different than any other API by the tech community shouldn't be surprising, IMHO.

We are sick of Windows. I think there are still people (like us) who haven't yet moved over completely just because they can't afford it yet.

Apple's recent popularity leveled the software suite playing field, and with that there are plenty of reasons to abandon the crapware that is Windows.
I'll have windows as an afterthought at home now. I used to always say "People don't buy windows for windows, they use windows for Office or some other tool and because its the OS that came on their cheap PC."

Apple (w/ Jobs) so dominated the market that Microsoft has taken a dump on usability to try and be different. There's different like cool and hip different, then there's "microsoft" different which is more like "lock the car doors" different.

In my wife's words: "If people have to learn to use a new operating system, the pain of switching to a mac looks is less painful and all my tools are there now. Plus, it works with my ipad."

Me, I'll probably just virtualize Windows 7 until they stop patching it. By then, I'll be full Linux / OSX anyway.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

People will sue - and this will go to federal courts... The question is will it make it to SCOTUS.

If you're interested, they open sourced their hardware a few years ago.

http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/

Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 for example.

If he wasn't joking: For venting smoke, the airbus manual says (or used to say) you have to reduce speed to below 200 knots. You should be at low altitude, of course.

Despite studies showing these it not much good in venting this way, crews still desire to do it.

I looked and Romney didn't say anything about " passengers rolling down the windows at 30,000 feet and at 500 knots."

That's just wild ass charicature circle jerking. What he said was that they (FAA? Manufacturer? Leasor?) should allow it. He might have been reflecting the crew's sentiments.

Venting air via an open window could be done using air rams to maintain pressure. The FAA doesn't like the planes slowing down and dropping altitude to do it for delayed landing, reduced cummonication, and analysis of In effectiveness.

Wide body jets are particularly bad aerodynamically to allow venting based on studies.

planes in the US May have their windows bolted shut, I don't know about that.

But I do know that even today there are planes evenin commercial service that have windows that can be opened in flight and older flight manuals gave instructions on how to do it in the event of smoke or fire. (btw, fire can be bad because the vacuum can pull it into other areas of the plane).

Anyway, I don't get Linus' reaction as I when I read the quote in the la times I immediately thought I understood what he was saying.

The planes are made with opening windows, but I don't know

I think Anonymous deserves an apology?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57510432-83/go-daddy-sorry-about-the-outage-and-no-it-wasnt-a-hack/

I wonder if this means that someday soon us passengers will be able to listen to music on our iphone / droid or read on our ipad / nook / fire during take off and landing?

So a bunch of non-profit groups I support are down thanks to these "activists".
SOPA opposition, "ends justify the means even if it means f*cking over everyone with our scorched earth actions", and the "if you were stupid enough to be supporting our enemy then you are just collateral damage because we are so right we're justified in harming you to make a point" aside, I don't think it will win them many fans.

So basically - you start with two photons next to each, entangle them, then put one on a ship and it sails away. Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it? Is it instantaneous? As in, could you put 32 of them side by side and create a 32 bit bus that spans any distance and yet provides connectivity as if where simply plugged into a USB port? Does the reaction on the other end diminish over distance? If not, why not use this to talk to a mars or lunar rover? No line of site necessary?

This really is an incredible phenomenon. I've read about it before, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe, they don't record but use something like DSP analysis to trigger an event when an audio signature event is detected? Considering the audio is being "captured" and "analyzed" it does raise the question; is this equivalent to "recording?"

But why not have a buffer, I wonder? Say, 5 minutes worth? Then, when a gunshot is detected that 5 minutes of audio can be saved along with subsequent audio providing context around the shot. If no gunshot (or automobile backfire?) is detected, the start of the 5 minute memory buffer would simply disappear.

Anonymous has a core of really skilled leaders - since this guy was flipped by the FBI, I wonder if they "have eyes" on some of Anonymous' more influential / adept members.