The fact that you think that plutonium is somehow intrisnically immoral bothers me.

It's like if somebody in 1750 said that "crude oil will always be intrinsically immoral" because it was poisonous, smelled bad when you burned it in a lamp, and caused a stack of black, smoky pollution. There are reactor designs that exist right now which are capable of turning that plutonium into heat and short-lived decay products.

_Nothing_ is intrinsically immoral except for man perpetrating force or fraud against his fellow man.

If the voter isn't a lazy idiot, they DO decide their own preferences for the Senate, and ALWAYS decide their own preferences for the house.

http://www.belowtheline.org.au/

Not only that, but 232U and 233U are far more difficult to separate in a centrifuge than 235U and 238U are, by virtue of being far closer together in mass.

Besides, given how much hard radiation 232U kicks out, i'd be surprised if your average centrifuge could use it as an input without premature, costly failures. 235U isn't a particularly hard emitter of anything, it's just fissile. 232U is fucking nasty.

Feel free to explain how GPLing their driver (which is support code whose sole reason is to drive the hardware that generates their revenue) is going to cause them any pain whatsoever?

People give Nvidia (and ATI/AMD, and whoever else) money for graphics hardware because of the hardware's capabilities; Nvidia wouldn't suddenly make any less money overnight if their driver code was out in the open.

Fuck off. The guy committed a "crime" in the UK, and was neither physically present nor controlled assets in the US.

What you're suggesting is directly analogous to the UK home office extraditing someone to Saudi Arabia for talking shit on a UK website about Muhammad (PBUH.)

Now is not the time for voxels. At current hardware specs, the computing time:image quality tradeoff comes out so far in favour of rasterizing (or whatever) polygons it's insane.

These guys had a tech demo floating around a few years ago, and to my eyes, not a lot has changed.

The reason that the "core" bits of NX were always Free is because dxpc (and, thus, mlview-dxpc, from which NX sprang) is only available under the GPL.

If i was involved in dxpc (or mlview-dxpc, really, although I'd imagine most of those changes are owned by the NX folks) development I'd be lawyering up at this point, if only to get some kind of proof that I wasn't being ripped off.

Nice examples, but there's no reason that audio won't work over DVI equally well as over HDMI. There are no HDMI "audio pins", audio is sent during the video VBI, and works equally well over DVI-DVI, DVI-HDMI, and HDMI-HDMI, assuming the source device supports HDMI audio.

May I respectfully suggest you read up on CPRM, and note that the SD spec implements it and MMC (from which SD was, in fact, derived) does not.

No. People have a problem because the damages awarded are thoroughly disproportionate to the act committed. I'm amazed you can't grasp this, I really am.

Holy fuck you're stupid.

Why do you think that was?

Actually, PLEX can be used from anywhere. You don't need to be docked in the station where the PLEX is.

Ugh, replying to my own post:

In the interest of fairness, it's worth noting that I have no involvement in this whatsoever besides being thoroughly unimpressed with burst.net's behavior. As a result, my opinions above are just that, opinions; not grounded in any first hand experience whatsoever.

My rage upon finding out what :actually happened: made me somewhat intemperate in my earlier post, methinks. I still think you'd have to be mad to give them money, though.

So, the Burst.net guys get a request for information about a machine they host which has ~70k users, give or take. Instead of asking the box's sysadmin (who's their CLIENT), they pull the pin, then go on to mutter vague conspiracy-minded commentary such as "getting a refund is the least of his (the site owner/sysadmin) problems" on fora such as WHT (see http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=05a61aabdfcacdb369e1582aff4686a1&t=964013 ) Apparently the fact that he _received_ abuse complaints in the past was grounds to terminate his service; never mind the fact that he had SEVENTY THOUSAND USERS and acted on DMCA notifications and other abuse requests in a timely fashion, which is better than can be said about a lot of sites.

Had burst.net forwarded the request to the site owner (or even simply given the feds his name, and explained how he fit in) instead of disconnecting the machine, making borderline slanderous statements (such as 'he'll never get his data back' and 'a refund is the least of his worries right now',) they would have come out of this looking reasonably good. As it stands, you'd have to be completely brain-dead retarded to even think about giving them money.