@40 posted by Chorske:

Be careful, you've misstated the law. From Wikipedia:

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

The key here is that the second law applies to isolated or closed systems. When it is trotted out to "prove" ID, that part is dropped. The Earth is not a closed or isolated system. It has energy input from the Sun, not to mention a small amount of outside matter being added from space.

Another postcard with chimpanzees?

http://www.bnlmusic.com/

I always wanted to be a... LUMBERJACK!

@16: The original comment was not mine.

@12: Bah, ignorance and greed are no excuse. And in this case, the "something doesn't add up here" alarm should have been going off.

If they are given the chance to make things right and do so, then I think it can be considered a (marginally) honest mistake. But, seeing as how the original story said that when some of the opportunists were told the truth they refused to return the goods, at that point they become thieves or at the very least recipients of stolen property and should be charged.

I had one of these. The drumheads kept breaking. It seems like I jury-rigged balloons as a replacement. I too remember it as not being as much fun as it's potential due to the random bounces.

@VJRABAUKE(#13)

The original is here:
http://pundo3000.com/werbunggegenrealitaet3000.htm

It's in German, but you can probably figure out how to navigate the slideshow.

#3: "arranging for an insurance policy instead of a trust fund"

I imagine they considered that.

If I remember correctly, the original (much smaller) prize was backed purely by Randi's own money. Then, for a while, they accepted outside pledges that would be due if the prize was won. This allowed them to increase the size of the prize to something more appealing. At some point, they went to a trust fund and they stopped taking pledges.

As has been said, dealing with the applications is the issue. Increasing the prize would only serve to increase the applications and the headaches.

Rukasu (#7):
If this is what Mac users have to look forward to, I would rather they spend their development dollars elsewhere. I really don't want all that DRM crap slowing down my machine and making it unstable just so I can watch a video now and then.

Yes, I know Quicktime and iTunes have DRM embedded, but I trust Apple to do a decent job of making it as unobtrusive as possible.

While I hate to suggest anything that may become legislation, the people that sell laser pointers should include a warning that pointing them at aircraft is illegal and dangerous.

NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System has had a couple publications on the dangers of lasers to flight crew. Links are here and here. The main danger seems to be the loss of night vision.

Hilarious! The article says that someone from the paper called the police at 3 A.M.

I like how his story changes from, "I didn't take the wallet" to "I thought it was my wife's" to "I took it so I could return it, but got busy."

At the very least the panel should have the ability to audit the success of the legislation. Therefore, it should be renamed the Copyright Review and Audit Panel.

@15
There is a misunderstanding of physics going on here all right.

Despite what Hollywood has told you, magnetic fields don't work that way. Magnetic fields diminish at a rate inverse square of the distance. In other words, a magnetic field at twelve inches away is 1/144 times as strong as at one inch away. Even if it were some sort of (impossibly strong) super-magnet in the speaker, the object would be slammed against the speaker, not come to a stop in front of it.

Personally, I'm in the "gimbaled room" camp. Wax the table and it wouldn't take much of a tilt at all to get the objects to slide across the table.

Edited comments are the norm on moderated forums and blogs. If you don't want your comments subject to editing, don't post. There are many other sites to make your feelings known, including creating your own.

AT&T's policy is within their rights and typical of consumer TOS agreements which tend to place all restrictions and obligations on the side of the consumer and none on the provider. Most have nebulous limits that the user must abide without knowing what they are. They are also written such that the provider can change the terms of a de facto contract without agreement from the other party.

It remains to be seen how strict AT&T will be on enforcing this. It is doubtful they are going to track down every non-positive comment to the user and cancel their service. However, they have left themselves the option to do so if they wish. The sad thing is that the consumer often has few if any other choices for internet access and are thus chilled from airing their, perhaps legitimate, grievances.