yes, MN plates. I saw a truck just like this driving around Bloomington, MN just by my workplace yesterday.

um, I like don't have an XBox 360, don't have Guitar Hero 2, and I want to patch this thing (that I don't have, BTW)- oh, and I don't have $6. But I was thinking about getting the patch first and then I can pretend I'm not a looser?

cjameshuff- thanks for your correct insights.

7of7 is obviously unaware that RTGs are common for space vehicle power sources, and that risks of leaks associated with failure of the launch vehicle are negligible.

Likewise, Plaid doesn't really understand the physical limits placed on vehicles. Again, solar+nuclear decay dual-source power is quite a popular and attractive option, balancing high efficiency (SOLAR= in power vs. weight + sustainability, with great reliability (nuclear decay).

Why are there the comments about China copying this and other design attributes and what is wrong with that? First let me say, I am China's biggest critic when it comes to their (lack of) stand against piracy and their blatant copying of many specific patented items and IP in general- but in this case, there really isn't any better "original" way to do this. If they didn't build a vehicle in the same basic way as the now tried and proven design, they would be guilty of being stupid- something they are not.

"This differs from rubber bullets how?"
Well I could suggest that you be the next test subject and save the words (you would understand the difference very quickly), but here goes:

Let's make a list:
1) instantaneous beam propagation at the speed of light vs. slow moving large-diameter relatively massive projectile (short range, low accuracy)
2) continuous & sweeping beam options to cover large # of targets vs. need for discrete projectiles, i.e. rapid-fire rubber bullets
3) mm wave gun: non-lethal (guaranteed) and non-permanent injury inducing (almost guaranteed) vs. rubber bullets: which are just "usually non-lethal" (many instances of them causing great physical harm when fired at close range) and almost always cause injury beyond the instant effect.
4) low cost of consumables, better field deployment and easier on-going logistics.
5) by extension of 1 & 2 allow better protective options for the persons wielding the weapon to remain behind cover instead of exposing themselves to the person they would otherwise be shooting rubber at.
6) can be mounted at fence posts for area denial, permanently connected to needed facilities and left virtually unattended.
7) effect causes immediate "flight response" where the target is compelled to reverse direction or otherwise leave the area immediately (direction of running away can be dictated wth assistance of the physical barriers and landscape)
8)impervious to body armor, sheilding (other than specially designed for this kind of directed energy weapon- but thats not the kind of thing violent protestors or intruders to military facilities would have) and padding, where as rubber bullets are rendered ineffective with just a little bit of padding around the body.

I think the list could go on and repeat the above points in some way or another.

Next stupid question?

Wow! I see that its been said here before- but dear author Ryan Block, did you even read the article your stub links to!!!???? Or did you just write what must have been a witty run-on paragraph in your mind based on the headline only?

You've linked your story to a news.com.com article by Tom Krazit on CNet, a guy who covers tech stuff, but who didn't totally mess up the basic one-paragraph reporting as you did.

So I know you didn't read the original article in Barron's, but apparently you didn't even read the CNet piece by Tom Krazit!!!! Here's a hint, click the 'read' link right under the text of your own stub here on Engadget. (wow, this is ridiculous, I'm telling the author how to read the article he's supposedly referencing.)

The article says that Barron's estimates Steve Jobs is worth $16 billion to Apple's market capitalization- which is a totally out-of-the-air number to say that might much be lost in Apple's stock value if he left, based on stockholder reaction. (selling due to that being perceived as a bad thing) In the CNet stub, Tom Krazit goes on to quote a video featuring Andrew Bary where he says (verbally) it could be as much as $20 billion. Please e-mail me if you continue to have difficulty understanding these statements and how they are distinctly different from anything to do with Mr. Jobs' actual worth (i.e. the value of his stock in Apple and Disney plus other assets).

Even with his stock and other assets at present day share prices, I'm sorry to say his personal net worth is still much shy of $10 billion.

The statement that "While only Steve knows how much he's really worth" is also very misleading. Anyone with a little time and interest can figure this out very simply- the number of shares he currently has in Apple and Disney is public information, as is this data relating to all officers and large stake owners in all public traded companies in the U.S. Try yahoo finance...

Please, please, please... you are making me seriously question reading anything on Engadget anymore.

get yourself one of the ten-jillion (not a real #, but you get the point) two or 30 button (again, an exaggeration) mouse (or mice) out there and right click yourself to a bloody stump on your mac. Mac has supported right click context menus since historic times. (OS 9) You don't need windows to right click. I like my mac logitech mice or any other generic USB mouse I've ever used with my mac and its right clicking and scroll wheel, browser buttons goodness.

even the new apple mighty mice support right click! (even though it dosen't work for shit. Apple mice have always been pretty and that's about it...)

Michael, did you read this stub? This is an unconfirmed rumor, and it does not originate from Apple. Your post that "Hmm, it seems that when Microsoft delays Vista, Apple just has to make fun of them." is pretty ridiculous given how long Vista was delayed- and Leopard hasn't even been really delayed yet, we just don't know when it will be released, but Apple has said all along a spring '07 release date.

Other people are making fun of MS this time, not Apple. (though they may be external Apple fans)

This is a great example of good parenting.

I'm a regular reader of Engadget and agree with the previous comments that they should stick to commenting on what they do best: gadgets, not parenting.

The "tad illogical" comment is particularly shallow and obviously not based on much thought. I'm sure that the CEO of a pharmaceutical company would encourage and set rules for the responsible use of pharmaceutical drugs for their children, and the list of parallel examples goes on. "Slapping restrictions on" internet usage as the article's author puts it is the responsibility of every parent- and Bill Gates should understand this (and apparently- he does) very well.

Wow James, you are one heck of a hater.

The story said these people had some kind of a gaming center. I don't know if they had a commercial gaming center like a cyber cafe where they charged people money, or if that just means their personal at home gaming-lounge. Obviously, if that is the case, they probably have LAN parties at their house with their friends.

Does that make them bad, or deserving of any of your particularly deprecating comments? Some people have poker nights and there are people with plenty of disposable income or even are "wealthy" who spend money on all sorts of things like expensive food, booze, "ridiculous luxuries" or whatever, that other people might not find particularly worthwhile or "worth that money". To each his own! More power to them! I don't give a f@ck!

They are good people from all that I know (which is nothing- all I know is this short blurb article.) Why don't you become a happy person and assume the same?

Obviously, you are a new "Fuji watcher". It isn't a doctored up photo- I think the decent people at Engadget have a tad more integrity...

IT IS A D200 BODY!!! Have a look at the Fuji Pro D-SLR which also uses a Nikon D2X body. They obviously have actually used the exact same magnesium-alloy body which Nikon does, buying it from Nikon or the same body manufacturing firm that Nikon does. Fuji has a close working relationship with Nikon, and Nikon likes Fuji- the Fuji cameras use Nikon lenses. The only thing different on the body is the paint.