DRM CDs (1) Jun 26, 2006
A few months ago, it was discovered (and complained about) that Sony BMG puts copyright protection (Digital Rights Management) on a few of their CDs.  This only becomes a problem if a user puts one of these CDs in their computer, at which point a little piece of software is installed that opens up a backdoor to the user's computer, leaving the computer open to virus intrusion.  Put nicely,
So, let's make this a bit more explicit. You buy a CD. You put the CD into your PC in order to enjoy your music. Sony grabs this opportunity to sneak into your house like a virus and set up camp, and it leaves the backdoor open so that Sony or any other enterprising intruder can follow and have the run of the place. If you try to kick Sony out, it trashes the place. And what does this software do once it's on your PC? ... The DRM itself is almost unbelievably restrictive, and some have suggested that the reasoning behind it is part of Sony's ongoing war over digital music supremacy with the decidedly more supreme Apple.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation put together a list of DRM-infected CDs.  Later, Sony published a more complete list: 
A Static Lullaby, Faso Latido
Acceptance, Phantoms
Amerie, Touch
Art Blakey, Drum Suit
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity?
Bette Midler, Sings the Peggy Lee Songbook
Billie Holiday, The Great American Songbook
Bob Brookmeyer, Bob Brookmeyer & Friends
Buddy Jewell, Times Like These
Burt Bacharach, At This Time
Celine Dion, On Ne Change Pas
Chayanne, Cautivo
Chris Botti, To Love Again
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion
Cyndi Lauper, The Body Acoustic
The Dead 60's, The Dead 60's
Deniece Williams, This Is Niecy
Dextor Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie
Dion, The Essential Dion
Earl Scruggs, I Saw The Light With Some Help From My Friends
Elkland, Golden
Emma Roberts, Unfabulous And More: Emma Roberts
Flatt & Scruggs, Foggy Mountain Jamboree
Frank Sinatra, The Great American Songbook
G3, Live In Tokyo
George Jones, My Very Special Guests
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru
Horace Silver, Silver's Blue
Jane Monheit, The Season
Jon Randall, Walking Among The Living
Life Of Agony, Broken Valley
Louis Armstrong, The Great American Songbook
Mary Mary, Mary Mary
Montgomery Gentry, Something To Be Proud Of: The Best of 1999-2005
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs
Nivea, Complicated
Our Lady Peace, Healthy In Paranoid Times
Patty Loveless, Dreamin' My Dreams
Pete Seeger, The Essential Pete Seeger
Ray Charles, Friendship
Rosanne Cash, Interiors 
Rosanne Cash, King's Record Shop
Rosanne Cash, Seven Year Ache
Shel Silverstein, The Best Of Shel Silverstein
Shelly Fairchild, Ride
Susie Suh, Susie Suh
Switchfoot, Nothing Is Sound
Teena Marie, Robbery
Trey Anastasio, Shine
Van Zant, Get Right With The Man
Vivian Green, Vivian
So basically, if you have any of these CDs, don't put them in your computer.  But if you really want to, there's a way to disable the DRM from installing, though it sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth.  And there's also a way to sort of get rid of DRM if you're already infected.  Just ask Mr. Google. #entertainment
Bi Jun 26, 2006
[Uh oh ... where's he going with this?]

I've had enough.  From now on, everyone must adapt the following language changes: 
  1. Biweekly means twice a week.
  2. Bimonthly means twice a month.  (Who would use bimonthly to mean every other month?  I mean, honestly, who?!)
  3. Biyearly means twice a year.  Semiannually is also acceptable.
Forget everything else you know about these words.  Do as I say.  I've finally settled the "usage problem" with the prefix bi-. #language
Plane on a conveyor belt (41) Jun 26, 2006
The case of the plane on a conveyor belt has been extensively discussed in the online world, and still doesn't have a definite conclusion.  Or rather, there are two opposing sides which believe wholeheartedly in their explanation, and these sides will never agree.  The question is this: 
A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?
I've read a thousand people's opinions about this and heard every comparison ranging from a skateboard on a treadmill to a weightless car on a sheet of paper.  Taking into account some major assumptions (a plane on a conveyor belt is actually plausible; frictionless wheels, bearings, conveyor belt; no wind; ideal/instantaneous control system), my take on it is this:  The plane won't take off [Edit:  I changed my mind].  Here's my reasoning: 

1.  In order for a plane to take off, it needs to have air passing over its wings at a certain speed.  This air can come from the plane moving down the runway, or it can come from wind.  Theoretically, a plane can take off while sitting completely still, as long as there is a significant amount of headwind.  However, since there's no wind in this example, the plane must be moving forward at a considerable velocity. 

2.  A plane's wheels are "dumb".  In other words, they're only there to reduce friction.  A plane could just as easily have no wheels and just rest on its belly on the runway.  It could still take off because its motion is produced by thrust from its engines or the movement of air from its propellers.  The wheels will spin when the plane is in motion and in contact with a surface. 

3.  As many people have pointed out, the question's wording can be confusing. 
a.  If "plane speed" means "angular velocity of the wheels with respect to a stationary/ground observer", the conveyor belt would spin at an infinitely increasing rate, which is logically impossible.  For example, if the wheels started to spin at 100 rpm, the conveyor would ramp up and spin at 100 rpm.  But this would cause the wheels to actually be spinning at 200 rpm from the point of view of a stationary observer because the ground is no longer stationary but is moving at 100 rpm in the opposite direction.  This would force the conveyor belt to spin at 200 rpm, 400 rpm, 800 rpm, etc., ad infinitum. 

b.  If "plane speed" means "angular velocity of the wheels with respect to the conveyor belt", the velocity of the conveyor belt would always equal the velocity of the wheels, no matter what.  This means that the plane wouldn't move, no matter what.  If the wheels started to spin at 100 rpm, the conveyor would ramp up and spin at 100 rpm.  From the point of view of the conveyor belt, the wheels would still be spinning at 100 rpm even though they're actually spinning at 200 rpm from the point of view of a stationary observer.  No matter what speed the wheels spun, the conveyor would always be spinning at the same speed as the wheels.  This would prevent any forward motion of the plane. 

c.  If "plane speed" means "linear/horizontal velocity of the plane with respect to a stationary/ground observer", the plane speed would always be zero because the conveyor belt would always cancel out any forward motion of the plane.  For example, if the plane started moving at 100 mph to the right (with motion derived from thrust), the conveyor belt would immediately begin moving at 100 mph to the left.  Although the wheels would be spinning at an incredibly high rate (the wheel diameter doesn't equal the conveyor belt diameter, so the conveyor belt speed of 100 mph would translate to a wheel speed of something like 100,000 rpm [total guess, but the concept is there]), the plane would not change position from the point of view of a stationary observer.  If it started at point A, it would stay at point A.  This is the same result as part b. 

d.  If "plane speed" means "linear/horizontal velocity of the plane with respect to the conveyor belt", it's the same as part a.  The conveyor belt would spin at an infinitely increasing rate. 
So in conclusion, the plane wouldn't take off because it wouldn't move from its original location. 

Part of the reason this whole thing gets me so riled up is the attitude of the people who think they're right.  Cecil Adams said, "Everything clear now?  Maybe not.  But believe this:  The plane takes off."  Thanks for your mediocre and confusing explanation, followed by an unqualified, unproven conclusion.  Michael Buffington said, "Jason's Case of the Plane and Conveyor Belt riddle is confusing very smart people, so I thought I might explain it."  Thanks, Michael.  Obviously you know everything and everybody else knows nothing.  Without you, we'd be nowhere. 

This is my explanation.  I put a lot of thought into it, and I even lost some sleep over it last night.  I sort of think I'm right, but I'd be willing to be proven wrong if somebody has a good explanation.  I'd also love to see this on MythBusters. #science