I don't see why there should be a positive correlation between being less wealthy and moving less. In fact, poverty is often the driving force behind moving to or within the US. Think about okies during the great depression, Irish during the potato famine, etc.

The current resistance to moving is surprising since some areas of the US have significantly more economic opportunities than others, but fewer people are moving to take advantage of them. (That said, there is still a fair number of people who move.) I hate to blame it on "kids these days!", but there is a legitimate case that we're kind of losing our immigrant drive that brought the US success in the first place. It makes me think that we need more immigrants...

Justify this statement.

Exactly what shit was she proposing to start?

The quote you're relying on is super weak:

"Military responses" can mean anything. The military has cyber-warfare capability, so a "military response" could simply be hacking them back. Supposedly, the email hacks were by the Russian _military_ intelligence service, in which case Clinton was proposing a military response to a military action. That's pretty reasonable. Do you seriously think she was planning a conventional military response to cyberattacks?

I don't see the evidence that she tried to *start* shit. I see an excellent case that she tried to *respond* to shit, and maybe it wouldn't be a good response (no way of knowing now), but not responding makes you a more appealing target.

I might add that the current president is also threatening to "start shit with an ICBM and submarine possessing nuclear power". After all, on an international stage, the amount of people for whom shit can get ruined, and the degree to which it can get ruined, is too horrifying to allow him a chance to do so. Don't sleep too easy.

Yes, there's no guarantee that the methods that work on the brain also have to work on microprocessors. However, there's also no guarantee that they won't work in both cases. There are many methods/observations that are so generally useful that they apply to a huge range of problems. This is important because there's no guarantee that methods that work on one part of the brain also work on another part of the brain. Maybe the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition and the part of the brain that controls your muscles are as different as horses and tractors?

However, the real issue is that we don't even know which methods work on any part of the brain! As far as I can tell, the methods used to study the brain are basically just shots in the dark. So, we have chosen methods that we hope to be generally useful. Sure, they kind of make sense to apply to brains, but I know of no proof they are really useful. They certainly haven't explained how the brain works yet! Furthermore, before this paper was published, these general methods appeared to make about as much sense for microprocessors as they do on the brain.

So the point of this article is this: the methods we have to study the brain are just shots in the dark; we don't know if they work. So let's try another shot in the dark to see if these methods work on a known system. Since we are assuming that these methods are useful in a wide range of situations, the fact that the methods are total failures on a 6502 should indicate that the methods aren't as generally useful as we hoped.

Yeah, I'm sick of this kind of discrimination! It's everywhere! Why should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids?!? Why are there tax credits and deductions only available to parents!?! Why are babies allowed to scream on aircraft but I'm not allowed to??? Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination!

I get the feeling that trump opposes it because he wants revenge on "the media" (due to supposed bias against him) -- not because trump has any deep-seated belief or philosophy that this type of merger is bad. I'm sure that isn't true for Sanders.

At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, it's becoming clear that Assange is not simply freeing information; he's playing politics -- possibly in hopes of a Trump pardon. That's not a far-fetched goal. Assange's standing among conservatives has improved greatly since he started dumping on Clinton. Take the example of Fox News anchor (and Trump lapdog) Sean Hannity. In 2010, he was calling for Assange's head and castigating Obama for not taking out wikileaks. Now, Hannity wants Assange to go free. (Source) So, if Assange had dirt on Trump, I highly doubt that Assange would release it. He wouldn't want to alienate his most powerful audience.

EOM

Could you explain the logic of "It's owned by the government, therefore it's wilderness"? A lot of federally-owned area is used for cattle grazing, logging, indian reservations, recreation, man-made bodies of water, military facilities, etc.

The federal government does have designated wildernesses, but they form only about 4.5% of the US land mass. (FWIW, over half of the designated wilderness is in Alaska.) Of course, the government's definition of wilderness is not the same as the definition in TFA, but assuming that 25% of the US landmass is wilderness by any reasonable definition is absurd.

I agree with many things in your post, but I think that one of your important claims is wrong, and that weakens your argument significantly and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Intel's situation:

XScale was not a server class ARM chip. StrongARM was designed from the beginning for the embedded market. XScale was being used in BlackBerry and Palm handheld devices at the time Intel got rid of XScale. (Example from 2005. There are many more examples if you want to google around.)

So, Intel was already in the mobile game, and it decided to quit it right as it was taking off. That fact remains regardless off your points about stacks and modems. Intel could have made the latter without issue. (In fact, it's making modems now.)

Intel's decision to focus rather than branch out was shortsighted and clearly cost them. That said, "focusing" is a classic business strategy, so I can't blame them too much for following it. However, I think that focusing doesn't pay off the way that it used to. Many of the most successful tech companies at the moment (Google, Amazon, etc.) are branching out like mad, and it's paying dividends.

It's more like 20 years ago. Digital Equipment Corporation sued Intel into buying their ARM processor business in 1997 (sounds kind of weird, but it's basically what happened), and Intel kept making the processors until 2006, when it sold the business.

This is amusing in part because Intel made ARM processors from 1997-2006 (branded StrongARM and later XScale), but decided that ARM processors were silly and sold their ARM processor business in 2006. In hindsight, that was the worst possible timing since the mobile market started to take off shortly thereafter (the first iPhone was 2007. Oh well. At least they're no longer wasting their time trying to cram x86 processors into phones.

To quote the linked buyer's guide:

So it's not the same price, but yes, it should be a lot cheaper.

You caught me AC! I didn't post it on slashdot so I couldn't possibly have thought of it earlier or discussed it with other humans (with friends last week at lunch).

I guess if slashdot is your only means of communicating with other humans, then it makes sense to believe that discussions not posted on slashdot couldn't have happened.

I'm surprised so many people didn't see this coming. The share price was totally out-of-whack with reality. I'd have shorted the hell out of Nintendo's stock (if I had money and the means to do so). Surely, someone with money did? Anyone here?