Actually... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I realize that the software probably shouldn't have disabled UAC out of the box without at least informing the user, but having worked on some out-of-process COM applications (yes, legacy) in Windows Vista/7/8/10, UAC can be extremely frustrating. The biggest issue is that having UAC on creates a different user context between user and admin. If I execute a program as myself with admin privileges, it is not exactly the same as executing the program as myself without admin privileges.

For example, if your user with admin priveleges creates a COM component, that component may not be able to be accessed by a non-admin context even though your user may be in the local administrators group, DCOM Users group, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if LG ran into a COM issue with Windows and decided to make the program for reliable for the user by disabling UAC instead of resolving the problem in a different way.

Wow, so insightful. I never thought to "...destroy the current internet and rebuild it -- but without all the bullshit." Praise our savior who will save us from websites that cannot compel you to visit them.

Where can I sign up for your newsletter? I expect you will need my mailing address since you predict that "half of humanity" (including the half that lives in poor conditions that may not have any experience with the internet?) may have "...decided that the internet just isn't worth it."

So what's the answer? And don't put it on "brilliant engineering minds" to figure something out for you. Tell us what a good, economical, and environmentally sound option should be.

1. Renewables? A massive decrease in the cost of petroleum does not make the economics of renewables, especially solar, more attractive.
2. Nuclear? Good luck convincing regulatory bodies, the population, and environmentalists that's the best way to go. Besides, nuclear waste is a real problem, and we are in the perpetual state of "a few years more" to achieving the fast breeder reactors.
3. Fusion? Not technically possible right now, but you never know, maybe with "another 10 years" and we'll have it.
4. Force demand to be lower by using quotas or raising electricity price artificially? Yay, big government regulation causing dramatic changes in how people will live their lives. I'm sure everyone will just love being told to stop using heaters in the winter and air conditioners in the summer.
5. Carbon tax? Yay, big government regulation. Guess who profits from "carbon exchanges?" Goldman Sachs.
6. Kill off tons of people thereby reducing energy demand? Go for it, Mr. Eugenics. Just remember, killing people also takes energy expenditure in one way or another.

Nothing is easy.

I disagree with some of the pretenses here primarily that higher level math directly equates with a better performing student. I went to grad school for chemical engineering with 1/3 US students and 2/3 foreign all from China and India, and I will agree that their skills when it came to even engineering math (e.g. calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, numerical analysis) all surpassed what I and other domestic students knew.

But I think this is because of a fundamental difference in evaluating what problems are important. During my undergrad, memorization for a test was thought to be a pointless task and not worth doing (because in the real world, you can use Google, textbooks, whatever you want to accomplish the goal). Tests were structured to require extra thinking, problems could be formulated in a completely different way than found in the homework, or worse, the questions could nigh-unsolvable and require the student to explain how they would go about solving it if they weren't able to. However, in grad school, most of my tests relied on memorization of certain fundamentals and derivation methodologies to succeed. Guess which group performed better on that?

But what about skills that are not so easy testable? Like communication? Or thinking about a problem outside the box and not approaching it from the exact same way as everyone else? Many modern engineering problems are not just solved by use of complex mathematics; formulation of a problem, simplifying the problem where appropriate, solution methodologies, thinking about time constraints, monetary concerns, interactions with less technical people, and communication of results are all part of my daily job. Solving a problem using personal knowledge of PDE's may help occasionally, but knowing how to use tools when appropriate and knowing how to communicate is worth far more ultimately.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and YMMV.

The idea that we're "soon" to have invisibility cloaks that are both omni-directional *and* handle visible light is an unfounded one. True, maybe the underlying foundations are set well and the science is understood. But here's the issue: metamaterials ("invisibility cloaks" as a rule, fall into this category since they're properties are determined by the structure of the materials - not the material itself) have specific patterns in the structure. Microwave radiation has a wavelength between 1 mm and 1 m. Visible light has a wavelength of 390 to 750 nm. We are talking about four orders of magnitude.

The structure of the metamaterial needed to handle visible light is going to be out of our reach for quite some time until we can design a better way of handling structural details on the nanoscale and beyond (right now, the best methods are self assembled, and those methods usually aren't good for the massive complexity you'd desire).

And what favors would those be to Saudi Aramco or Gazprom? I won't deny that the US has its fair share of corruption, but to say that our government goes out of its way to throw favors at foreign companies just because they are in a "powerful industry" seems like a long shot to me.

If you can prove it on either one of those two *huge* companies getting favors from the federal government, I'll buy it. I'll admit that I was wrong and apologize for being so misguided.

Haha, so they come to the US to ask for help about acidizing wells, new drilling methodologies, and completions... Just because we are a large market for it?

You know what? Let's say you're right. I hope in the future, when you are trying to figure out how to start up a very productive farm, you mosey your way on over to China and get their help on all the best techniques (because, of course, they are the largest market for food in the world). You mind as well go over there for all your electronics needs as well. Heck, I bet you can't wait to pick up the new Huawei smartphone. I mean, they have to be the best in the world since they're the largest market, right?

Fixing my poor grammar now instead of later: ...is he... should be ...he is...

Just another alarmist that doesn't know what the heck is he talking about.

True, the patent system for software is completely hosed up. But to say, "Innovation is dead in this country," is just you talking out of your ass.

There are plenty of companies in many other facets of science and engineering that are doing just fine by staying in the states (not to mention having some of the best schools in the world plus lots of very good ones). As an example, why do international companies in the petroleum industry routinely do business in the states? Oh wait, is it because innovation is dead? No, it's because we have some of the very best technology and great minds to advise companies all over the world.

From the article...

"...living 'against the clock' may be a factor contributing to the epidemic of obesity..."

You have to be kidding me. So they found a correlation? Yippie. I can find the correlation between number and pirates and global warming. Means nothing.

What's worse is that they don't even try to explain what's really going on here. Is it that metabolism is slower when things are out of order from circadian rhythm? Where are the citations for that suggestion? Is it actually a true case of causation with experimental evidence in biochemistry, or more regressions and "it looks this way, but we have no idea so here's a paper on it anyway" type of thing?

Or is it so much more simple? Maybe like... People are eating more calories than they burn?! No way! Common sense just can't come into play ever. Maybe people feel more hungry with less sleep! Oh goodness! Let's do a double regression on chronotypes and amount of sleep so that we can submit another paper and get more funding!