Oh, and sorry to self-reply, but Google turned this up:
http://www.world-newspapers.co...

I can suggest:
http://www.euronews.com/tag/hu...

Not a huge quantity of Hungary-specific articles, but the journalism is good and generally low-level enough to pick up on things the international English-language services don't.

In a maths-related discussion, that sort of mistake just has to sting.

So you're expecting an outbreak of smallpox any day now then, as soon as the population density hits a certain point?

Measles is highly contagious disease which is preventable with a simple vaccine, and it was getting tantalisingly close to the point of being eradicated. Now less people are getting vaccinated, and the number of cases are on the up. That is not a coincidence.

If we could come up with effective and lasting vaccines for MRSA of H041 Gonorrhea, we could wipe them out with a sufficiently widespread vaccination scheme too. We did it for smallpox, and that was almost 40 years ago. With all our modern technology and with more and more societies becoming wealthier and developed, why not do it again?

1. Andrew Wakefield is unapologetic and still claims that his study was valid. He vocally blames a conspiracy theory for his problems.

2. After so long of playing the "conspiracy" card, if he were to suddenly recant now his followers would most likely decide that he's been "gotten to" by the Illuminati (etc.). It is very unlikely they'd all go "Oh it was a mistake? Good to know, we'll just get off to the GP's for a full round of vaccinations then".

While it's true that he was not published in a criminal court (more's the shame), he was punished to the full extent that the medical establishment can do so- found guilty of professional misconduct and struck off by the GMC, meaning that he is barred from ever working as a doctor again in the UK.

Again, shame that he wasn't brought up on criminal charges. But you can't fault the medical community for their reaction, and I don't think there's any merit to the "protecting his peers" theory as they would already be deeply implicated by his professional misconduct hearing.

Doesn't Airplane Mode deactivate WiFi (and Bluetooth, NFC etc.) as well? (Genuine question, I've not looked that hard at it). If so, I can't see how useful a device it can be without any active radios.

The IAU list has authority because it is the version that actual astronomers and scientists use. Astronomers need SOMEONE to write a catalogue of names down for them so they all know what they're talking about- if not IAU, then who? Would it make you happier if they were 'murica based? Is it just that they are histroically based in France that upsets you?

IAU are simply doing a service to remind people that Uwingu (not to mention "name a star" companies) do not have the right to change the names in the IAU catalogue, so if you "buy a name" from these companies the name you choose will never be used by anyone ever. That's a helpful reminder- they're just trying to "scam bust".

Ultimately, there's nothing stopping anyone starting a new "naming authority" to compete with the IAU. But you'll need to persuade scientists, journals, universities etc. to sign up to using your new scheme instead of the IAU. Seeing as people are happy with the IAU's work, you're unlikely to find many takers.

Put it another way- can you name a single instance, in the long history of aviation, where a fault has taken down first one plane, and then another before the black box was recovered? Just one?

If the answer is "no", then this probably isn't a problem. Most faults do not take down multiple planes because planes are operated under excruciating quality control which remove most "frequent" faults long before they occur. And black boxes are almost always recovered quickly (via conventional means) in any case. So this would only be useful in an extreme minority of crashes- ones with an extremely specific (and rare) variety of fault and where the black box cannot be recovered using its transponder or just by looking for the wreckage.

"Local pissing contest" is an easy title to give something very far away. If you're Ukrainian, that "local pissing contest" is "a invasion by a huge, hostile power that used to have dominion over your country in order to seize a large and important piece of your country". If you're Russian, it's "the fascist take over of an allied neighbour with the implied threat to life and livelihood to millions of your ethnic brothers and former countrymen".

If you're American, how would you feel if Mexico invaded Puerto Rico? British- Argentina invading The Falklands? Australian- erm...Indonesia and Christmas Island? (I may need to learn more about Australian geopolitics...)

My point is, if your country was the one being invaded you might be reaching for the nukes too.

Because in theory bankruptcy should only be issued by a court when it is needed- you can't just rock up to a court and ask for one without proof that you're genuinely destitute.

So the real question is "what's to stop people going to university for several long years, and then intentionally making themselves ruinously poor for a period of years"? The answer being "because people are just not going to do that".

If you think the courts do genuinely let anyone have bankruptcy for a song, then you have a complaint about the system that goes way beyond students. After all, what's to stop...anyone with any sort of debt doing it?

I am intrigued by that question. Compound interest savings accounts are the absolute standard savings account in...well, I thought everywhere, outside of Islamic banking. Are you asking because you don't know what it is (which is fine, I'm not getting at you, it's not a high-street term), or because you do know but there aren't any accounts like that in your jurisdiction?

Compound interest, in a savings sense, just means this. You put $1000 in a bank account with a 3% interest rate. After one year they credit your interest of $30, so your new balance is $1030. The next year, you till get 3% interest, but this time on your new (higher) balance- so instead of after two years you having $1060 (non compound interest), instead you have $1060.90. Doesn't sound like much, but it mounts up with higher balances over long periods.

And it particularly matters in a loan scenario- the consequence being that interest charges will keep going up unless your payments are greater than the interest being charged.

It's supply and demand- or, the "David Beckham" factor, if you will.

Put simply, people want a degree from Harvard or Yale. It doesn't matter if other universities are just as good or even better at actually providing an education- what people want is the word "Harvard" printed at the top of their degree certificate. This is extremely valuable, and everyone wants it. Meanwhile, Harvard is the only organisation in the word who are allowed to issue certificates with "Harvard" written on them.

So, you have intense demand, and extremely limited supply. Assuming you don't use the law to regulate the price in some way, market forces will dictate that the only way is up for that price. It becomes a straight out bidding war for a few thousand places for a few million potential applicants- which means the price will settle out at "the maximum that the 1000 richest applicants and their families can afford". Which is a lot.

(The "David Beckham" factor because, similarly, a top athlete is in high demand from all of the very rich sports team, and supply is extremely limited- there is only one David Beckham. Supply can't increase to meet demand, so you end up with athletes being paid terrifyingly high fees- the most that the richest team can afford).

In Britain, our university fees (for domestic students) are capped at £9,000 per year. This is the only thing stopping the same thing happening to Oxford/Cambridge/UCL/etc., and is a Good Thing. The only debate in the UK is whether £9k is too high and should be lowered, not whether caps should be removed and prices surrendered to the open market.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Whether you think this PR stunt exonerates Google of any blame for "things" or not, and whether you think charity is a suitable substitute for proper taxation or not, doesn't change the fact that a large injection of cash into "buses for poor young people" is obviously a good thing.

Perhaps it is cynical and we should be cynical. But hey, it's still a good outcome.

While I am no expert in Japanese law, I can tell you that in many jurisdictions there is a law on the books called "criminal negligence". I.e., doing something harmful when you should have known better.

I think "losing the key to the box containing $500m of customer money" would qualify for that.