Obamacare has already insured many more people, as it was designed to do.

Now show me where Obamacare has not done what it was designed to do. Or just stop posting purely ideological made-up propaganda.

Optimal decision making about everyone's life is not graded on the content of the decision as much as on its acceptance by everyone. That's why democracy is the best system yet tried: it depends on the consent of the governed.

No, they said nothing about everyone who disagrees with their politics. Nor did they say that single-party rule is best. Yours is the savory troll food known as a strawman argument.

What they said was that of the two parties we actually have, the Democratic Party does things to improve democracy. The Republican Party is blatantly anti-democratic, whether in funding by (and for) a few of the richest people, or in stopping people from voting if they're probably not voting Republican.

In reality, what they said is true. In Republican fallacyland, you're still just a savory troll.

OK: You're a communist.

And an idiot.

So you blindly voted for whatever crook was opposed by the people who actually work in your local government. You've proved Republicans don't need their disintegrating party: you only care about what you imagine are liberals.

Offer every rich one all the entitlements you can possibly give them, when they cannot be afforded. Talk about RMoney fiddling while the US burns.

Of course you can't find a more "Conservative" country to move to. Except maybe Somalia - oh, wait, too Black for Republicans.

Thanks for playing through your entire post, demonstrating how Republican parrots like you live entirely in a fantasy world. Where each of you is a dictator.

It's a horribly corporatist troll. Commercial tech is nothing but good, because it makes people's lives better "without opposition". Political tech is bad because there's opposition, or because it doesn't fix everything. What a load of CXO worshipping propaganda.

In this case the prosecutors and justice system were incompetent to prove this person was the killer.

In other cases they're incompetent to tell that the prosecutors and justice system have failed to prove the person was the killer.

When we execute convicted people there is no chance to catch the errors that are executing people who are not guilty. Not guilty people are killed because the system isn't adequate to execute only the guilty.

We shouldn't execute people, because we're not really sure that we're killing someone who's guilty.

How many actual criminals has the TSA actually caught? People who would actually have done any harm if the TSA hadn't caught them?

How many of them would have been caught with methods that don't violate everyone going through an airport?

The answer is probably that the benefit is very small. Other than the benefit of $BILLIONS to security corps and a authority/fear culture that makes it easier to waste more $BILLIONS on abusing us.

The Liebowitz and Margolis article only considers typing speed. On that basis, it finds a lack of evidence that Dvorak is significantly faster, and substantial evidence that it is only slightly faster (on the order of 5%). More importantly, the article claims that the costs of switching would likely wipe out any gains:

There are several versions of the claim that a switch to Dvorak would not be worthwhile. The strongest. which we do not make, is that Qwerty is proven to be the best imaginable keyboard. Neither can we claim that Dvorak is proven to be inferior to Qwerty. Our claim is that there is no scientifically acceptable evidence that Dvorak offers any real advantage over Qwerty.

However, the article makes no mention of accuracy or repetitive strain. It does claim that Dvorak typists move their fingers shorter distances, which would seem likely to reduce strain. In the absence of anything more substantial, I'll fall back on personal experience.

I switched from Qwerty to Dvorak 20 years ago on a bet, and have typed Dvorak ever since. I agree with the article's assessment that it isn't a whole lot faster, probably less than 10%. It's probably also slightly more accurate, but I'm really not sure. However, I am convinced that it is much easier on the fingers. I simply don't suffer from the strain I used to with Qwerty. When I Have had to be bilingual, as it were, at a client site (sometimes for weeks at a time), I have recovered my speed with Qwerty - and the increased strain along withi it.

Liebowitz and Margolis's article is motivated by an economic argument that market entrepreneurs will tend to converge on superior technologies and standards. I am not an economist: but I am a social scientist with some expertise in how innovation is socially shaped, and I don't buy their larger argument. As a scholar, I would point to Trevor Pinch and Weibe Bijker's classic work on the development of the bicycle, and philosopher Andrew Feenberg's assessment that technologies do not succeed because they are efficient: they are efficient because they succeed. One of the best examples of this that I know of is the IBM PC, which even as it took over the market was in many ways technically inferior to its competition.

A big problem I see with the Liebowitz and Margolis argument is that they assume typing speed is the measure of technical superiority. In reality, technical debates are often all about which criteria are relevant. It may well have been that when Qwerty and Dvorak were developed market actors also took for granted speed was the correct criterion. But this is precisely the kind of assumption that locks technology into path dependence. Is it more important to maximize speed, or to minimize stress and injury? There is no single objective answer to such questions. One can only claim market efficiency by assuming an answer. Saying "the aggregate choices of market actors decide" is circular logic that avoids the issue - in which case, the evidence Liebowitz and Morgolis present about speed is irrelevant anyway.

Is there some way we can get the Google TV UI on an Android tablet? The entire GUI, not just the Google TV Remote Android app. How about more than just the UI, and actually stream TV from the Google TV box to the Android tablet.

X needs to be replaced with something the way Linux replaced Unix. X is full of old solutions to old problems, loads of features and methods that nobody (or hardly anybody) uses, is far too complex. It's stuck with an architecture and components slavishly oriented to the client/server pattern rather than distributed peers and meshes of servers for shared AV on multiple devices of very different power that people actually use.Android ditched X. We should replace it even on Linux with Skia, adding a multi-window extension and a widget that allows both X and Skia to display simultaneously. Until nobody uses X anymore.

Make these windows into objects that can be easily collected into groups, pipe data among them, flick them among networked machines (including public screens). A new infrastructure for the new, ubiquitous AV presentation we're running on mobile parallel supercomputers.

Is there a SDR project for Linux that implements some of the circuits in FPGA?

How about SDR where some of the RF analog is implemented in FPAA (analog array)?

Is this really "software-only defined radio"? Doesn't the radio need different hardware for different types of radios? Different antennas for different frequencies (and signal amplitude ranges in those frequencies)? Different analog for RF conditioning and glue from (different) antenna to logic?

Or maybe a single "multi-antenna" with generic RF analog circuits can serve any radio. Isn't that a lot more expensive?

If I want my receiver to do say WiFi right now, but switch to Zigbee later, and to Enocean after, and to Z-Wave later than that, and to 6Lowpan after that, can I start with just HW that does WiFi, and upgrade only SW over the next several years as the protocols are finalized? How about if later I want to switch among those radio types on demand, every few minutes (or milliseconds)?

So because one time you reported something you didn't notice any change, therefore nothing ever happens. Logic!