This is about iPS.

If you don't know, that's the umbrella term for all stem cells that are NOT derived from embryonic material. Effectively if you're against embryo-related stem cell research, but would like stem cell research itself to continue, iPS research is what you're going to be investing into. One of the main points of iPS research is about getting a cheap way to manufacture stem cells without having to extract them from an embryo.

Pretty much this. And frankly, even without NAT, you're still safe as long as your software firewall is functional.

Functionally, you need two things to infect a machine. A weakness you can exploit on target machine and a vector through which infection goes in. If you lock up the latter, having former doesn't matter.

Welcome to capitalism. Amen.

Well done. Not only are you in for the fines for illegal subletting, you're also in for a fraud charges.

You definition is not just idiotic - it's downright insane. Applied to both software and everything else actually.

"Why would I pay for Photoshop when I can have Gimp for free?"
"Why would I pay for a car when I can walk for free?"
"Why would I pay for a soft drink when I can get water for free from the tap?"

Paying often gets you something you wouldn't get from free option. Such as convenience, additional functionality and so on.

People are intolerant, regardless of their personal preferences. It's a tribal thing, prefer those who think like me, discriminate against those who have the opposing view.

It seems that many people actually assume that being gay makes for more tolerant people. I've been rolling in amateur level sports for a long time, and I've known gays and lesbians as they tend to congregate there, especially among women side of sports. In their ranks they have some of the least tolerant manhating lesbians who will stick a knife in your back just because you happen to be a man, and some of the most tolerant people who will not condemn even those among them who are anti-gay to the point of absurdity. In this case Internet has worked as a good echo chamber as usual, gathering the least tolerant bunch among gays for lynching.

Because that's what this thing was. Lynching by a lynch mob. Whether he was oppressing anyone in the workplace or not was wholly irrelevant to the lynch mob. What mattered was that they are going to get some blood.

On a completely disgusting note, can you image the fallout if there was a hounding like that because he happened to be pro gay marriage forcing him to resign?

That is a placebo. Positive psychosomatic effect is the proper medical term for "placebo".

And it's important to understand that some people are far more affected than others, and while your aunt's problems are psychosomatic, the symptoms are in fact real. I.e. if you see someone having a psychosomatic asthma attack, telling him it's just his imagination is not a good idea.

Thing is, it's very hard to predict the impact of psychosomatic knowledge on the patient because everyone reacts to knowledge differently. Some people can develop severe life-threatening asthma just from knowledge of the disease or at least exhibit its symptoms for example. It's important to note that even if patient is not actually asthmatic, the symptoms are REAL and can be life threatening requiring medical treatment.

Same thing in the opposite direction. Positive psychosomatic effect is often called placebo effect and is well researched. It's in fact so efficient, that medical studies have to have control groups in place just to differentiate between those who's condition improves from actually tested medication and those who's condition is improved from psychosomatic effect.

So you can certainly claim that there is no solid knowledge on this specific disease and effect of psychosomatic effect on it in either direction. But you cannot claim that it will not impact people with it - we already know that most medical conditions known to us are impacted by it. If you tried to present a study on the cure or symptom relief for any disease without control group for psychosomatic effect, you would be laughed out of the room, no matter how credible it would otherwise be.

As a result, you should always assume that psychosomatic effect will impact patients unless otherwise proved. This is widely accepted consensus in medical science today.

As population in US realises that many more of them can't get insurance, while the few that get insurance understand that they would likely get off much cheaper if they didn't have insurance, you'll likely see the push for universal healthcare using one of European models.

So I would suggest that beyond short term, this will likely be extremely destructive for private insurance companies.

This is false due to the problems that arise from psychosomatic influence if the knowledge.

Just knowing that you have a chance to be inflicted with illness will likely increase chance to get this illness, or at least some of its symptoms, causing the real problems.

This is why dispensing knowledge to patients is always difficult. Not only must doctor consider the illness itself, but also the psychosomatic effect of knowledge on the patient.

I suspect your opinion is formed on the basis of opinions of some people that simply do not have any understanding of the actual legal facts on the ground in either country. Your mentioning of Texas for example suggests that you have an opinion that Texas has a legal right to secede from US - a fairly common misconception about that particular state held in certain strata of society. It does not in fact have such a right, as it would be unconstitutional, as states do not have a legal right to secede from USA, unlike member countries of United Kingdom. In fact the only way it could possibly do that, is to have a pan-US vote on the issue, which would be very difficult to organise, and would almost certainly result in a rejection.

As a point of comparison, Scotland is setting a referendum in a few years, and all it needs for approval is majority of the residents of Scotland - rest of the Union has no say.

There are similar differences in legal, financial, linguistic, cultural and other aspects of society.

Crown dependencies are on the other hand not members of the Union, so they obviously don't count in the first place. Not certain why you chose to drag them into this.

SSD do much better when mated to a highly optimized controller that does a lot of background work tailored specifically to flash memory. OS has no idea about any of that - it just has some basic cache management and TRIM. It probably wouldn't either - this stuff is typically trade secret and the reason why SSD controllers are so important for performance of the drive.

Federal in United Kingdom?

What?

Do you even understand what United Kingdom is? It's a union of four nations. There is no "federation" in there. It's a union of nations of England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland.

These nations have far, FAR more independence than any state area in a federation would dream of.

Correct. They should. At the fair price.

And in perfect world a non-profit, probably government-financed organisation would build those and then lease them to private companies. That way no one has the stranglehold on competition and private business can actually flourish instead of being strangled by private monopolies with power to bully everyone, including law makers into doing what they want to be done.

Most likely they interrogated Snowden on the issue and got all his source materials.