>Does anyone even use full-screen apps?

Yes... on laptops. This is something I've observed watching my own customers work with software -- on desktop machines, few things are truly maximized. On laptops, nearly everything is maximized. I think it has to do with screen real estate. The more you have, the less likely you are to want to fill the whole thing with one window.

Making the green button work to maximize is probably the right choice for the smaller devices. If they want a consistent UI across all devices, that's the right call given the prevalence of smaller devices.

It makes the behavior match MS Windows... I doubt Apple considered this a plus, but I work back and forth across both OSes regularly, and that's one of the few kinks that has caught me.

> At least Apple should put a toggle in system preferences so the user can revert the behavior.

Yes, that would be nice. I agree. But that is explicitly what Apple does not do and what they generally consider to be A Bad Idea. Such toggles lead to low-use code paths in the OS, which means they don't get nearly the same amount of testing and they increase the complexity of the underlying software, increasing the risk of bugs in both settings. I've encountered that philosophy in many companies with large scale software -- better to leave out the option and give people something that you know works rather than put in the option and increase your bug risk.

Question: Does anyone know of actual studies done to demonstrate validity of such philosophy? I've heard it described many times, but I don't think I've ever heard any research into it.

One of the ethical questions (and there are multiple here) is with discarding embryos after they are created. Do we have the technology to filter the sperm and eggs before creating the embryos to achieve the same effect? Or do you need the whole genome together to make a good evaluation? Filtering ahead of time would alleviate some of the abortion concerns with such technologies.

I take it this statistician has not read Asimov. By announcing the prediction, you void the prediction. He should have put his program in a certified sarcophagus and then revealed after the show that he had correctly predicted it. Otherwise George R. R. Martin will just use his results as a reason to adjust the script!

Parent is correct. No user input is needed. Just the shell call.

The bug is 25 years old at least. Pre-dates the existence of GIT and most other source code control software in use today. I have no idea what SCC would've been used 25 years ago. To give perspective -- this bug predates the WWW by at least a year.

There's likely a lot of data behind the under reporting statistic. I'm not familiar enough with this particular data set, but for other diseases, after the fact, we can find out how many people died and we can survey to find out how many became sick. Once the scare is gone, this data is much easier to collect. The result is that we can back trace to figure out the under reporting originally. Then you can use that figure to make a better estimate the next time.

As I say, I don't know enough about this data set to comment on probable validity of the 2.5 factor, but I'm willing to bet that there is data leading them to use that number and not some other.

I disagree. My company is an engineering firm that provides tools to other engineering firms. As such, when I visit customers, I am frequently going into engineering workplaces. The number who require suits/formal attire is vanishingly small. So I think that squizzar is correct in his (her?) attitude: no one in a tech role really has to put up with a formal dress code if they do not want to. There are plenty of jobs for engineers, at least in the USA, even in this economy, and an employer who puts a dress code up as a barrier to employment is more likely to find themselves without top-tier talent than the top-tier talent is likely to find themselves without a job. So it really is the employer who needs to change their attitude.

> That no legal content may be blocked; and

FrankDrebin is right. That's quite a loophole. Make a note of that, everyone, and include objections to it in your e-mails.

Still wouldn't help (see my previous comment on why the HTML tag doesn't work). Embedded tags can be modified, which means they cannot be trusted to assert the rights usage of an image. I could tag one of your images as CC... that doesn't make it actually CC. You cannot know that an image is CC or any other license unless you talk to the original license holder. What you have to have is a central registry, curated by humans, where someone can upload an image and certify "this is my image" and that database is in trusted hands. It has to be a place where risk mitigation is done by identifying the real world names of the artist and registering their particular images. That's what makes the various image service groups so valuable... without them, the legwork involved in proving origin is huge.

Doesn't work. Just because I tag your image as CC doesn't make it CC. You have to know the origin of an image. That means a ubiquitous search of the Internet to find the original posted source -- possibly through several contortions. That's the problem with using anything other than a curated database of images. It takes some significant leg work to prove who has the right to release a particular Internet image for licensing.

The only thing that a tag does is simplify the search engine front end for who you might possibly contact to see if they can prove they're the copyright owner.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ha...
China embedding chips in electric kettles and using the other appliances in the home to pry into home networks on the off chance that you're someone worth hacking.

Beyond that, hacking someone's fridge is a great way to be irksome to someone you don't like -- I've come home to a failed fridge after a week-long trip and it is definitely not pretty.

This app is NOT paying for information. This is paying someone to hold the spot for you until you show up -- allowing those with higher financial status to take advantage of the common resource of parking spaces instead of leaving them open to someone who happens to be in the area looking for a parking space. "I won't leave until I get enough money to make it worth my while to leave" is holding the public resource hostage.

It isn't a problem to link. The problem is *how* you link.
If you provide a link on your page that a user can click on to go to Twitter/Facebook/G+ and the URL embeds a pre-written "I'd like to tell you about XYZ..." then it is going to go through just fine. If the page pulls an image from Twitter/Facebook/G+ servers in order to draw that link, thus creating a tracking event for those services, then it is going to be flagged by the tool, and the image might at some point be scrubbed if the tool decides that it is being used to track across websites.

AC: It's not an invocation of "quantum god-head" to state the fact that quantum behaviors are observed in our sensory and perception organs and that we probably need a better conception of quantum mechanics to match some of the computation aspects of human beings.

Dinkypoo: We don't know if there is anything special about the brain and its particular computation structure, but we're making progress on a lot of fronts very rapidly. I think the summary of the long post is that *thus far* nothing about the brain chemistry has stood out as fundamentally unsupportable by silicon and other forms of computation. And even if we have to maintain quantum states to achieve sentient machines, that doesn't mean that we necessarily will have to do it in the same way that the brain chemistry does. I think that's the main thesis of the long post and that it holds, even when considering the observed quantum effects.