Possibility 3 isn't a "contributing factor", it is the only factor for which there is any evidence. Only a few percent of US graduate students in computer science are black, an even smaller percentage go on to do a Ph.D. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that there is bias against any minority in Silicon Valley. In SV, companies go out on a limb to get anybody who is qualified; the idea that they'd reject someone because if their skin color is ridiculous.

Don't worry, the US Congress rarely gives a damn about what people in other countries think. And neither should they; that's not what they get elected for.

No search warrant was obtained. They couldn't even prove probable cause when they attempted to get a warrant, so they found a loophole. Anything else?

Well, so it's up to Congress to close that loophole... or not. Until they do, that's the law. Whenever that may happen, it will probably be too late for the Icelandic MP.

So if they rule that the data must be kept private, how exactly are they planning on enforcing that ruling? I suppose the Council of Europe could use rude language, but... wait, they are doing that already.

Apple markets the iPhone 4S extensively featuring the "Dual Core A5" chip, and before that the "Retina" display. Apple uses technobabble when it suits them. Of course, they are usually behind on specs so they downplay them.

Of course, if you look at the Samsung Galaxy SII page, there is less technobabble than for the iPhone marketing. It talks about the stunning display, fast downloads, wireless sharing, voice talk, and apps. No technobabble.

http://www.samsung.com/us/microsite/galaxysII/

This persistent accusation against Apple competitors is itself an Apple marketing gimmick... and a lie.

(Of course, the Samsung is also a much better phone than the iPhone 4S, at a lower price.)

It's because Android devices are marketed for nerds, by nerds.

The entire marketing department of a dozen different phone manufacturers is supposed to be nerds? It is nerds that are supposed to be responsible for putting out the vapid, shallow Motorola commercials? However, the source of this "it is nerds" refrain is quite clear: it's Apple's marketing department. They are trying to portray Apple as the "easy-to-use solution for the rest of us" while painting everybody else as being run by nerds for nerds. Really, man, stop being such a stupid Apple tool and stop doing their marketing for them.

The iPhone ad shown in the article is actually perfect. It answers why, it shows what you can do and it doesn't go on and on about things users don't directly care about, like processor speed.

And that's why Apple keeps touting their specs on the rare occasion where they are actually ahead? Retina display?

And the "answers" Apple gives are largely lies: lies about capabilities that their products are supposed to have and others don't, lies about who invented those capabilities, and lies about freedoms and future developments.

She didn't claim "linkage", she claimed causation. And that is nutty.

I wonder how much of the good baroness's success results from taking politically expedient "scientific" positions based on very limited data.

I don't have a problem with the fact that Apple defends its IP.

I don't have a problem with Apple defending their IP. The problem is that Apple takes other people's IP, claims it as their own, and then starts suing over it. And they have been doing that since the 1980's.

Most of the research that forms the basis for Siri was done as part of the DARPA Calo project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALO

The technology used in Siri is mainstream and Google has lots of experts working on those areas. Few or the people involved at that are now at Apple. There are probably more ex-Calo contributors at Google than at Apple.

It seems like Apple shills are busy talking up their investments; Morgenthaler was involved in the Siri spin-out and probably has lots of Apple stock now.

Even the Galileo affair (which by the way disproves your assertion the Catholic Church *never* explicitly recants a position) can be better understood in the context of ecclesiastic politics.

Yes, that is exactly how one can understand it. And that means that Catholicism can't have it both ways. It can't say we proclaim divinely inspired, eternal, universal truths, and then say "oh, we were wrong on that one, we are just human, but we are right on all the other issues, really!".

Since Catholicism has failed numerous times to take the morally or scientifically right position--often causing great harm and suffering in the process--its positions on issues like health care, abortion, sexuality, and social justice is worthless and should be treated as such. If they are right, they are right by chance, no more.

Clear, unambiguous, and as far as I can tell, incorrect.

I addressed that in my quotes; read them carefully. The Pope is saying basically the same thing.

If you didn't know about the church, then you may possibly enter heaven even if you weren't a member, provided you do everything right by accident.

If you deliberately choose not to join, then you go to hell. (When you hear the statement "you will all go to hell unless you join our church", you naturally know about the church.)

(And even this loophole is a deviation for long-standing dogma; see the Divine Comedy.)

It's still all how you turn a phrase. You can make dogma sound like a bid for world domination easily by simply importing motives to that dogma that may or may not exist.

I think "you will all go to hell unless you join our church" is pretty clear and unambiguous.

At best, you are making a case for a serious reform of the Catholic Church

"Join our church or go to hell" is not subject to reform, it is the defining dogma of Catholicism. That is why the church is called "catholic", i.e., "universal".

In other words, in the current mindset with current attitudes, God as outlined by dogma may seem like a gigantic asshole. Anyone who makes that case convincingly in a debate is probably going to seem to win. Anyone who makes belief seem ridiculous will also win rhetorically (ie. "imaginary friend", "flying spaghetti monster", etc.). But none of that actually proves the truth of the assertion.

"God" isn't "outlined" by dogma, "God" is a proper noun defined by Christian, Jewish, and Islamic dogma. The term "God" is also used by deists. We don't need to debate whether deism is compatible with science, it obviously is. But that's not what Haught was arguing, he was arguing that the Abrahamic God and Abrahamic religion is compatible with science.

. For the US to actually have a law that removes any aid to the rest of the world when a particular entity is recognized seems downright childish,

The UN is a voluntary association of nations, and nations make voluntary contributions to it. If they stop serving US interests, of course the US should withdraw from them and stop paying for them.

what also seems to be implied in this law is the assumption that the US has such a powerful position in these bodies that this response will affect the foreign policy of other sovereign nations in the future.

Of course it is. The US spends a lot of money both on the UN and on the US military, and Americans expect that other nations come in line with US policies and interests in return. If other nations don't like it, they can spend their own money to advance their own policies.

The only difference I see is that one for the most part attempts to follow the law (or probably more correctly make it look that way) while the other couldn't care less. I have pretty reasonable guarantees neither are looking out for my best interests (or my interests at all).

Of course, corporations are not interested in helping you; they are interested in making a profit. That is what they way they are supposed to function. And as long as they do that within the laws and boundaries we, as a society, set them, that is a good thing.

When economies are run in a way in which entities try to look out for the best interests of the people, that's called socialism or communism. It seems like a good idea and sounds good, but it just doesn't work in practice.

facts are facts, science is compatible with whatever is transcendent by definition of both science and transcendent

But Catholicism isn't (just) transcendent, it makes very real claims about the real world, claims that are objectively wrong. It is those aspects of Catholicism that are at issue in these debates, and those aspects have real-world consequences, from the Crusades to world hunger, Proposition 8, and the spread of AIDS.

Is the Catholic encyclopedia good enough for you?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned"

it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ

Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold.

In short, if you know about the Catholic church and you refuse to join it, you can't go to heaven and instead suffer eternal damnation (hell, limbo, purgatory).

As for recruitment, that's the purpose of the Catholic church: to "spread the gospel of Jesus Christ", which the Catholic church defines as including the universality of the Catholic church itself.