I haven't kept up, but TRON used to be the dominant embedded OS. Has it fallen by the wayside, and if so, what's replacing it?

True for the whole body, but fat is only about 10% water. Adipose tissue will have a higher water content due to contained blood supply, and water content of the fat cells goes up if the person is in the process of losing weight during a diet. But generally speaking, fat is about 10% water in people.

And we could store carbon on our bodies.
6 billion people gaining an easily attainable 100 pounds each would store 300 million tons. Most of that mass would be carbon.
Every bit helps, I'm sure.

On another note, the article shows people planting trees in a field next to a forest. You don't have to do anything except stop mowing the fields. The trees will fill it in on their own.
Oh, and kill all the elephants. They eat trees.

As for the trees decaying and returning the carbon to the atmosphere, all we have to do is regularly paint the dead trees to keep them from decaying. A layer of tar might work even better.

It's not for credit cards, blackmail, or targeted advertising or any of that small potato stuff.
It's for filing fake claims to insurance companies and medicare.
This is already a 100 million dollar/year business.

Or, you could look up the definition of the word "pioneer".
Here you go: "among the first or earliest to enter a new field of inquiry, Enterprise, or progress."
Bill Gates and Microsoft clearly meets that definition regarding the personal computer

As other people have pointed out, Occam's razor does NOT apply in International Politics.
It's a good tool, but it's the wrong tool for this job.

I do know what ddos means, but I'd really really like to have a plastic monocle.
Can you fix me up?
Thanks,
Kim

From the linked article:

This is everything you need to know to raise a really interesting child.

Looks like Amazon was being dumb.
The problem was not too many hyphens, but rather that there were no hyphens. He had used the minus sign and that breaks some text-speech readers.
Graeme has already fixed it.

This is Graeme's blog telling the story, the problem, and the fix.
https://graemereynolds.wordpre...

Good point - I didn't mean to suggest that rear end crashes are nothing to worry about - Indeed they can be serious. Whiplash is the cause of thousands of paralyzed people every year. I was only pointing out the relative frequency of serious injury in my experience comparing rear-enders to t-bones.

FWIW, I have driven SoCal traffic and it does indeed sux. My previous employer put me in a West Covina motel to commute almost into L.A. for 1-2 months every year for many years.
I commuted across Atlanta for several years as well. Comparing the two, I find that Atlanta has a much higher level of ass-holeitude on the Interstates than L.A area, but, and I can't say why, I think the Valley's traffic is more unpleasant. Maybe I'm comparing a-holes to morons.

Cuba is larger than Hungary, or Austria, or Portugal, or Ireland to name a few.

I say give them Comcast! If they don't all hate us now, then they soon will.

So the article says rear-end went up 22% and T-bone went down 47%. You have to be suspicious whenever you see a news article that says x went down by y%.
per cent of what? What were the base numbers?

Here's some example situations to show why I say that.

suppose before red light camera we had 100 rear-end crashes and 10,000 t-bone crashes at the intersection (all with injuries)
suppose after red light, we have 122 rear-end crashes and 5,300 t-bone crashes. That's 22% rear-end up and 47% t-bone down
But, the total number of injuries dropped 4,678. That's good isn't it? Redlight cameras must be great!

Or, suppose this:
before red-light camera, 10,000 rear-end and 100 t-bone w/injury
after red-light camera: 12,200 rear-end and 53 t-bone w/injury again, 22% increase in rear-end and 46% decrease in t-bone.
so we had an increase of 2,153 injuries total. Oh my, red-light cameras are killers, aren't they?

I used a wide disparity in the numbers to make my point: you cannot make a useful comparison between percent changes in numbers of two different measurements without knowing the base numbers. That is covered in your freshman "Lying with Statistics 101" class.

So, I read the article in the Tribune (it's free if you give them your email address and live out-of-zone)
If you read the Tribune article (and the accompanied "How the Red Light Camera Study was Done" you may come away with a quite different view than the slashdot summary or the ArsTechnica summary. The Tribune article is not as ridiculous as the slashdot summary.

The article does indeed have some raw numbers:
Quoted from the Tribune:
"In raw numbers at the 90 intersections included in the study, the researchers concluded the cameras prevented as many as 76 right-angle crashes and caused about 54 more rear-end injury crashes. The study said that without the red light cameras about 501 angle crashes would have occurred and only 425 were reported. It also said that there were 296 rear-end injury crashes, and there would have been only 242 had the cameras never been installed."

I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash.
If you give me a choice between trading 76 t-bones crashes for 54 rear-end crashes, I'd take those numbers. As many other posters have observed, t-bone crashes are much more likely to result in serious injuries and deaths than rear-enders.

The two Tribune articles also covers some of the crookedness associated with Chicago's use of the cameras. They are both a good read and covers a lot of why you should be careful about these numbers and problems associated with the data.

Do you happen to know if they're hiring?

Probably not,
I may be wrong, ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ) but the spermatogonium you start out with duplicate themselves through your life and the only mutations come from copy errors during the mitosis and meosis stages; toxic chemicals, radiation and so on.

I don't believe the methylation of DNA in muscle (or any other) cells can migrate to the spermatogonium. Nor can any other DNA change that occurs elsewhere in the body migrate into the reproductive cells.