Einstein is famous for more than just Relativity stuff. He got a Nobel Prize for some work in Quantum Mechanics (explained the photo-electric effect). He may also be famous for popularizing the use of "thought experiments" in physics --he's certainly famous for thinking of some very insightful thought-experiments, that guided his mathematical efforts. And he is certainly famous for promoting the notion that all aspects of the physical universe can be described by a few fundamental equations (even though the notion is still waiting to be proved true).

A handkerchief might still be needed, even for a petite sneeze. And I know for a fact that not every sneeze is necessary; Google for [ sunlight sneeze ] (brackets represent search box) to find out about how, for some folks, a sneeze can be triggered by nothing more than a change in light levels. I can also tell you (from experience) that sometimes a petite sneeze is inadequate, and a second sneeze might happen right after the first. It turns out, though, that multiple petite sneezes can be as effective (but less physically painful) than a full-fledged ordinary sneeze.

There is a much better alternate way to reduce a sneeze. Anyone paying attention will first notice an "about to sneeze" situation, and one aspect of that is an inhalation of air. All you need to do is close your throat to cut short the full inhalation. This can result in some temporary discomfort as your body continues to try to get air into the lungs, but the discomfort only lasts a moment because, after all, you are about to sneeze! Only now, because you restricted the amount of air involved, the actual sneeze can be legitimately described as "petite" --you won't have any reason to try to stifle it.
Regarding how to "close your throat", some practice might be useful. Start by saying "Ahhhhhhh", and attempt to break it into sections using throat muscles only (no tongue or lips). Once you are confident you can do that at will, you are ready --if you think of it fast enough-- to make all your sneezes petite.

Before you design a core, you need to specify an assembly-language instruction set. Here is one, with main features of 64-bit addressing and 128-bit data-processing registers (and 128 bits of data at every single address, instead of 8), which was declared Public Domain (last paragraph) back in 2001. Ahead of its time, it is now easily possible to build, and perhaps, because of progress in inventing new instructions since that time, should be upgraded to 256-bit data-processing (while still using 64-bit addressing, because we can expect to not need more than that for a couple more decades). Enjoy!

I just want to point out that human excrement counts as natural fertilizer, too. In some places it has been used for that purpose for thousands of years.

Even if the components of an alloy can be identified, that doesn't mean the alloy was one of those made on Earth. For example, aluminum and iron cannot be alloyed on Earth because of different densities of the two metals. But they can be alloyed in space, microgravity, just fine. Except no Earthlings are doing anything like that....

My email client is set to disallow the running of JavaScript. I'm sure that if I'm mistaken, that that prevents the active content of an email from getting acted-upon, folks here will be glad to correct me of that error.

This might be a good time to mention dwolla dot com. A couple years ago they were offering an easy way to do small transactions with no fees at all. They might still be doing it, although they are not now advertising it as obviously as they were back then. So for anyone interested, it could be worth looking into.

NOT all Windows versions. I have a machine with Win 3.1 on it, that does not have NTFS.

The problem is as obvious as the last sentence in the main article above. All content needs to be available by an advertisement-supported model, essentially making it cost nothing (but some time) to the viewers. Most viewers don't suffer from the "time is money" attitude to the extent that they would prefer to obtain pirated ad-free content --and they generally won't suffer from that attitude if greedy content-providers reduce the amount of advertising associated with content, the older the content. In this day-and-age the delivery cost of existing content is very small, so once the production costs have been recovered from all sources (like movie tickets and pay-per-view and more), for a given item of content, only a few advertisements need be associated with the content, to continue to generate profits. It is that "few advertisements" which will eventually cause piracy to not be worth the effort.

Too much partisanship for enough folks to approve of that idea. What I think is more likely is, Tesla will soon be offering a line of rocket-powered cars....

The rescinding of net neutrality won't stop anyone from posting biased stuff, and therefore Pai's excuse regarding Twitter is utterly worthless. Also, note that because net neutrality has existed, there was nothing Twitter (or any other biased source) could do to prevent negative feedback from arriving. You can bet that if net neutrality is rescinded, biased sources will be happy to prevent unwelcome feedback from arriving.

The generic idea (different "liquid" specified) was posted on the internet back in 2001. Here.

That's not what the other poster meant. One of the recent revisions/extensions of copyright law was called the "Mickey Mouse Law", because it allowed Disney to keep MM under copyright, instead of that character getting liberated into the public domain.

Regarding the other issue, of companies streaming content with fees, an alternative that works is advertising. Major networks like ABC and NBC and CBS and Fox all offer their broadcast programs on the internet for some weeks after the broadcast, and those streamed programs are interspersed with advertisements, just like the broadcasts. When we think about ancient TV programs that are still in syndication, broadcast still with interspersed commercials, it should be obvious that any content-production company should be able to offer its content via streaming practically forever (well, at least until it finally enters the public domain), if it always added some interspersed advertising. The companies would never need to charge viewers fees, but their programs would still be making money. And only the most die-hard of pirates would insist they have some kind of right to view commercial-free content.. Most folks are used to commercials, after all!

It looks to me like they finally figured out a small part of something I wrote about more than a decade ago. Too bad I couldn't afford to patent it....