There tend to be three levels you can buy in the UK. The least common is 'Third party only', which only covers your liabilities to other people. Next you get 'Third party fire and theft', which does what you'd expect. Last is fully comprehensive which covers everything including making good your losses even if there's no third party to pay out.

The stuff Cray used was a fluorocarbon liquid. 3M make it under the name Fluorinert, last time I looked it was a couple of hundred quid a litre.

I think you need to have confidence in yourself and believe that you can do something. But then you need to do the actual work, solve the problems, work for success. To me, there is a difference between fantasizing about success and believing in your ability to achieve it.

In other words, I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV. That's positive thinking combined with realism and the willingness to do what you have to do.

I guess this article is here because I'm supposed to care what Ballmer thinks, or that his ravings are somehow important or influential.

Sorry, but I don't, and they're not.

I question whether most employers really want critical thinkers. What they really want are sheep. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large, what's really wanted in Corporate America?

And are employers willing to pay for critical thinkers? I don't think so.

I have often wondered if some kind of boredom conditioning could help with gambling addiction.

My idle thought is based on experience my brother and I had about a decade ago while undergraduates. Around this time the online casino business was extraordinarily competitive and they were offering rather large incentives to sign up and play. At this time, although not any more, the terms and conditions of these bonuses were such that you could claim them, wager the minimum amount they mandated and withdraw a large proportion of the free money they had given you. Of course, to be profitable, you had to play a very short list of games with a low house edge and stick absolutely rigidly to the optimum playing strategy.

Over one summer this was our 'job'. Between us we gambled a cumulative total of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even accounting for various sites where we wrote software to do it for us, we played more blackjack than the vast majority of people ever will in their lives. To start with it was very exciting as the variance ensures a rollercoaster of upswings and downswings. By the end it was just another massively boring data entry job as we'd seen regression to the mean work its magic so many times. Neither of us ever wanted to see a casino game ever again.

ITER doesn't actually exist yet. I think this is based on lessons from JET, the previous generation tokamak.

The MOAB equivalent yield is 11 tons, not 11 kilotons.

And, boy, are his arms tired!

I am a physicist. I strongly disagree with your view that the methodology is sound.

The measurement methodology for the 'power out' was not the way I would do it. It effectively comes down to measuring the temperature of the 'reactor', in air, and applying calculations. Temperature is measured via an IR camera. It is filled with many ways that they could mislead themselves. I have personally used such a camera to measure surface temperatures in a high power density accelerator target and it is far from a straightforward enterprise. Why not just load the whole thing into a bomb calorimeter? That's the immediately obvious way to measure what they want to measure.

They do not adequately describe their power input. They start out with 3 phase. There's some kind of power supply box in the chain before the resistors. Who supplied this box? More details on what's actually measured as 'input power' is required. Is a circuit diagram too much to ask for?

The isotope data would be compelling. However, it's clear from the paper that Rossi handled the fuel at loading, removal and possibly at points in between. Substitution would have been trivial.

No radiation was observed. LENR, cold fusion, whatever you want to call it where no radiation is emitted is completely incompatible with all known nuclear physics. The idea that it doesn't violate any known physical laws is nonsense.

I work in BNCT research and some guys from GT advance have presented at a couple of recent conferences. Of interest to us was their 'hyperion' (yes, like Borderlands) accelerator they'd been developing. Huge amounts of beam current from a fairly compact and easily maintained package. They were planning on using it to peel off very thin layers of sapphire via ion implantation, we could use it as the first stage of a neutron generator and I'm sure there are tons of other industrial applications. The senior guys I met seemed very good - proper engineers with the minimum of marketing bullshit. I think they'll do ok even if this is a pretty major set back.

Think of it as a stealth mode startup seeking to disrupt the living paradigm.

You don't understand. It is politically correct to tie this to global warming.

I've at times put forward this very simple argument.

Take someone who is, for whatever reason, fully grown but only four feet tall. This person can practice and practice at basketball, and maybe become very good at it, but is not going to be the center on an NBA team. 10,000 hours of practice won't make him tall enough to be competitive.

I think it's politically correct to say that "anyone can be anything they want if they work hard enough" but it simply isn't true, and TFA says as much.

People are different as one look at a crowd will instantly show you. And that's just fine as long as you don't start saying that these differences justify limiting or increasing basic human rights because of those differences.

Some people are smarter than others. Some people are taller than others. Some people are better at music than others. What else is new?

Yes, Windows 8 has definitely demonstrated awesome superiority and everyone loves it.