Yep, good catch! I thought I was responding to a different post (the 1. 1. 3. list), and didn't notice the missing list order marks. Boy, do I need sleep, that's two glaring mistakes in one post.

I dug through the css for the page, and I think I've figured it out: in about 5 different places in the style markup there is a callout for list-style: none outside none; which, when turned off, re-enables the list markings. So someone deliberately and redundantly ensured that your (and my) numbering wouldn't show up on an ordered list. Unordered lists still get bullets, go figure.

Unfortunately, I hear too often about patent documents that fail to provide enough information for a typically skilled practitioner of the art to duplicate the result. Yeah, I know, [citation needed]; I don't have specific examples to give. What, though, is the difference between a patent document written in deliberately opaque language and a trade secret?

If patent applicants are actively working against the "share their discoveries" purpose of patents, then this benefit is also lost. Between the societal cost of patent litigation and the cost of distributed reverse-engineering of products sold, I'd prefer the reverse-engineering. Make reverse engineering explicitly legal, do away with patents, and I think we'd be much better off. It might encourage companies to retain their knowledgeable employees as a side benefit, too =P

Try clicking the subject line of the parent post, that works for me. If you're suggesting putting a button with similar function on every post (recursive collapse parent post?), I could get behind that, although I can see problems with it, too.

Here's what I saw when looking at the code as delivered to my browser:

<p>
            1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
        <br></br>
            1. a body of citizens organized for military service
        <br></br>
            3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
</p>

If you put ordered list tags into the comment box then slashcode must have stripped them and replaced them (poorly). I'm not interested in slogging through slashcode, but I'm up for a quick test. I'll post a simple list and see if it gets munched.

Raw HTML as entered:

<p>
    <ol>
        <li>item 1</li>
        <li>item 2</li>
        <li>item 3</li>
    </ol>
</p>

slashcode output:

1. item 1
2. item 2
3. item 3

Lots of extra space, but numbered properly. List tags appear intact. Can't reproduce, works for me. I'm sorry, that's the worst response to hear on a bug report, but I don't think I can help you.

The summary and its linked article are both unclear as to what "misconduct" is being discussed. Fortunately, clarity is available through the original paper:

The study is looking into why scientific papers are being retracted and what trends there are in the retractions.

It's too bad that the summary was so generic it could have meant anything from nosepicking to marital infidelity to fabricating data. This is an interesting topic, and it's sad that the frequency of fraudulent publications is increasing.

Well, that's what I get for trusting the wiki. As someone else mentioned already, these acronyms are unintelligible and meaningless anyhow, so pixel count FTW for sure.

The real question is how long will it take for software to catch up? I don't have room on my desk for a 60", 30" is much more likely for me. At 8k resolution that's going to either need intelligent scaling or really good eyesight. I'd prefer the intelligent scaling, but I've had bad experiences with making that work. Somehow telling the OS my dot pitch in pixels per inch isn't enough to make it Just Work (TM). I wish it would =(

With luck, though, I'll be able to convince my boss to spring for a wall mounted 60" like you're looking for if the price comes down enough >=]

I'm voting for "some other resolution entirely", because I'm hoping either QFHD (4K, 3840x2160) or UHD (8K, 7680x4320) will start being mass-manufactured on a large enough scale to drive down costs on high-resolution computer monitors. I'm earning a (-1, redundant) mod here, but it bugs me that ever since 1080p HDTVs (FHD) came out I could get 1920x1080 monitors for dirt cheap, but a second monitor to match my WUXGA (1920x1200) monitor is more expensive due to economies of scale.

Personally, I don't mind too much a 16:9 ratio, I just want more pixels on screen. So my new years' wish is that the marketers are successful at scamming the TV-buying populace into upgrading to 2x or 4x their current resolution so my next monitor upgrade will be both cheap and an upgrade...

Do you itemize your deductions? Have you ever altered your behavior over the course of a year in order to be eligible for a specific deduction at tax time? Declared your personal vehicle as being used for business purposes?

None of these things are immoral, all are legal, and none of them are required by law. At what point on the greyscale of "complex to implement" does tax avoidance become "shady"?

Ah, MBTI! I can play that game.
Actually, I thought you were self-identifying as ES?J since you were commenting judgmentally on the isolation and (presumed) theoretical nature of the other poster. Complaining about being confused for NT rounds out the profile to ESFJ. As Muad'Dib said, "What do you despise? By this you are truly known."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to pidgeonhole you; I think you're reading something into my post that I didn't intend to be there. I know that MBTI analysts say that the preferences described are static, and if that hurts your feelings, I'm sorry; please take it out on them, not me ;^)

All I intended with my post was to point out that divisiveness based on personality is counterproductive, and understanding that people can be different from you and still be good people is important. You and VortexCortex both seemed to be defensive about your styles of interaction, both of which are perfectly valid. Learning to accept others' preferences and accommodating them is well worth the effort, for everyone involved.

Of course, I may be offering advice where none is wanted; in which case I'll shut up and leave you alone.

Yes, and we call them Politicians/Salesmen.

All joking aside, extroverted realists and introverted dreamers both have a place in the world, as do extroverted dreamers (artists) and introverted realists (accountants). Please don't be offended when one of the introverts refuses to join in your watercooler chats about the latest sport results. It's not a judgement of your personal worth or of sport in general (OK, it might be a judgement about sport in general), some people simply don't put as much value on personal interaction as you do. It's possible to reach out to an introvert and become friends, but you need to give them some space - they find interaction tiring rather than energizing, and conversation without a useful purpose is a stressful burden on them. That doesn't make them a bad person, just different.

We'd all be a lot happier if we were to show each other a bit more mutual respect.

I find your ideas fascinating, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I'll have to look up this program and see if it's appropriate for myself and a couple of my children. How did you hear about it, and what kind of results have other participants been able to achieve?

Seriously, please submit a Slashdot article describing your experience when it's through; I'd love to read about your successes, and it would be better "news for nerds" than a lot of stuff posted recently.

It's funny that you used the Fiesta as your counterpoint; Ken Block doesn't seem to mind pitting his Fiesta against Porches in rallycross events. I think this strengthens your analogy - not every car is built for drag racing, you've got to use it for what it was intended.

This may be the first time I've been presented with that problem. It first struck me as a paradox like the one where I count my fingers forward from 1 on one hand and backward from 10 on the other, then add 5+6=11 to say I have eleven fingers. After scribbling a bit here's what I've come up with:

Net change of money:
Owner: +$25
Waiter: +$2
Cust1: -$9
Cust2: -$9
Cust3: -$9

This all balances out, the sum of those values is zero (+27-27=0). Adding the +$2 to the -$27 to get $29 is wrong, and not (in my opinion) a problem with useless data but instead with sloppy equation prep. The other distraction is comparing it to the $30 they all paid originally; a better question seems to be "Where did the $5 change go?" The answer to that is obvious, $2 went to the Waiter, $3 to the customers. The paradox all seems to come from the confusion of money paid vs money refunded and not keeping signs straight.

Sorry if I'm coming across as a wet blanket here! Incidentally, my wife hates it when I get all mathy on stuff like this; she'll have the right answers to household budget questions by the time I've finished figuring out which columns to put things in. I just like clearly understanding why my math works out right instead of going on my gut; it keeps me from asking questions like the one posed in your paradox =)