If I were to choose a child from a huge batch of zygotes, I'd want the one that's generally disposed to be happy - easy going, social, even tempered, and not too fussy growing up. But apparently, geneticists aren't working on identifying the genetic correlates of those traits, even though we know that they are just as heritable as intelligence.

I don't think that I'll have kids, but if I did, the thing I'd want most is that they grow up happy. I would work hard to make sure they grow up in an environment that encourages it. But genetics contributes a lot to happiness outcomes, and if I were offered well-tested genetic help, I wouldn't refuse it. Maxing out their intelligence would not be at all high on my list of priorities. Is this a weird attitude? I thought it was a kind of typical parent attitude, but apparently, geneticists have different ideas.

What's the incentive for Apple not to control every aspect of their user's experience, including the software they install?

They have a captive user base that insist that Apple can do no wrong, so why not get a cut for every paid piece of software installed on OS X? It works for iOS. I half expect to see a developer unlock for OS X, so that by default, you can't install anything on OSX that isn't from the App Store.

Adobe, Microsoft and the other big players will get on board. Because, being able to install your own software on your own machine is a security risk, and we can't have that. Instead, trust Apple to verify everything for you. That's the world we live in.

There is an official port of Graffiti for Android in Google Play.

The LCD version also has the advantage of not having parallax problems when reading. Different heights of drivers look at the dials from different angles and if the needles are, say, a millimeter in front of the backing, different readings result. The fuel gauge when close to empty is one case where this can make a difference.
(Personally I prefer numerical gauges: I all faster with numbers than interpolation, and I prefer to look at speed on the GPS than the dashboard.)

Remember that these were the most obvious 700, the ones that are visible even in a smallish study (250,000 subjects). And these only got us 20% of the way to explaining the genetic components of height. I doubt that the next 700 we find will get us anywhere close to another 20%, because the genes left undiscovered have effects that are so small that they were invisible to this study. Somehow, the remaining 80% of the genetic contribution to height is made up of such genes. That means many thousands of genes are involved. Remember also that there are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome.

Somehow it sounds cool to have a flying car, but kinda stupid to have a driving plane. This was an observation made by Tyler Cowen on his blog. It's a good point. It reminds me of a survey of priests that emphatically showed priests are ok with praying while smoking, but not with smoking while praying.

When I install Windows, I work hard to set up everything exactly as I like on install day. Then I make a backup of the OS partition - which has only programs, no photos, videos, etc. - using Acronis TrueImage. Then I proceed as normal, and when something gets screwed up, I just restore from backup. This completely undoes any effects of winrot, and the system immediately feels like it was installed that day. What I usually do then is update my applications and settings, and immediately make a new backup. A full restore takes about 4 minutes, and a backup with max compression takes something like 12. I find this so convenient that I use no antivirus. When I start to suspect that I may have installed malware, I just restore from a backup, and four minutes later, my system is perfect. I've been doing this since Win2K days, and if this method weren't available to me, I wouldn't be using Windows.

My experience in studying Medical Informatics is that they had no idea on how to create an ecosystem. Firstly, they were wrongly insistent on the need for everything to be coded. Take a look at things like SNOMED and LONIC as an example.

HL7 is a completely over engineered mess and it's a standards process driven by too many doctors and other health professionals and way too few computer scientists. It tries to capture the process of health care as a protocol. Completely wrongheaded. By the way, I worked on the UML 2.0 standard committee, which I think is reasonable by comparison to HL7, which is a major user of UML. Let that sink in.

HIPAA also has completely outdated and overly complex requirements as well. It was well intended, but it needs replacement. The law standardized technology, not requirements and that's a mistake.

Epic is a total mess. A local hospital system in my state adopted it and (surprise), it was horribly over-budget and there are still issues. And it's legacy code out of the box. It's all based on MUMPS and bits and pieces hacked on top of it.

Overall, the main problem is insisting that the problem be solved all at once, versus step by step. Step one, establish a system for identification for health providers and patients. This includes a system to get a identity of a patient via known data while providing a high level of confidence that the requestor of information is a health provider. Solve this, and then you can start talking about interchange. And start simple. Forget highly coded documents. Exchange vital history, procedure history, problem list and notes. That's it. Then move forward based on actual user demands.

Frankly, Clinton had the right idea with the national health id. If we could create an ID that everybody had that was only used for medical identification, that'd be great. But I doubt that'll happen, so we will be stuck with a huge data deduplication problem.

It's not easy, but it's more doable than people think. And heck, open source as a means of standardization is a fine part of this equation that is completely ignored.

A fair point. I was thinking the Android price point was more around 69-79. Clearly I haven't been shopping extensively.

Sure, it's fine to be skeptical, but it's easy to verify (or not). You don't think Windows has a big enough market that people won't analyze every bit of traffic that comes out of the next OS?

Plenty of programs have had that customer experience improvement program opt-in for a while. I haven't seen anything that suggests that you really can't opt out of it, that data is sent anyway. I'm sure that if somebody found evidence of that, we'd hear about it instantly.

Sure, it may be required as part of installing the technical previews (but even that's not clear). How it works in the release, who knows. I agree that the best move would be not to have it at all in the RC or RTM builds, but that's not impossible or even unlikely.

This isn't a port. It's streaming the application. It is actually running on their cloud, so you could do the same on Linux, Windows, whatever.

This is just another part of them moving to a cloud-based model. No big deal.

I guess Microsoft's plan to charge nothing for small screen form factors is having a bit on a effect. Even 20 bucks would be a significant impact on that price. At that price, there'd be enough people to see if you get a Linux distro on it, and it's close enough to cheap android levels.

For me, it's cool, because I'm more versed in Windows development and since it's full Windows, I can easily install whatever the heck I want on it (no developer unlock, etc, etc). Save up, get a few and just have them around the house.

The way the rule is stated and repeated in modern culture is a vast oversimplification, and so a critique is fine. As some have noted, the argument was also about the "ability and drive" to put in the 10,000 hours. Certainly, individual factors do play a role. The only reason this is controversial is when people try to apply it to certain populations, where there is no evidence for that at all (in fact, plenty to the contrary). The article itself notes this.

But, it does raise a question: Are there skills require innate abilities to truly master, and if so, what are they and how do they differ from those that don't? There is evidence to suggest that the former is true.

This rule is often linked to how to be successful, but the studies have all been on skills that have no direct links to financial success. Brilliant musicians don't get paid well by default. Chess players aren't sport stars. Artists struggle.

I am curious if programming is a skill that does require an innate mindset to truly master (I do believe these skills do exist), or if it just a skill that demands disciplined practice. I've seen no evidence either way, so anything would be speculation on my part.