Makes it sound "inconclusive"--that's not a great way of putting it. The test was a success from the perspective of the administration and a failure on the part of Gizmodo. Gizmodo surely wanted to prove that Trump's administration is as inept as the DNC, and it's clear that nobody fell for it.

I don't really care that Gizmodo did the test, though it seems like they were pretty dumb to go for it without checking on the legality first, but they should be punished in the court of public opinion for failing at a blatantly partisan attack.

Yes Yes

Next.

Yup, I think I'm going to join the masses and leave. This place sucks now. It's all clickbait and politics, and the summaries and comments of substance are long gone. Oh well.

Doctors are complicit here. I've had three try to prescribe me meds for my borderline high cholesterol. I've been healthy in every other way except for that my whole adult life, so there seems to be some kind of genetic issue I have with cholesterol.

Anyway, I saw the Harvard study that said that 2 oz of walnuts per day would lower bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. And you know what, after 6 weeks, IT DID. For the first time in my life I've had normal cholesterol.

Why did my doctors not know about this study? Or even worse, if they did know about it, why didn't they encourage me to try it?

I totally agree with you. However, even as a very conservative guy, I'm disappointed in this budget. Maybe it's just because I also happen to be a geek and don't mind the investment into science research.

Anyway, the main reason I'm disappointed is that cutting these things is like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. They don't actually change the financial health of the nation, fundamentally, though they are devastating to the agencies who are impacted by the cuts.

We need to make real changes. That means cutting defense by a ton. We can spend half of what we spend now and still outclass every military on the planet. We need to majorly reform the entitlement programs. Social security, medicare and medicaid are going to blow us up. I'm a younger guy, and even from the start of my career I could see that SS was not really going to be there for me by the time I get there. I would be so happy if they did something like push back the SS "retirement" age to something like 72 (for anyone under 50) and made the thing solvent at least. These are the kinds of changes that grown-ups need to make.

Cutting NASA's budget is like telling your kids that you have to reduce their allowance by half because you have $100,000 in credit card debt.

You completely missed my point. Tying the genetic testing to psychopathy means that companies would never be able to hire the CEOs they want. These companies and the breed of psychopathic CEOs would complain so loudly the law would never get passed. But if they're going to force genetic testing on us*, then we might as well make it worth our while and publicly humiliate these monsters.

*You do remember that story from a week ago, right? https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Here's what the deal should be: companies can do genetic testing all they want as long as it's always strictly against the law to employ psychopaths according to the genetic test.

Right, I'm the nut. Not the idiot(s) who couldn't figure out it was a joke.

If you're so anti-gun that you can't see the humor in what i wrote, I'm pretty sure you're the one who belongs in the loony bin. I also find it quite fantastic that it's your type trying to take away gun rights.

I know the submission is from the UK, but I'd like to point out that this is why we cherish the 2nd Amendment in the USA. ;-)

I understand what you're saying about the Fibonacci function, but I don't think you're right. First of all, you should have asked what was meant by "faster." If this was a function that was going to be called a lot with large input values, then it might be worth talking about storing the intermediate results in a cache. That would also lead to great conversations about tradeoffs: time vs space, etc.

Anyway, the real reason you turn out to be wrong is that there's a closed form solution for the Fibonacci sequence. It won't be fastest to use it for all "n" because it will involve floating point math, but there are certainly faster solutions than your iterative one.

Look, I agree that these devices are mostly unnecessary, but mostly is the key word. If you have an infant that died of SIDS*, you would find absolutely no comfort in the fact that the doctor told you that you'd probably not need this monitor.

Some parents do need to calm down and not rush their kids to the ER for every hangnail, and if your monitor alarms but your baby is fine, then be grateful, but don't freak out. There will be some children saved by this device, and those parents will be more than happy with every penny they spent on it.

My kids are all past the age of needing to worry about this, but I've gone through a few heart-stopping moments with each of them. Honestly, I'd probably buy one, but an alarm wouldn't automatically send me to the hospital (I would call an ambulance, of course, if my child were unconscious and not breathing, and I have had to do that once).

*Doctors say they don't know what causes SIDS, but I am almost positive that some (incredibly rare, very small percentage) children contort themselves into a position while sleeping that suffocates them. Not all of their biological processes are fully developed and their muscle tone is very poor, so if they get into a position where they can't breathe, there's a good chance they'll suffocate to death. And because everybody is asleep and the whole thing is silent, parents won't know until morning. This monitor would cure SIDS if my theory is right.

C'mon guys, have COURAGE!

I'm guessing they're pretty expensive when they have to buy copy at places like this, but you forgot to tell us the prices in this advertisement.

Tell me, where was the thumping of the Bible? Bible thumpers would have started quoting scripture against your assertions. You can't even get your name calling right. I've been working to argue on your grounds (historical textual criticism) and you're unwilling to actually have an intelligent conversation. You're choosing to ignore the evidence and then attacking the position you disagree with. That's malicious ignorance.

The truth is that you haven't even begun to think about these things. You've come to your materialistic atheistic conclusion by faith and you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that might contradict your beliefs. You should welcome yourself into the camp you despise.

Do me a favor and listen to this before you make any more ridiculous remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Fair enough--we'll go with malicious ignorance.