I thought the point of the charge was to make the "wooly" side-fibers of the strands wrap around the prey's limbs and/or the microscopic irregularities in the exoskeleton, tangling to it. "Tying" the fibers to the prey would have a similar binding effect to gluing them to it, without the need for glue, and lots of little fibers could make a very strong attachment.

(Stretching fibers made of long chains makes them stronger by aligning the chains along the direction of the stretch.)

That's hilarious. The "liberal media" in Texas is owned by oil companies. The stories about all the earthquakes around Dallas explain how it's not fracking, and if it were fracking, it's a good thing, as the more common smaller earthquakes release pressure, preventing a larger one later.

And I'm referring to Belo, whose owners have ties to the West Texas oil fields. No, Mobile doesn't own Belo, but the owners of Belo have ties to oil.

Paying for the services you use is not ethical? They use roads, education, police, and all sorts of services. If they had their $22B in cash under their mattress, there are countries that would invade to take it, so they use the military much more than anyone else.

Indent isn't meaningless. But there's no reason to double-space an indent. It carries a reading meaning, related to nesting of code.

Code "feels" smaller when it's compact. Also, having a single spacing method uniform across everyone makes for easier cut-and paste sharing. Having one person space things differently than another will result in decreased readability.

Youtube just switched to HTML5 video by default, so perhaps we can uninstall Flash for good now!

But can it play "Badger Badger Badger"?

Why are they still using C to deal with network protocol? Is the performance so critical that it's worth all the troubles?

Also, because there's a lot of C code that has been in heavy use, and tested for correctness, for decades, suitable for reuse with substantial confidence that it's correct (though you check it anyhow...).

Let's see you find code like THAT for a language that hasn't been AROUND for decades. B-)

Why are they still using C to deal with network protocol?

For starters, because it's transparent. The "K&R compliant assembly laguage", as one of my former colleagues once characterized it, translates to object in a clearly understandable way (especially if you turn optimization down or off). Though it gives you more opportunities to create bugs, it makes it hard for the bugs to hide from inspection.

The "higher-level" the language, the more it takes over and inserts its own stuff between you and the metal, and the more opportunity for that to inject an invisible vulnerability - which you might have trouble removing even if you DO discover it.

Meanwhile, many of the things "higher-level" languages protect you from can also be detected and flagged by both modern C compilers and code examination tools - starting with the venerable "lint".

If the whitespace is meaningless, it should be eliminated (carriage returns excepted). However, I can understand people who add in meaningless whitespace, as some times a + b is easier to read than a+b, even if they are interpreted the same.

Even if they build up a database of 100% of written code, how can they identify me if I only copy and paste code from others?

35 official Ubisoft resellers sold keys. Rather then honoring keys sold through official channels, Ubisoft revoked them, and refunded them. That seems silly.

Also note, the total number of keys purchased fraudulently was not disclosed, nor was the number voided. Apparently, Ubisoft is banning and making people demand a refund to get a refund. Some people may think that they did something wrong, and won't ask for a refund. This will result in theft by Ubisoft. Because anyone who doesn't ask for a refund won't get it.

The "proper" way to handle this is to honor all the keys and try to recover money from the fraudulent distributor.

Yay, you are unique. but that doesn't add anything to the conversation. Most professional photographers will tell you "the best camera there is, is the one you have with you." The camera on the phone is popular because it's always with you. That's the "value" in the phone. It's so small and convenient that you *always* have it with you.

You must not have kids. Or friends. Most tablets can survive a drop from 3 feet onto unpadded outdoor carpet (the standard cheap office carpet, glued to hard concrete, with no padding). However, I've never seen a laptop survive that. Maybe the special ruggedized ones could, but they are always much more expensive and much slower.

Laptops are also cheaper than smart phones. A low-priced touchscreen laptop will be about half the price of a large-screen phone. A dumb phone and a laptop gives you the most computing and screen size for the $$$. But just because you assert that to be the target doesn't mean anyone else sees it that way. The "real" benefit of the iPad is the walled garden. You can tether one to a desk. Put on a corporate app (perhaps for a reception/guest notification) and it's reasonably durable (vs a PC tablet, few of which will survive a worst-case drop 2-feet onto unpadded carpet), and if you need more, it's easy to get another identical one. Actually working on a phone is hard. Much less so on a screen 4x the size (in area, not diagonal). http://www.computerworld.com/a... about $500 for a "decent" touch-screen laptop.

Which way? The US app store (locked down to US residents) is global, and the hollywood global receipts are domestic?

Part of the problem is comparing gross Hollywood with net Appstore. And just one appstore at that.

I agree that the comparison is bad, but your implication that it's skewed to make apps look large is the opposite of the actual skew.

Same as having all your 401(k) invested in the company you work for. If it goes under, you have no job and no retirement. But not a "good" asset doesn't make it not an asset.

That would only be the President and Congress. Those are the people that made it what it is. The actual SSA has no power to control where their "surplus" goes. I imagine they'd invest it in the DOW, if they had a free choice.

An insurance company does fund funds with its own funds. It's only cuffable when you under-fund in the first place, and try to fraudulently cover it with fake assets. That's not the case here.

Next you'll tell me you think the Subprime Crisis had anything to do with subprime borrowers, when it was 100% fraud by the banks, unrelated to the borrowers they lent to.

So all the retirement accounts that count bonds as assets should instead wipe them off the books, showing a massive loss?

Like most companies (see Ireland) you can keep books that have debts and assets from other companies under the same ownership.

The US government doesn't have an asset if it buys its own bonds. But the SS fund most certainly does. The problem is the people who fail basic accounting, asserting their misunderstanding is reality, when reality disagrees.