I don't understand why they never just asked Tank for a tank.

Java itself was alright, the problem was the lack of discipline as they worked on the Java API. Up to version 1.2 it was still pretty good. After that it just got bloated with redundant crap.

I realise I'm going against the local trend here, but I kinda accidentally clicked on TFA. The abstract states:

So there's the various factors they accounted for in their calculation. If you want more "correlation/causation and all that", the data used was from the Breakthrough Generations Study. Feel free to apply for the study data and perform any extra analysis that you feel might be required.

I was talking more about comparing two guys with equal, fairly average, social skills, but different levels of physical attractiveness. The first guy is fit, has good facial symmetry, good grooming, wearing nice clothes. The second guy is flabby, unattractive face, has a neckbeard, wearing old/stained clothes, maybe doesn't smell so good. In this situation, the first guy is going to get a hug even if he *was* staring at the girl's boobs a bit, whereas the second guy is not (and if he was taking a look, he'll get called creepy).

When you're just describing two equal-looking guys with massively different behaviour, I agree that the lascivious, socially awkward guy will get called creepy while the socially adept guy will not. That's how it's meant to work.

What if what makes my brain happy is taking over the real world?

Exactly. Once the option becomes available I'll have my brain safely stashed in a bunker with secure backups in a bunch of other bunkers around the world. No more risk-taking for me!

New headline: Can We Devise A Headline That Follows Betteridge's Law?

This is 100% true in my experience. You so often read "so when HE does X it's cute/funny/romantic but when I do X it's creepy." That is because he is attractive and you are not. The cutoff from creepy to romantic is far higher for attractive people - witness the Overly Attached Girlfriend meme/character, who personifies a whole range of full-on psychopathic behaviour and still has a sizeable fan club.

I like everything else you said, but I have to argue with this bit. You *never* have any business demanding that *anyone* puts up with stuff they don't like in order to have the privilege of being with you. The only business you ever have is that of making yourself worthwhile enough that others might decide that it's worth putting up with your occasional rough edges in order to be with you.

Erm... what? Random mutation is perfectly adequate, gene crossover alone is sufficient in a large population even *without* random mutation. Panspermia is an unrelated hypothesis regarding terrestrial biogenesis.

Mercedes-Benz is worth $23.5bn. Google is worth $382.5bn. I think Google's in with a fighting chance if they decide to take this seriously.

In one sense, we've been a fully autonomous vehicle ever since we started walking. ;)

And this is an excellent argument against the "it will always need manual controls in case of failure" argument. Modern vehicles have fly-by-wire accelerator, brakes, gears, etc.

The driver isn't in direct physical control of the vehicle and hasn't been for some time. Progress towards fully autonomous vehicles is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Really? Wow. There's been a giant storm of angry feminist rants on Facebook about this and every single one has been all about "a group of men (on the internet)" that are allegedly supporting the psycho killer because "they think it's OK to threaten, intimidate and kill women."

Not one mention of any men being killed.

Our brains learn things by "rewiring" themselves. Why should we be surprised that spending a large amount of time causes a detectable difference in the action of the brain? Implying that men don't have the neural circuitry required for parenting is as retarded as implying that women don't have the neural circuitry required for mathematics.