Well, the US operates the GPS system itself, which is a distinct advantage in a time of worldwide military conflict.

...than the $65 you already stated you are willing to spend to get her internet in her room.

Enough said.

Why would it be different? I don't know, maybe because mammalian brains' learning mechanisms and the way they react to stimuli are shaped by a series of useful heuristics that arise from the bio-chemical structure of their brains, and it's not at all clear that there would be direct analogues in an artificial brain?

Whoa, whoa, slow down. I think you're a little off-base here. Be reasonable!

... It's probably going to be more like "you owe us $80 million for the $100,000 you hid in bitcoin".

The real danger to your privacy comes once you've joined the network, giving it your real MAC address, and start sending a bunch of data around that isn't encrypted end-to-end (like web browsing).

Well, it sorta-does. They have first dibs on over a third of earnings, which I suspect is far more than the single biggest shareholder gets. Doesn't come with all the bells and whistles like voting in board members, mind you...

At a guess: the sale may come with contractual obligations -- e.g. if IBM has agreed to design and manufacture chips for a certain third party for a certain length of time.

THAT's better than simply taking that money and investing it into the division?

I don't know, that could just be throwing good money after bad. This isn't a software division, it's not even like their server hardware division, it's chipmaking. It's kind of a go-big-or-go-home game where your competitors -- well-funded types like, say, Intel -- can easily pour many billions of dollars into next-generation fabrication processes and equipment which will readily put any half-assed investment to shame. I don't think IBM's chip business has the customer base to make "go big" profitable, or any reasonable plan to acquire new customers, so "go home" makes a lot of sense here.

Now, the wisdom / folly of gutting the rest of IBM's various divisions is left as an exercise to the reader.

No, it didn't. It was "some sort" of droplet transmission by monkeys in adjacent cages.

That is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- "airborne" transmission.

And no, it didn't go through the ventilation system; it was later learned that sick monkeys sneezing while they were being transported past well monkeys did indeed transmit the virus in this case.

It was also a completely different strain than the one we are talking about.

Airborne transmission occurs when an infectious agent is able to cling to particulates in the air and ride air currents for significant amounts of time, over significant distances, through ventilation systems, etc., long after the infected person who expelled the virus is no longer in the area.

Droplet transmission is NOT "airborne" transmission. It is projecting bodily fluids directly onto a well person in close quarters...usually less than 3 feet, but under optimal conditions, perhaps further. That is still not airborne transmission.

Furthermore, coughing/sneezing is probably one of the least effective ways to spread Ebola, even via droplets. Blood, feces, and vomit are the primary ways this will be spread. Yes, virus "could" be in saliva, mucous, semen, etc. But that's not the primary way Ebola spreads.

Airborne transmission would be very bad, but the Ebola virus is too large to spread this way. It would have to shed about 75% of its genome to be small enough for airborne transmission in sub-5um droplet nuclei that could ride on particulates. And if it did that, it wouldn't be "Ebola" anymore -- it would be something very different; perhaps still deadly, perhaps not, and so much different from what we are talking about right now that it is next to meaningless to discuss.

So, in closing: no, Ebola is not airborne.

I think you're confusing the US with China, the latter of which did increase its defense budget by 12% (and has for about the last 12 years), and is on track to exceed US defense spending by 2020-2025.

I think a premise that people go to a church to inculcate themselves with a certain set of values that place marriage and God on the same page is a little bit stronger than your vaguely-implied "religious people are sheep whose convictions are substantially a function of the local popular opinion". But trust Slashdotters to discard informed rational thought concerning irrational behavior like religious belief...

Google feeds their employees dead cows and chickens on a regular basis. They should have used plants. These days, quinoa is in common use in foodservice, as are beans and eggplants, and lentils could also have been easily used instead. Google should leave beef out of its activities altogether.

:b

Forget the stigma of divorce. In some places there are still different social values involved. These people aren't spineless or mere slaves to the apparent popular opinion of the local population (which would be a fragile situation circular, since they are the local population); they believe that marriage is a holy, sacramental bond which does things to your soul. If present, this conviction is a far stronger reason to avoid divorce than social pressure.

Even supposing this to be true, it means that a train could be safely and efficiently operated by someone who hasn't expended months or years of their life being taught and practicing how to drive a train.

Why don't you read the study for yourself, or look into the veracity and quality of the journal.