This sounds extremely suspect, especially since a quick search suggests that the XBox One has substantially lower clock speeds, which I would naively expect to be traded off for substantially better clock-for-clock performance, even if we assume that the XBox One favoured multithreading or GPU much more heavily at the expense of single-threaded CPU. Do you have a citation?

Yes, I would rather you complain about those. They sound legitimate.

If I were making a language, I would strongly consider making whitespace work the way Python does (to enforce readable indenting standards), with the addition that mixing tabs and spaces is a syntax error, so you don't get those literally invisible bugs. I might even consider having both curly braces and meaningful whitespace: the level of indentation would act as a checksum on the correct number of open curly braces.

This is because bad indenting (aka bad use of whitespace) is also a common source of hard-to-find bugs. The famous "goto fail" bug is an example of a bug that is fairly common, and is actually resolved by meaningful whitespace. I imagine it was probably introduced from a merge conflict resolution, and then overlooked because it doesn't jump out at you unless you're looking for it. And also because the indentation in that file is a mess that only looks right if you set tabs to equal exactly four spaces, eliminating the one legitimate minor advantage of tabs over spaces. I mean, look at this: http://opensource.apple.com/so...

I'd also genuinely like to learn more about how anonymous functions are crippled by whitespace.

No, it's with both of them.

Adobe isn't trying to install Google Toolbar out of the kindness of its heart, or over Google's objections, or because it needs Google Toolbar technology. If it's trying to install Google Toolbar, it's because they accepted money from Google to do so. So yes, Google *is* exerting control over Flash's installer, and they are almost certainly *directly* responsible for it.

Bullshit.

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Bulllllllllllshit. Citation needed. Also Association Fallacy.

"MY issue is more important than YOUR issue".

Also, you're claiming that Bahar Mustafa wasn't joking when she said "kill all white men"? When she responded to media by saying they were, and I quote:

  “in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves” sent from her “personal account”.

It is *at worst* the same as what this guy is doing.

"Die cis scum" -- you can't *possibly* take that seriously. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/....

And End Father's Day? You know that was a 4chan hoax, right? Started from an account very subtly named "Straw Feminist"? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

There's no way you can possibly believe that people aren't joking when they say "die cis scum". There's no way. The only thing there that is remotely believable as something that is actually supported in real life is "end father's day", since father's day is ultimately as meaningless as mother's day. But it was a hoax.

Sunk costs fallacy? The Concorde was developed, like it or not. Those development costs are gone. So it's not relevant to your future actions unless you have a time machine to prevent the development of the Concorde in the first place.

Reckless endangerment is not victimless. The victims are those you recklessly endanger.

If we criminalized not having vaccines -- and I don't go that far (yet) -- the victim would be "everybody else" since you're a walking biological weapon.

This is similar to how attempted murder is still a crime even if you miss with your sniper rifle. I absolutely do not think it is always reasonable to wait until actual harm is done.

The problem we have here is that the rights of the child are being represented by two proxies: the government and the parents. It's widely (though not universally) agreed that both these groups have some claim over the child's welfare. The government can take children away from unfit parents, and whether or not that is used overzealously some parents are seriously unfit. On the other hand, parents get to make all kinds of choices for their kids, even at the inconvenience of government institutions.

The government has soundly listened to reason and decided that these vaccines are for everybody, and are so vitally important as to be subsidized. Most parents are in perfect agreement. Some few are taking the opposite path, and that's where the struggle lies.

That's common folk wisdom but every piece of evidence I've found on this suggests that the opposite effect is dominant due to anchoring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring).

You need to do the background research, figure out what an actually reasonable range is, then make the first offer ever-so-slightly unreasonable on the upside. Just making that offer will shift their perception of what reasonable is.

As others have noted, this is easier when you have a great alternative.

I found Chuck's product placement ads for Subway amazing actually. Rather than invisible, they were intentionally over-the-top to the point of being a clear parody. This on a show where significant time is spent in "Buy More" which is very clearly Best Buy.

The scenario explicitly included an ID check.

There's a bunch of what you say that I agree with*, but then you start going to crazy-town with your talk of "crypto-communists". Especially right after you proclaim "welfare for life" as a solution for the displaced people, which is the very essence of "to each according to their needs".

* In particular, I see "fewer jobs" as an intrinsically good thing. Yes, we all understand that leads to a wealth distribution problem. There are multiple possible outcomes.

He's clearly talking about evolutionary algorithms. There is a human involved, yes. But that's moving goalposts. Scribing for copying text was replaced in part by the printing press, then further impacted by photocopiers and later printers. Yes, a human still fed texts into scanners, or nowadays types "10" in the # of copies field of their word processing document, but you can hardly call that human a scribe.

I did, and here is the definition they came up with:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Didn't see your (inaccurate) definition there, so maybe they already fixed it.

I'm going to need evidence for this one. The USA can "easily" accommodate 320 trillion people with "existing technology"? More than the number of ants on Earth???

Put another way, 1 million times as many people means the entire population of Canada in a single square kilometer. Or 33 people per square metre. I get that you want to build vertically, but we categorically do not have this technology to do this.

It is just a matter of engineering*. It's not like we need fundamental new science. Literally everything you said is an engineering problem.

It's just a whole fuckload of engineering.

Here's one way it might go down.

1. Self-sustaining Martian robot "colony". Note we don't have one on Earth, but to be fair we don't need one on Earth nearly so much. This is conceivably something that could be useful even on Earth in extreme environments, or in Earth orbit, so we can get some practice, then adapt for Mars. Again, this glosses over a lot.
2. The robots can now attempt to create a liveable ecosphere. We could even send ahead some plants and animals that nobody would miss to prove the concept.
3. Then the humans come.

Does that sound conservative to you? Because that's how the real space program happened, the one that is often lauded as going so fast compared to now. First we sent machines which had a useful life in space much longer than any human has ever lived in space (thus, self-sustaining). Then came the dog, the monkeys, and finally humans. We skipped the dogs and monkeys on the moon at great risk, but we had already proven:

1. Launch from a gravity well
2. Continuous space habitation on similar timescales to the moon mission

So we had good reason to think we could skip that step. We should work ourselves up to longer-term habitation similarly. The ISS is a good step for long-term habitation with resupply, but we need something with no resupply.

The class of problems that could be solved by humans using only local materials, but would leave us totally fucked with only machines, is pretty small. I can see the argument about useful science, but we're talking fatal emergencies.

* Mayyyyyybe psychology or economics or some soft sciences like that.