47%, not 46% or 48%. I smell fish. If they'd said 50% (or better, half), I might have believed them.

No, the last stable release was a couple months ago (Dec 2014). You must be looking at Sharepoint Workspace, which is a discontinued product.

It doesn't protect against multiple check-outs? I'm pretty sure it does, in fact I couldn't check out a document on SP this last weekend because someone else had forgotten to check it back in. And because it prevents multiple check-outs, there is no possibility of collisions. (I'm not sure if there's mechanism on SP for breaking a lock, like there is on svn. I suppose there must be, I just don't know how it works.)

I generally agree with you, but I think it goes both ways. One starts with some data, formulates a theory to explain that data. But often the original data is not sufficient to test the theory, so you (or other scientists) go looking for more data. Darwin did continue looking at data, and certainly physicists do that: the various colliders that have been built over the last several decades were built not just to collect data so someone could come up with a new theory, but--IIUC--to test specific theories that had already been proposed.

If I'm not mistaken, most aircraft drones are piloted by someone a long ways away, using radio. Radio doesn't work underwater (extremely low frequency does to a certain depth, but the bit rate is miniscule); the only effective way to communicate underwater is sound (like sonar). And since drone control needs to be bidirectional, that immediately gives away the position of both the controller and the drone. So I don't think remote control drones are practical underwater.

Of course there have been non-remote control underwater drones for a century. They're called torpedoes.

Your comment reminds me of the joke from the early 2000s (IIRC) about what we should do if the North Koreans tested an atomic bomb: tell them to test the other one.

Or the closest we've gotten to it yet (I hope).

BTW, whatever happened to that series? Afaict, it stopped after the first season.

She's telling you in her way to get rid of those bell bottoms you wore back in the 60s, when they were cool.

I wasn't aware that socks had parity, but you might have a point. I have a bunch of socks that are missing their mates. If socks do have parity, and if adjacent branes have a statistical preference for different parity, that would explain my problem.

Then I must be in one universe, and you're in the other. I'll trade you 100 paper clips for your 100 coat hangers, if we can figure out how to control our leaks.

I wish it had a better indexer. On the fortunately rare occasions when I want to look for an email and can't remember what folder I put it in, it takes forever. (I don't know of any better ones, though.)

What game?

That might have been true of the collection of phone logs (metadata, not the actual calls), which I believe is the case you're referring to. You have seen photos of the Fort Meade parking lots. Do you think all those people are processing metadata?

You might watch The Imitation Game to learn why they can't tell you. In particular, the scene where Hut 8 has decrypted a naval message directing a wolfpack at a convoy carrying civilians. They decide they can't warn the convoy, because it would tell the Germans that Enigma had been broken.

In reality, that scene probably never happened. Decisions about whether to use the information in Enigma messages were made at a much higher level. But the point--that releasing information can tell the enemy how much of their traffic you can read--holds. And you can read plenty of other instances where the Allies had to either ignore information in decoded Enigma messages, or do something to make a plausible cover story for how they learned something.

And in the present, there are lots of news reports about assassinations of Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. operatives, most recently Abu Malik. He probably wasn't teaching high school chemistry classes.

"it seems that it is mostly the uninformed Wal-mart types that are voting with the informed people having given up": citation?

(You might be right, but I've never seen anything to support that.)