So, does this study show that Americans generally have better health than Swedes?
Sweden is very non religious, and the US very religious. We're in the same socioeconomic class so we shoud be comparable.

I wonder if anonical, SuSE and RH track each others kernels, perhaps to see what the competition is up to, ensure compatibility, and lift useful additions. If so, they would be in a good position to catch suspicious developments, and would have motivation to make it public.

He probably meant SDL v1.2 which was licensed under the LGPL.

Thank you. That is interesting. I did find something similar for New York (2007) that varied quite a bit depending upon location. https://www.univerahealthcare.com/download/files/med_malpractice_premiums.pdf

Out of curiosity, what is the cost for malpractice insurance in Canada? The doctors may actually net more there. Sadly, the giant ACA had nothing, as far as I know, to reduce that cost to doctors which only gets passed to us.

So, to the Red Hat employees reading this: thank you! Red Hat does great work for the world. We as a community also tend to undervalue a $1B/year publicly traded company with a large sales force out explaining to every potential enterprise customer that will listen the virtues of free software.

The Dev Suite thing is kinda cool. Not that I'd buy it :-), but interesting to know that option exists.

Ok, so let's see, that's 99,999,999 licenses then...

You could add up all the Ubuntu-wielding moms in the world, along with all the Ubuntu-wielding offspring, and it won't move that needle in the slightest.

I use Mac, Ubuntu, and ChromeOS, so no love for Microsoft here, but this belief that somehow Linux marks any kind of threat to MS on the desktop or laptop is silly. Most of the world runs Windows on those machines, and always will.

The thing that will shift that is not your mom, or even your mom times 1 million. The thing that will shift that is the move away from those devices, to Android. But Microsoft will still see incredible income from Windows during that shift.

I understand that he may not understand everything, but a lot of what is in his list is frivolous. Here is another NSF-funded robotics research "project": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwBOBeDFHw If they want to play, then they can do it on the universities' dimes. The universities certainly charge enough to pay for this.

Referencing some more from here: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.serve&File_id=2dccf06d-65fe-4087-b58d-b43ff68987fa

• How about this: http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0909289 This does not benefit the U.S. society all that much. It seems like something that the travel industry should pay for.
• We even paid to research if terrorism affected John McCain's chances for the 2008 election: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/10/01_terror.shtml His campaign or the GOP could have researched that themselves.

It depends on what is meant by duplication. If two groups are researching the same thing using the same means regarding the same factors, then that is doing something in parallel. I can see that as a (possible) waste of money that could be used to research something else concurrently. Only slight related, when it is different agencies funding the same party, then you have fraud: http://www.nature.com/news/duplicate-grant-case-puts-funders-under-pressure-1.9984

Replication is different and would not fall under duplication as it is done serially. First, one group does research into the topic followed by a separate group that tries to reproduce the results. Trying to replicate the results at the same time as another group that is unfinished with their research is potentially wasteful.

If the results are useful, then I am sure some entity will try to reproduce it without government funding. If the project was politically-motivated, then I am almost certain another party will fund research into that topic without need for government funding.

Personally, I wish the news would do a little research into past projects that were duplicated to either prove or disprove the issue with duplication. They just want a fight between the two parties to get more readers. I guess this was too hard for them to find: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.serve&File_id=2dccf06d-65fe-4087-b58d-b43ff68987fa Page 20 talks about duplication between the various agencies. Skimming through that report really makes me want to have the NSF cleaned. For example, "An Indiana University (IU) professor received a $263,281 grant from the NSF to study the social impact of tourism in the country of Norway." Funding that over cancer research?!?

For my use patterns, Windows peaked with NT 4.0, combining the Windows 95 interface with the reliability of the NT kernel.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48521.0
From 2011.

As best I can tell 35.5% of all bitcoins have already been minted. These 7,473,950 coins are all property of existing bitcoin users. There seem to be about 41,280 registered members of this site. I'll be generous and say there are ten times as many bitcoin users as there are members. That means about 410,280 bitcoin owners with on average 18 BTC each. Clearly BTC ownership is more concentrated than this, but lets be egalitarian for the moment.

If we pretended all bitcoin owners were all Americans that is about 0.13% of the population. It's not of course. Bitcoin is intended to be a world currency. So 0.0068% of the world population own 100% of all current and at least 35.5% of all possible bitcoins.

The view on this forum is that the world will come to their senses, throw out fiat currencies and move to something rational like Bitcoin. This of course means 6,000,000,000 people basically begging to use a resource owned by a relative handful of people. Say we just minted up the remaining 13,526,050 BTC and scattered them to late adopters purely out of the kindness in our hearts. That means about 0.00225 BTC for each of them to use in rebuilding their economy. Sure 18 BTC on average doesn't make us feel very rich. But it is 8,000 times what everyone else would have if we stopped competitive minting today.

But we won't stop competing of course. Sometime around Pearl Harbor Day of next year Bitcoin will hit the 50% distributed mark.

----
By that day, how many active Bitcoin users and daily goods trades do there need to be to make a sustainable Bitcoin economy viable?
----

Because to potential new adopters, after that point Bitcoin is going to look like a new a 21,000,000 coin currency with a 10,500,000 coin pre-generation that went to the creator and his "friends". Certainly people will stop caring about Bitcoin long before they show up on our doorsteps with signs saying,

"We are the 99.9932%!"

There was no balanced budget under Clinton although the budget was probably better than now.

Please read these two articles:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30

The scary part is that they are both right.

Have there been any attempts to pass a serious budget in the senate regardless of what the Republicans are doing? I have heard of budgets being brought forward that neither party was going to support which I would call political versus a serious budget.

I hate politics.

Nah, just release it as iPhone 6, and claim the iPhone 1-5 were internal prototypes if asked.