At that point, you need something to keep the ice-crystals from rupturing cells. In certain antarctic fish they have glycoproteins that do this
That is the point of salt water. It won't freeze at 0 celsius and is a lot safer than antifreeze to the cell material.

I believe the big change is that there are individual orders required for each user.
So if an over-reaching operator tries to collect data on his ex-gf / political opponent etc. there will be a paper trail. I don't think this will be an actual court order, it might be an administrative one, but it is still an improvement.

The guy did not actually recommend what you just said. He suggested a software fix where if brake and gas are both pressed, the brake would over-ride the gas pedal. So brake would always stop the car independent of whether the gas pedal was pressed.

This is standard on all commercial flights and all airplanes outside US.It is called ADS-B . In addition all aircrafts in US (except homebuilts) have transponders which transmit atleast part of the information (altitude, speed). You can even watch airplanes fly pretty much live on a webpage (These guys were the first to figure out that Asiana flight crashed in California).
The problem is not transmitting, it is tracking all of them real-time with accuracy. A minute delay in receiving/processing signals mean a 60 mile error in location, similarly a few feet error in altitude means big error in speed etc. In this particular case, atleast two radars had the airplane on their screens. They just disagree on where it was. Not to mention that the signal did vanish at some point when the aircraft shut down/disintegrated. The parts of the aircraft could well have continued flying after that. From the surface of the sea, there is nothing to be seen if the wings disintegrated in air (vaporizing all fuel and not forming slicks on the surface).

No, yet another court order says that NSA has to retain the records for the purposes of a lawsuit. This one was filed by EFF, asking the court to stop the deletion of data as per the court order in this slashdot story. The EFF lawyer actually says that
The March 7 FISC ruling was “based on a mistaken belief that no preservation order existed for the material,” Cohn said.
This new order was in San Fransisco and not a FISC court.

It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.
You'd say that until you get into a Saab and find that the ignition is by the gear lever or get into a Toyota echo and find the speedo in the center of the dash. I like both, but most people hate the arrangement.

* Designed with the new mobile lifestyle in mind
Compared to the previous immobile lifestyle ? Who does Microsoft think they are? Jesus Christ ? http://biblehub.com/john/5-8.h...

Not necessarily true
A diet with near zero fruits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet) works even better than Mediterranean diet.
The study also says nothing about bread,grains and pasta. Also note that Mice, one of the test subjects, don't fit well in the fruitarian diet.

Apparently the prisoners do not get TV/Books in the cell, nor can they see what all the noise around their cell is. Fixing solitary does not mean allowing physical access.
Books/newspapers or TV would go a long way. A computer with internet would be even better. Plexiglass door and a curtain would also help a lot.
If a person is afraid for their own safety from other inmates, he should not have to choose between total isolation and physical harm. Similarly, mentally unstable should also not be punished with isolation - that just makes their mental situation worse. Even as punishment, I would think that someone locked up for more than a week should get at least a book to read.

Irony is that Projjal Dutta works on Madison Avenue (http://web.mta.info/sustainability/index.html?c=feed), instead of Harlem as his recommendation would imply.

However, he routinely intentionally didn't fix bugs so that he could make a big show of getting up in the middle of the night to manually run processes, and would get praise and rewards from the manager.
I think you are looking at this wrong (or being too negative).
1) What you described might actually be a great strategy in a job where mobility is low. But in a career like IT, where it is so easy to move up or to switch jobs. it actually works poorly. If you (ie the coworker) are seen as the only one who can get the job done, you are likely not to be promoted (because no one else can replace you). You may get raises for a while, but after a point your job is just going to get outsourced when they figure that an outsourced company (or often an app in the cloud nowadays) is cheaper than your salary.
2) You and your coworker get 24 hours in a day. If that guy comes in to office, sits around and then goes into firefighting mode in the night, he is just spending more time per day on the job. You should ideally be happy that you are so much more efficient and get to spend time with family/hobbies etc. while the other "panic man" does not. You work 8 hours a day and get paid 8*wage per hour. At the very best case, the other guy works 10 hours and get paid 10*wage per hour. Often the other guy makes less than average hourly wage on the time he spends in the middle of the night, eventhough rationally night wages should be higher than day wages. Pay rarely scales linearly.
3) Most people who act like your coworker I describe (in my experience) are not actually cynically causing problems to be a "hero". They more often are just procrastinating or being lazy. I know this because I often do this on stuff when no one other than me is involved -- I know there is a problem, I know how long it will take to fix, but the solution is not elegant/too hairy/causes disruption in whatever other cool stuff I am doing etc. Or sometimes I just don't know how to fix something and I don't know who to ask. So I put it off and then something breaks and I have to fix it in a panic in the middle of the night. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Of course none of this applies if your job satisfaction depends on how are perceived relative to your coworker. Switching to an absolute measure for your personal goal ie ,I will aim to make 100K this year rather than aiming to be praised more than the coworker might help. (This sometimes works for me, not saying it might work for you) .Or try adding your hobbies or other uses of personal time into your career goals like "I will aim to be a better parent to my children while also ensuring that I earn enough money his college fund".

Well if the supreme court rejects it (ie refuses to hear the case), the lower courts ruling stands.
If the supreme court hears it, but says metadata collection is legal, then it becomes admissible evidence in court. So FBI/DEA/local police etc. can legitimately request it.
I cannot think of a way in which this data is considered OK (ie data is public), but the aggregation of data is private and cannot be seen in any court other than one court. But then I am not a lawyer or a judge.
Supreme court has previously ruled that addresses on envelopes are legal to collect even if the contents of the envelope are private. This was one of administrations justifications for the data collection.

A very crude analogy would be a Fourier transform. If you take a simple wave it is very complicated to describe it in time domain (lots of terms mathematically), but it has a simple mathematical expression in frequency domain with just a single term.
The physicists have figured out how to simplify the maths. This transformation also has a physical interpretation which is best explained as a hologram. A hologram has information from 3 dimensions scrunched into 2 dimensions, ie when you look at a hologram, it appears to have depth. In a common hologram sticker, that information is encoded in polarization. In the same manner, they seem to say information in a 11 Dimensional world can be scrunched into lesser number of dimensions. Hence the analogy.

I think you missed a bit there.
Any simulation of the world will be as complex as the original. So if you build a full simulation of the real world, you'd double the information complexity of the world. So that wouldn't work.
One thing that might work is if you simulate regions of the "world" just in time -ie the things you see are being simulated as you look for them. That ties that simulation to a Matrix like world - each person effectively has his own world and they can be independent of each other.
Another possibility is that we are in a limited simulation - some have said that quantum theory shows the graininess of the simulation and that relativistic speed limits limit the size of the canvas on which the world is being painted (ie you only have to simulate as far as the edge of the canvas, nothing outside it affects whatever is inside).
In either of these cases, you cannot (be guaranteed to be able to) run a simulation within a simulation.

http://www.gvst.co.uk/gsnap.htm