The awesome thing is that Ceglia's version of the contract just looks wrong. Indentation is screwed up with handwritten stuff pasted in.

The 'recovered version' looks like a properly drawn contract, formatted properly, etc, with that same handwritten line in a much more appropriate place lower on the page.

You would expect a manipulation of an image of a contract page to screw up the formatting in order to leave a lot of stuff in place. Also, in Ceglia's version the dollar amounts appear manipulated in their terms to match the original total dollar amount while apportioning them in a strange and incomplete manner. The original contract terms look relatively simple, appropriate, and complete.

So either Ceglia did a hack job, or Facebook was able to buy off an independent forensics team and produce a really fine looking forgery based on a really screwed-up looking original.

Gee, I wonder what makes more sense.

Yes, that is exactly the point of the education system. It is very good at selecting a middle-manager class to whip the peons while thinking highly of themselves and hoping that they may rise (or at least not fall).

That is exactly what our education system is designed for. On purpose. It serves the purposes of the ruling elite. I'm not sure how anyone could miss this. There's no way to change it. Your partner will probably become disillusioned and leave the teaching profession.

The only way to win the game is to not play.

The permissions system might appear very good, but you basically have to run a firewall and a debugger to figure out whether apps legitimately need what they ask for (and whether once granted that their only use of the permissions is in fact legitimate).

I thought about the Nexus S. I was tempted (I'm on Sprint, and having a really good available device is welcome). But it would still need to be flashed to cyanogenmod just to work for me. The iPhone would not need rooting to work for me. It's worth waiting a little longer on the off chance Sprint gets it. Plus I'll be a bit more comfortable with the integrity of the few apps that I'll need.

There's just no question in it for me. I'm certain that Apple will not glow so brightly forever. I'm always waiting for them to trip. They regularly eat other's lunch and stomp on a few people. Almost every time so far, I believe they've had good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But they still make mistakes. They still protect their own interests first, like any company. I'm sure the time will come when I will no longer defend them. But for now, nothing compares. It's not even a close race.

Motorola makes decent hardware. But for Android as a whole, quality is EXTRAORDINARILY uneven. Google has, and can have, no quality control on Android. In that regard, it makes the platform as a whole somewhat of a fail. In my book.

Look, I tried to like Android. I've had to jail break an Android phone (HTC - relatively high quality as Android phones go) just to get it to behave properly.

"Full disclosure" means nothing, nada, zip. So you get an app that legitimately needs network access to function -- Android notifies you, but the developers have tacked on all kinds of their own secret sauce to exploit you. Google doesn't weed these out up front. It's after the fact, and only those that happen to be discovered. And the "good" apps that are left don't necessarily meet any kind of basic standard for software. Sorry, Android market is a fail compared to Apple's app store.

Consistency. Seriously? You're going to argue that Android devices have any level of consistency on the platform? Even app to app, there is UI fragmentation in Android because apps aren't reviewed.

I like to hack things. Android's good in that regard. But handset makers and carriers pre-hacking the device I want to buy, making it crappy and inconsistent and exploitative? Sorry, no thanks.

Here are at least some of the missing requirements, that Android fails (badly to very badly) 4) You have to have some basic level of quality control 5) You have to at least try to prevent developers from exploiting users 6) You have to have some level of consistency

Have you given any thought to the possibility that maybe your code was crap twenty years ago because you couldn't think straight with all the partying? You didn't have the discipline to think things through instead of jumping into a coding marathon? If you would have taken a more reasoned approach, you actually would have, out of necessity, worked less back then, and been more effective? (certainly not as effective as you are now, but still)

Believe it or not, there are people who take that more reasoned approach when they are young. I'm one of them. I've always produced less. I've always stayed away from approaches that have proven ineffective (I've placed great value in vicarious experience). What I ultimately do produce has always been more effective.

But the approach is definitely undervalued. People like to throw crap on the wall and see what sticks. Watching others do it and fail isn't good enough for them. It's always boggled my mind.

When your business is selling lies, plausible deniability is a big part of your business strategy. That unfathomable black box is pure gold.

I guess I made a double

It's a widespread problem for inexperienced officers which can lead to an unsatisfying martial relationship.

Apparently he thinks that all previous uses of the term "bitcoin" to describe the system were made in untraceable cryptographic transactions, so that no evidence can be produced that his use is not the first. If this is the case, he's proven himself to be more than somewhat of an idiot.

No. The people who employ lawyers. Lawyers are just tools.

That makes a lot more sense, and I suppose it could be correctly termed as an efficiency multiplier. That would imply an astoundingly low actual efficiency for current engines expressed as a % of released energy.

I'm sure it would have been obvious had I RTFA.

Still, the engineering required to convert much of the thrust from such a reaction seems feasible, even if it suffers further efficiency loss through conversion. I'm thinking fusion thrust turbine generator, or something similar. And with that setup, it seems like something relatively close to a 40x efficiency gain might be made if the 40x thrust is real. I'm sure that would not put even the thrust energy itself at a real efficiency near 80% though. But we're still talking about expelling fusion byproducts and fuel that have obviously not been completely consumed, so that makes sense.

So if the other engines had an efficiency of 2%, this could get 80%? And if they operated at more than 2.5% efficiency, it would be fusion with a net energy gain - a real reactor? It might easily not take diversion of much of the thrust to produce the energy necessary to sustain the reaction.

So what if getting a sustainable fusion reaction requires a thruster design - that's easy to engineer around.

We'll have to destroy their territory and NOT keep them around, not even as pets. It's the new age of humane imperialism.

Firefox can easily eat close to 1GB with a couple of windows and a few tabs in each, after a little while. That's with all scripts blocked, plugins disallowed, etc. I'm left to wonder if the vast majority of websites themselves have become too bloated to keep in memory. Either way, Firefox does not score well on memory usage or idle cpu usage (whether scripts are allowed or not) compared with other browsers.