it's that Windows 8 isn't.

The people in Starbucks look at me funny when I walk in with my Macbook Air and a UPS.

Windows 8 has less market share then even Windows Vista. http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2013/04/windows-8-market-share-100031382-large.png

I've been seeing commercials about a company that has solutions for this sort of thing... can't recall their name but they keep yammering on about "logistics'.

More stuff goes into racks then just servers. Go into any audio studio, the Mac Pro will be in a rack. Same with video editing bays. But I guess Apple isn't interested in those markets anymore. Shame really...

Advancing backwards. The new "Mac Pro" is just a "Mac Cube" version 2. I for one will not be buying one, which means my current Mac Pro is the last Macintosh I'll be getting. No internal drive bays, no expansion slots, not a professional computer. I would have to cover my desk with external devices to match what's in my current tower configuration.

Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .

Not really seeing what I get out of paying them to do this when in theory I could just make my own from a used laptop off eBay.

Just as they are not in the New Testament. Not sure what your point is.

I was a big fan, and a game developer for the C64. Those were the days that a machine could be fully understood by an untrained person with a knack for programming. When the C128 came out, I was interested, especially in the 80 column screen and CP/M software compilers. But there were too many limits on the machine (no hard drive easily added, no real OS, etc.) and it didn't feel like enough of an advancement over the C64. My grandfather did buy one, and I had some time with his, but that never really sparked much either. My next machine would be the Amiga, and as soon as that become somewhat affordable by a college student (the A500), I never looked back.

RM

Really! I will have a VERY hard time master-bating to her old images tonight.

Not even a car rented from Kayak Car Rental can cross the ocean.

It is difficult to explain the fact that the changes emerge around age 13 as enculturation. Do societal expectations change around then, to favor more differences between the sexes?

Indeed. Oracle is a tool. You don't blame the screwdriver if the contractor messes up your kitchen cabinets.

It's not only not impossible, but it's pretty much always possible. You just have to think like someone who chases funding.

Everyone who reviews proposals knows the future is uncertain, so they don't currently expect a proposal to accurately predict, say, how someone's research would benefit math education. The key is to explain how what you're proposing could plausibly help. Doing it well comes down to having a reasonable story, having good salesmanship, and wordsmithing.

The new requirements seem very broadly applicable. For example, I could twist scientific literacy, promotion of scientific progress, and possibly national defense into justifying the grant proposal I'm currently working on. "Scientific progress" in particular would be very easy. I expect it would be similarly easy for any other academic who expects to publish at leat one paper on research that he or she intends to support by an NSF grant.

So this probably wouldn't change anything, except to require another section in every proposal, which would just waste everyone's time. It would save exacly zero dollars, and cost a few for every proposal just by a naive conversion from time to money. There are also one-time costs. The only possible way this could save money is by slowing down the overall process.

While I'm railing, I should also mention that active researchers review other people's NSF proposals. Adding another requirement takes time they could use to, I dunno, do useful research?

Everyone who chases funding knows how to play the game. Adding rules won't keep them from getting money, and it'll cost time.