Sure: China. Practically everyone on the top for the last 5 decades was a STEM person.

But the Mate Desktop, a Gnome 2 fork, exists, so GP seems to be right: If it's popular enough, it will live on.

The point about science is the process, not the result. There may be correct content in the bible, but that does not make it scientific.

Meanwhile, they let you rot in prison. Thats what key disclosure laws are about.

Thanks for following up! You had a small mixup there, 28 million were all pregnancies, including planned ones, leaving only 12.25 unplanned pregnanies, of which 3.3 occur in the U.S, which is a bit above average, given 1.2 billion people in developed nations.

The absolute numbers are misleading, though, as pregnancies are not evenly distributed among the countries. More relevant the relative amount of unplanned pregnancies among all pregnancies among a given country. There, the U.S. has 49% - 51% ([1],[2]) unplanned pregnancies, France has 33% [1] and Britain has 16% [1].

The numbers get even more drastic if you look at teenagers only. There, the US has 5 times as much unplanned pregnancies (relative to overall population) as Germany [3].

[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
[2] = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...
[3] = http://www.profamilia.de/filea...

Thats a problem of the bad sex ed in the US, not a problem of birth control. No other developed country has unplanned pregnancy rates that high.

Quite the opposite, the 50% of the population has no problem to "fit into a world where the average person really is dumber than you."

The problem is not the intelligence of the kid, but the fact he thinks he's gifted. If you achieve good grades in school without effort and your parents constantly tell you you're gifted, you never really learn the correlation between effort and achievement. Then, suddenly, the real world kicks in. Other young adults, not gifted but learning none the less, catched up. Now they get the interesting jobs.

If you have contact to a gifted child, it's important to give him/her appropriate input. Put the focus on productive output, on effort (e.g. for a kid with math skills: Present interesting engineering problems, perhaps a bridge has to be built over a creek or something similar). On helping others and on developing the ability to communicate effectively with non-gifted kids (or adults).

The difference is liquidity. Bitcoins market depth is tiny. A truck full of Euros (about the same market value as the bitcoins) sold at market rate wouldn't be noticable on the charts. 30k of bitcoins sold at market rate would absolutely crush the market.

An "economist" like in the article is a macro economist while your investing neighbor most probably is a micro economist. Same field, different point of view. A macro economist does stuff like predicting the housing bubble, but may suck mightily as a CEO of a company (and vice versa for the micro economist).

If you are a Jew in France you have a pretty high propability of Christians attacking you. You should read real news more often, France has a massive racism problem right now. Jews are emigrating from France at an unprecedented scale (WW2 excluded).

The problem is that IQ as a variable is pretty useless in practice. It has no prognostic validity for success in life or in a job. Motivation is far more important for that, but it's also harder to measure.

I would think if they took recent Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, they would be trending above average and by a margin.

Sure, but you would find even more high-IQ persons in quite mundane jobs. IQ is a confounding variable for success. Counter example: most Nobel Prize winners are male, too. Is that the reason for their success?

Given that hunger in developing nations is mostly an issue of distribution, not production (africa mostly is anything but arid: https://www.google.com/search?...), I would indeed be impressed if GMO bananas will help here.

Two points:
First, in Germany renewables are not heavily subsidized (i.e. tax-financed) at all, but instead cross-financed trough averaging production costs of non-renewables and renwables. No tax money involved.
Second, It does not make sense to compare the price per kWh when the overall effiency is so vastly different to the USA :While I am paying about .29EUR per kWh on my renewables-only plan, in absolute numbers that amounts to only 40EUR per month on electricity for a 4 person household. We have a well insulated house, efficient appliences, LED lighting everywhere, efficient computers etc. With absolute consumption as low as that, I couldn't care less about the price per kWh.

If I'm not mistaken the Direct Rendering Manager is 8 years older: http://dri.freedesktop.org/wik... - you have to blame Hollywood for that :)

No one said they have to licence it for free. The debate between Google and Gema revolves around technicalities of payment. Most other royality collectors agreed to get an undisclosed percentage of advertisement earnings for the licences, but GEMA insists on a flat fee, regardless of amount of viewers etc. of a particular track. AFAIK GEMA is the only royality collector worldwide insisting on that.