It is an act of donating a few bucks a year to scientific research.

Not to bust anyone's bubbles but I think that just donating the money instead of thinking you're a swell guy for letting them use your hardware would be a better gesture.

You don't understand. It's easier to make up a new definition to fit the conditions than it is to have the conditions fit the current definition.

And in this way if they do raise the minimum wage they can have all kinds of nifty headlines that show that the middle class has been bolstered to higher numbers than we've since the 70s.

"One true solution" arguments (it doesn't replace every use so it's useless!) don't help solve problems.

True but pointing out how a solution doesn't solve every aspect of every problem is what gets a post modded up around here. This reinforcement of short-sightedness keeps rearing it's ugly head with nearly every article. Thus even people who know better are still prone to postings such as this just because they know it'll be modded up. The cycle continues and we help to breed a new generation of cynics who don't think that things getting a little better today is a worthwhile goal if it's not the future promised to them by the most optimistic sci-fi stories.

Welcome to Slashdot.

if they need money they should just put a small tax on all services

Don't worry, it'll come to that. While I do agree that the slippery slope scheme doesn't work in every situation, the government has it down to an art. What's worse off is that this tax has nothing to do with anything in this system of business that is causing an undue burden on the government. They're doing it as just another money grab.

As a person gets fatter they need to take in more calories to maintain their fatness. As the government becomes fatter they need to suck off the production of the (for now) free people to maintain their overreach. In the long run, both lead to decreased quality of life and an early death.

Don't think that they're the only ones. Given the current climate I think it is reasonable to assume that you're being monitored regardless of your method of communication.

Here's the thing I don't like about how evolution is presented...

researchers also have a new guess about why the spine evolved: They suggest that the creatures might wedge themselves between the trunk of a palm tree and the base of its leaves, then use the strength and flexion of their muscular spine to force open this crevice, revealing insect larvae

Um, no. The spine did not evolve to meet the needs of the animal, the animal is alive because it had the traits needed to live. This would make much more sense if the statement was that "researchers also have a new guess about why the species thrived while others died."

The way evolution is presented by most media makes it seem like after a species goes for a few generations it gains some ability like how one can gain a power up in a video game; "Ok... humans make it to the next level... they can either run faster, see further or have faster reflexes.... what will it be?"

If this animal didn't have the ability to do what it does then it would have probably failed and we would know it now as a collection of bones in some natural history museum instead of a living creature. Now, this is also to say that those with mutations that gave them a stronger spine would be more likely to survive but it's not as if the species had control over the evolution of the spine itself.

While this article was brought to Slashdot for flame war fodder there is another reason this is news elsewhere. What it comes down to is that businesses, regardless of actual profit, are largely looked on as weak by investors if they're not showing growth.

I'm not one of these people who beat on the idea of capitalism but I do see it as a failing of the perception in that endless growth just isn't possible in the long term. Sadly it's endless growth that drives a majority of today's investors. Most of today's investors don't see their dollars as a building block to better companies with long term goals and good public relations, they see their dollars are something they need to "flip" fast to make it worth their time. That's been a failing of the Wall Street economy for several decades and it only gets worse as time trods on.

Apple will take a hit because of this. It's not because they're technology is weak but because there is enough competition in their field that push investment dollars to the short term gains. And this isn't to say other players in the field aren't really offering anything but their long term outlook is secondary to what they'll offer up in the next quarter or two. Apple hasn't planted itself well enough as a long term solutions company to keep the market interested like IBM, Oracle and Microsoft did. They'll survive and maybe make a bigger comeback some day but they will have to suffer through this lull like every other market leader has to from time to time.

Merck Darmstadt and Bayer don't do R&D? That's news to me!

I thought the same thing when T3 came out but in the end it was a pretty enjoyable game. Hopefully this will be of at least that quality. I'll have to check out the videos when I get a minute. Thanks for the heads up.

Minecraft is a bit more of a Lego construction game. I don't know how he pitched his idea but if someone came to me and told me they had a Lego game and presented Minecraft to me I'd have told them their description is a bit lacking.

And the other side of this is that Notch didn't wait for someone to give him the greenlight. Granted the culture and technology is much different but waiting for the approval of others is probably holding many back from bringing a software product to market for lack of skills or lack of resources. Sometimes you need to just throw yourself out there and hope that you can work it out to become successful.

Wasn't there suppose to be a third installment to HL2 first? It's been a while since I've looked into any of this but that would be a hot item for me to play. I'm pretty much out of the gaming scene but I would like to finish the HL series and would play Thief again if T4 ever came out.

The Tour de France is a long way from being "GOOD" at something. You're talking about a few out of a couple tens of thousands of professional bike racers who will ever win a Tour de France. There may only be a dozen or so FIDE champions in your lifetime but you best believe the FIDE also have about ten thousand of grandmasters (if not more) in the same span of time. And if you've ever sat and talked to a FIDE grandmaster (I have) you'll realize that it's not about some unknown ability, it's about an investment in time and sometimes wealth that is plainly out of reach for anyone who has to hold a traditional 9 to 5. They invest much more of themselves in that grandmaster title then most programmers will ever invest in their skill set.

So the question is where are you placing the bar? Things like being a FIDE grandmaster and a winner of the Tour de France have a metric associated with them that is pretty black and white. It's much harder to measure the skill of a programmer.

So disagree all you want but until you can put a meaningful metric to it the whole conversation is still pointless. I will continue to hold to my original assertion that skills are better if cultivated early and that anyone who doesn't have a mental disability can be a great programmer beyond just knowing syntax.

Oh, and if you honestly believe that the people who are "GOOD" at something at that way because It is nothing to do with upbringing, just the way we are. then I urge you to go read Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. It will be an introduction of how elements come together in the proverbial perfect storm to create extraordinary circumstances and sometimes extraordinary people. And it most certainly touches on how being "GOOD" at something does have to do with upbringing even if some of these elements are outside of the control of those doing the upbringing.

What teh hell is his problem? We don't need anotehr key on out keyboards.

Perhaps but the sooner you give a young mind a chance to work with these concepts the earlier you'll find people with "natural" talent and the sooner it will be cultivated.

BTW, as I'm sure you can tell I'm not 100% convinced that this is "inbuilt." I really think it is a matter of upbringing. Whatever kids are introduced to at an early age and whatever they find positive reinforcement in (and negative reinforcement for that matter) will create the kinds of adults that they grow into. They'll simply grow to be dependent if you just fix every problem a child has instead of giving them the tools and knowledge to fix it themselves.

If it worked properly then it would not have "unwittingly" collected data that it should not have had.