Are you referring to the college rape article that they are getting so much flack over now? I don't read Rolling Stone with any regularity so I hadn't noticed it before the coverage of it that came recently..

That said, any article from Rolling Stone is a far cry from any article in National Review. National Review exists to push a political agenda. They were founded by conservatives, they are staffed by conservatives, they provide a voice for conservative beliefs. Rolling Stone may lean a bit to the left (though only on the American spectrum where "left" would be considered "right of center" in any other nation on earth), but the National Review proudly proclaims their lean towards the hard right.

Furthermore, if you are talking about the rape article, what was the political motivation of it? This National Review article - like every other article they publish - is published to further a political agenda. I'm not aware of anyone who takes a pro-rape stance. Yeah, it was irresponsible to publish an article on a rape when the sources were not properly vetted - and some people suffered as a result who should not have - but it did not serve any obvious political purpose or any agenda beyond selling magazines.

You linked to Rush giving his additional spin to the only "source" on this matter - and the "source" is the same collection of partisan hacks you linked to in your previous JE. I suspect based on how far you have slipped in what you like to pass off as "reading", I probably paid more attention to this than you did.

But go ahead, tell us your latest conspiracy attached to this. I'm sure you have somehow already connected this in your mind to President Lawnchair (or someone else has already handed you a fact-free claim for how it connects). Bring it home, smitty - tell us how this leads to impeachment without any demonstrated facts. You don't usually write multiple JEs for conspiracies unless you believe on some level that they can be used to bring down the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania who has the wrong consonant after his name.

...he says, quoting a malpractice lawyer of all things. By that ludicrous number, one in 680 Americans are killed by doctors each year. If you live to the age of 75, your odds of dying this way would be 1 in 9.

Plenty of people get bad treatment, sure, but you can't make me believe that one in 9 will actually die of it. That would make malpractice nearly as deadly as cancer, and that's just not plausible.

That's an excellent point. Yeah, I think we can cross that off as busted.

The more accurate headline on Slashdot and the UT San Diego website would be, "Study finds immunized siblings of autistic children not at higher risk of developing autism than immunized siblings of unaffected children."

No, the correct headline is "Study finds immunized siblings of autistic children not at higher risk of developing autism than non-immunized siblings of autistic children."

Additionally, this study says the precise opposite of what you said the headline should read, finding that siblings of autistic children were almost 8x as likely to develop autism as children who did not have an autistic sibling, regardless of whether those children were vaccinated or not.

The people you're describing drive me insane. We have a pediatrician who said what you did: either you trust her to recommend vaccinations, or you find someone else to work with. She doesn't want patients who continually argue against everything she says.

Here's a test. You know all those godless communist governments that want to take over America and sap our precious bodily fluids? They don't have profits, right, because they hate our freedoms. They also don't care about their disposable citizens. Right? OK. So why is it that those countries vaccinate their citizens? It's not for the profit motive of drug companies, because those are owned by the evil socialists. It's because they cheap out and practice preventative medicine so that they can keep working the proles 112 hours a week, and you can't do that when they're sick.

But tossing aside the Fox-news-watcher-ready wrapper, it's true: absent a profit motive, every organized country in the world immunizes their citizens so that they don't get sick as much. Do you really think China gives a crap about GlaxoSmithKline's margins? Hell no. They use vaccines because it's far and away the best possible investment into keeping people healthy.

There is literally no valid greed-based explanation for vaccinations. It's dumb when you consider the American health system, and utterly braindead when you look at the other 95% of the world's population.

You're so full of shit. According to The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, in 1989 the CDC recommended 8 vaccines for kids (the same 7 it recommended through the 70s, plus Hib). The 2010 schedule includes the 8 from 1989 plus hep A (dangerous in kids, lethal in adults), hep B (40% lifetime risk of liver cancer in 95% of newborns who contract it), flu, varicella (not the innocent, cute little illness antivax wingnuts claim it is), pneumococcus (lethal), and rotavirus (potentially lethal).

The evil drug companies took the 8 vaccines from 1989 and added 6 more potentially lethal or crippling diseases, for a total of 14. One-four. Maybe the 72 number is an innocent mistake reflecting the total number of shots, although I sincerely doubt it's that high as DTaP and MMR are each 3 vaccines combined into 1 (as they have been since the early 80s). That narrows it down from 14 to 10 unique vaccinations, and they simply don't take an average of 7 shots each per vaccine.

Yes, I get testy about this. As many times as antivaxers tell me to "do my research!", it seems that none of them can be bothered to.

He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted. A system which threatens minor crimes with draconian punishment needs to be reformed. As for you, I hope some cop shoots you.

You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.

Wrong, there's lots of sites where there's feature degradation for mobile users. Just because you think good design wouldn't have this problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, or that all mobile sites exhibit good design.

As the other responder pointed out, there's still 50% of your users using PCs to view your site. In addition, a large fraction of those mobile users are using larger-screen devices like tablets, and might not want to see your crappy feature-limited mobile site, and want to see the normal one instead. Do you have an easy way for them to see the desktop site, or do you make it impossible?

Anyone who spends anytime in the wilderness hiking etc, still likes feature phones. They either have days of standby battery time, removable batters so you can prevent parasitic drain so as to be sure that lithium ion cell will be ready if you NEED it. They still tend to weigh less than even the smallest smart phones too; although the gap is shrinking. Finally these phones are cheap should they come to an unfortunate end like you slip fording a stream and everything in your pack gets soaked or you fall and crush the thing, etc no big loss and you don't have to have some insurance plan. Even if nothing bad happens to them they tend to be fairly rugged without the need for more weight in the form of protective cases etc.

From what I've read, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has a removable battery, and is waterproof. It's still vulnerable to being crushed I guess.

No, it doesn't, because Google doesn't own mobile devices. They have a hand in them with Android, but they don't really own Android (they give it away to the device makers), though they do profit from Android's use of Google services. However, Android isn't the only mobile platform, iOS is the other one, and is arguable much larger according to stats showing how much their users actually spend on stuff.

Anyway, they're not pushing people toward mobile devices; people are doing that all by themselves. Google is pushing websites to have mobile-friendly websites. It's crap, of course; not every website is necessarily one which people are going to want to look at on a mobile device. For instance, how many people order from McMaster-Carr on their phone versus from a PC? Probably almost none, because most people buying from there are getting stuff for business use, not for personal use, and if they're at work ordering nuts and bolts and metal stock, they're sitting in front of a PC.

Just because something doesn't work out, doesn't mean you were wrong to try in the first place.

In many cases, yes, it does mean exactly that.

Proof: Windows 8 Metro UI

I would add Google+, but actually G+ has its uses. It's pretty popular with highly technical people, especially in the OSS realm, for communicating in a way that allows the general public to see what's going on. The problem with G+, as I see it, is not it existing, but the way Google has tried to force everyone into using it. If they'd just offer it as an optional service, it'd be fine: people who like it could use it, people who like Facebook can use that instead, and people who don't want to use any social media stuff like that could ignore both of them. But no, Google wants to push everyone into using G+ whether they want to or not, by tying it to their other (highly popular) services like YouTube and Gmail and making it really hard to not have a G+ account.

The problem with Google these days is they want to force themselves on everyone instead of just offering a bunch of services and letting people pick and choose and use what they want. It's hubris, but an especially obnoxious type of hubris. They have several very popular services like Gmail and Maps and YouTube and of course Search, but they can't just be happy with that, they have to keep pushing for MOAR, to the point where they're pissing people off. That's not a good way to run a stable company, but it seems that Americans don't give a shit about having stable businesses any more, they need to have constant, year-over-year double-digit growth or else they're "dying". So Google won't just offer some nice services and be happy with the revenue they generate (either directly or indirectly); if something isn't growing fast and dominating the market utterly, they drop it like a hot potato, even though lots of users like it and want to keep it. Eventually, this management method is going to catch up to them.

How much time do you spend waiting on your "slow" SATA SSDs to answer requests, and how much would migrating to PCIe SSDs lower those waits? That's the subject of the article and what I was discussing. :-)