And I thought there were only 43 reasons to cancel facebook. Now there are 44.

There must be 50 ways to leave your stalker^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfacebook.

A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist.

No. A watch is a piece of jewellery you wear on your wrist. The only difference between a wristwatch on one hand and a pendant, a bracelet or a brooch on the other is that a watch is the only widely allowed jewellery (other than a wedding ring) for men. Of course, the intricate mechanics and technical craftmanship is an added appeal, though the actual function of telling time is just a bonus, not the main point.

And that explains why there are such a large number of watchmakers, and such a huge number of models; with jewellery, the last thing you want is to wear the same thing as everybody else.

It's not scratched, it's vintage :)

This is word for word the first comment after the original story. However, as both commenters are named "Scott" it may not be plagurism but rather comment reuse.

(And also I would not recommend putting a metal case laptop on top of it on a regular basis :-)

As a non-musician I'm curious: what is the problem of putting a metal case laptop on top of a piano? Scratches, or something more interesting happens?

Reminds me of the following passage in the Commodore-64 Wikipedia page:

In January 1983, Commodore offered a $100 rebate in the United States on the purchase of a C64 to anyone trading in another video game console or computer.[27] To take advantage of this rebate, some mail-order dealers and retailers offered a Timex Sinclair 1000 for as little as $10 with purchase of a C64, so the consumer could send the TS1000 to Commodore, collect the rebate, and pocket the difference; Timex Corporation departed the computer market within a year.

Scientists and engineers are by definition not supposed to be ethical.

"I just invented the bomb. I didn't drop it."
        --Brice, Max Headroom Episode 1 "Blipverts", 1987

Reference (in particular, the third video clip): http://www.avclub.com/article/...

Back then that line was meant as tongue-in-cheek humor, funny because of its ridiculousness Depressing that we've degenerated so far that you've actually said the equivalent with all seriousness. (The same could be said for many things in that once funny, now prophetic series.)

As engineers and scientists we do NOT check our humanity at the door, or our ethics. At least, good engineers and scientists do not.

Second a Happy Hacking Pro keyboard. I have the HHKB Professional JP and it's wonderful.

For citations central to your argument, sure, you need to track down the main papers. It's not that difficult - just look at what papers everybody else is citing. But most citations are just fulfilling the [citation needed] reqs for facts you use in your work. Any one of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of papers would easily fill in for that role.

You find two references about the same thing. As far as citing the fact you need they're essentially equivalent. One will take three weeks and thirty dollars - and half a day of arguing to make the lab pay those thirty dollars - to get, and half the time your thirty bucks will give you a badly printed paper copy. The other you can download into your paper manager and read right now. Guess which one almost everybody will use?

I suspect that we could persuade those caches to flush to RAM, simply by exhausting the number of possible lines for that address - if the cache is set-associative. Of course modern processors have multiple levels of cache, so that makes it harder.

Of course Minecraft is violent. Do you have any idea how many innocent instructions get executed to make it run?