You'll really like Windows 8, then, because the ribbon is implemented for File Explorer and the Common Dialogs, too.

Worked beautifully, hasn't it? It's all about Facebook letting stockholders and advertisers what they are doing to improve the value of the PRODUCT (a.k.a. "users") to maximize revenue. Outrage from the product only serves to prove its effectiveness.

So when you drive your car, you should have to pay for every toll road in the country, not just the toll roads you use?

Here is the difference between Aero and Cable, and the reason the so called loop hole is valid. Cable collects all the broadcasts signals and retransmitts all those signals along to all subscribers. The fee is the right to collect and retransmit en masse.

There is also and issue of the broadcasters use of the public airwaves. In exchange for this use, it is assumed that the tax payers of this country have access to free programing. Aero is a service that allows us to access that free content. Cable is a service where you buy access to content. Aero is a service where you specify a program to watch, or to record, and that one program is transmitted to you and only you. Cable is a service where all the programs are transmitted to you to be selected in immediate real time, even switch between channels, or channel in channel.

Here is an example, and everyone can decide if this is illegal. Tivo allows a broad range of remote capabilities. Suppose I opened a service in which I filled a warehouse with Tivos and antennas. End users would enter a contract where they would rent a Tivo and antenna. They would use the TIvo interface to control the content. I would have no control over what was being transmitted. Would that be illegal? What if I built a custom DVR and a custom interface? Would that be illegal? What if I used a Tivo and 'shared' each one so that six different users?

This is why the ruling is so bad. It reduces our rights to do as we wish with the content that we have given up bandwidth to receive. In excange for use of the the public airwaves, we have the right to free over the air content. That means content that we collect using an antenna and then consumer for personal use. We can record it to VCR, take that tape with us on a trip, and watch it elsewhere.

The only appropriate thing for the broadcasters to do in response to Aero, it they did not want aero to add a convince for users, is to stop using the public airwaves. Go 100% cable or stream over the internet. This is second major problem with the SCOTUS decision. If broadcasters cannot deal with Aero retransmitted a single show to a single user, and if they have become so dependent on cable, then clearly they are wasting bandwidth that could be used for other purposes. The best thing that could have happened to US, if the broadcasters are as inefficient as it seems, is that Aero put them out of business and then we would have all this bandwidth that can be sold to firms that can use it efficiently. All the SCOTUS has done is save the buggy whip industry.

Well what do you think they're counting on to pay the debt WITH, anyway?

Well, you failed, because that is not the libertarian argument, it's a straw man, especially the "economic islands" part. Libertarian ideas require and encourage greater social interaction among people, not less. It also makes use of empathy for others', it doesn't ignore it, but rather values it as a better motivator than coercion (higher levels of confiscation of the fruits of labor by force).

Well your self-appointed masters are. It was, I believe, the State Department that came up with the figure of $7.2 million as the value to the US for each citizen. I can't find the reference though.

Nor do we live in a hive socialist fantasy land, where everyone happily does his duty at the direction of an all-knowing benevolent dictator.

None of these statistics take into account the rate of attempted suicides. That would certainly be a factor. Using a gun the first time you decide to try to kill yourself, you're much more likely to succeed because guns are so efficient. Taking pills or cutting yourself, or even driving your car into a tree, can land you in a hospital and the people around you realize you try to off yourself and you just might get the help you need to keep you from trying again.

"He said suicide rates tend to be higher in states with higher gun ownership — not because gun owners are more likely to suffer from depression, but because guns are faster and deadlier than other methods such as drugs, carbon monoxide or hanging. People are more likely to survive an attempted overdose or even a hanging than they are a gun-shot wound."

Also from the CDC: "There is one suicide for every 25 attempted suicides."

Wow what a horrible research tool this is. They boil down some very complicated and typically nuanced issues into binary decisions. All outcomes from this are useless.

The skills argument is the traditional method used to segregate the workplace, college, whatever. When the pentagon said that women had to be allowed in combat, one thing that was stressed is they had to pass the tests. There was no admission that the tests were somewhat arbitrary, developed not on some absolute basis, but on a subjective set of requirements. It is like the old SAT. If the inner city kids were getting a question correct more than the northern prep school kids, then it probably was not a valid question, because who has the better education?

Really, what this boils down to is if diversity is, in itself, a benefit. Because of the way I was raised and educated, in a very diverse schools where actual skills, talent, and discipline were the primary method of selection, I think that diversity is a benefit. I understand that others do not. I understand that a private firm should be able to select the best workforce for it's situation, diverse or not.

But I also understand that for a long time, and sometimes even today, the white male is considered the bast choice if available. It is assumed that he will command respect, be at work everyday, and not get emotional or get in a fit because of 'oppression'. It could that this is best way to proceed. Or it could be that firms, if they had a employees with wider points of view, different experiences, they might be more successful.

One thing we have seen specifically with major firms like Google and MS is they tend to recruit from very specific schools. This is more a problem for me because this will invariable create an echo chamber and lead to problems we have seen at these firms in which consumer perception is often not considered because a distinct lack of diversity.

Bah! You called my explanation "baloney" and then you post THIS!?!? What a bunch of hokum. Paper airplanes don't generate lift - you're just describing resistance. A feather will "glide" even slower - are you going to claim it's generating lift too?

Apple promotes Dropcam on it's website, the exact company that Google is going to buy. I don't know what homekit is going to be. Dropcam pretty much requires you to send your personal life to what soon will be Google. The lights require an hardware interface. Presumable Homekit will presumably intergrate the products, if the companies rewrite the software to Apple interfaces. Not to be cynical, but recall the number of Apple ideas that really have not panned out. For instance, I have almost no Apple ebooks.

The problem with google is that it makes most of it's money from advertising. It really has no hardware that is priced to sell, i.e. $1500 google glasses. Therefore one has to assume that at some point your personal home videos will be up for sale in some way. I am looking at y-cam and figuring out what their business model is. The only way to keep your private stuff private is to pay for it. Which is why dropcam was a good choice prior to the google purchase.

In a way, yes. The airplane wing is curved on the top, and flat on the bottom. The wind has to travel farther over the top of the wing than the bottom, meaning there is less air pressure on the top of the wing, more on the bottom, and that's what generates lift.

Excellent idea. Not sure that the insurance is really needed, the trick is simply to market the certification or auditor groups properly. IT PHBs just love Gartner. They'll quote their releases, follow their reports, and buy everything they say without question. So you need an organization like that on the software or software developer auditor side - Gartner does nothing like that. A similarly positioned organization could easily affect the stock prices or VP funding availability of any software seller, so it would be all the financial incentive those developers need.

Your ad-hominem was highly predictable. Try responding to the content, instead of looking for nefarious motives. It's a meta-study of other papers. It's well-referenced and you can go read all the papers they cite yourself.

The point is, there are MANY studies (go find your own citations, if you don't like mine) that show that the MWP was, indeed, a global phenomenon. I won't even try to explain why that's not widely reported, nor the entire history of scrubbing the episode out of the IPCC reports.