Give me a break. Since when is good science disseminated by press release?

I remember when Fleischmann and Pons pulled a similar stunt. That turned out to be bunk too.

What do we want? Evidence driven change
When do we want it? After peer review.

If Wikipedia were a person, you could just edit his face.

There are still quite a few unemployed and underemployed. Just offer them jobs as Prisoner Simulation Engineers and you will kill two stones with one bird.

Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.

Half of the lobbying transaction is talking. The other half is listening because the person doing the talking is a good source of campaign money.

Also, there are more definitions of bribery than the legal definition used to describe the crime.

Nonsense. 20% is generous as an average for this group.

http://www.businessweek.com/ar...

All they've done is double the PPI of the existing displays exactly. This is going to be like the transition from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4 - everything will have the same physical dimensions, but applications that support retina displays will look sharper.

I'm sure if you want to use your screen as something that's quadruple the logical size you'll be able to, but this is intended to be a visual quality upgrade, not a real estate upgrade. What you'll get by default will simply be a clearer version of what you already have with existing 27" displays.

Intelligence is a lot like money.

Those who've always had an abundance generally either think its no big deal, because they've never suffered the limitations of not having enough, or look down on those with less and consider them inferior.

Those in the middle have enough to see the benefits of having more, and want to improve themselves in order to get more.

At the bottom this analogy falters, but I think the point remains. It's easy to dismiss making the rest of the population smarter when you're already smart and not suffering the limitations imposed on those with less to work with. I find the notion that we shouldn't meddle and just leave those who draw the short genetic-straw to be cruel and self-serving. If the lowest common denominator is raised, chance are the whole society benefits, the world becomes a better, more thoughtful place, and the overall pie grows accordingly.

It's very difficult for me to see how you could make a consumption tax progressive enough to result in overall progressive taxation when there are people with 10s of billions in financial assets walking around.

Their personal consumption rates are in the fractions of a percent of their income, not say 80% like an upper middle class person.

Ultimately I think the current taxation system is reasonable IF some of the egregious loopholes are closed - particularly the carried interest and in the area of estate taxation.

In traditional societies your children would take care of you in old age.

Maybe if we got away from this nuclear family bullshit parents would pay more attention to their children because the return on investment would once again be important to them.

IT MEANS?

FAG RABBI!!

Now he gonna carve your putz, right after he KISSES THE BROWN SPIDER!

Strainers are like baskets - I aren't they all receptacles with leaks?

Actually I know shit all about "Docker" and haven't bothered to understand "application virtualization" or how it differs from "server virtualization". Let's not get to docker as a specific app virt with defined constraints and capabilities.

Hey! Let me add this piece of non-information, related to my opening statement: "colander".