That a person who chose to not buy health insurance goes bankrupt when he gets sick, is hardly grounds for mandating such insurance for everyone.

Since you clearly have no idea how hospitals the rest of the world work, allow me to explain. You get sick. You go to the doctor. You go home. There is no "copay" or "insurance you choose to buy into".

I know it's hard for you to understand that "not dying from preventable illness" is considered a basic human right in most other countries or how you can have a healthcare system that works efficiently without the invisible hand jerking off a group of plutocratic shareholders. The US has the highest healthcare costs as a % of GDP and the a life expectancy between Qatar and Cuba -- and there's the reason for that: it turns out people will pay a lot of money not to die if you force them to.

And government is necessary to increase the wages of workers. At least according to this communist:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." ~ Adam Smith Wealth of Nations

Sewer/water lines work the same way in every US city and state. It's a shame that most Americans are so ignorant of the services they use every day that their elected representatives ensure work.

those demography, social and cultural characteristics

Like a superior educational system (free public universities), a healthcare system where people don't go bankrupt, better transit, and free childcare?

You get what you pay for -- divorcing higher taxes from the services those taxes provide is moronic at best.

There's a false dichotemy. Everyone's moved to the right to the point that Mitt Romney's quite successful healthcare program is considered "socialist" if you attach Obama's name to it (actual socialized medicine is quite different)

There is no left any more. Obama's continued warmongering is the best evidence.

I don't excuse boorishness or violence - but Linus and Alan Cox never got this level of treatment. Not even Hans Reiser for his obtuseness

How about Hans Reiser for murdering his wife. Does that count as violence?

My first 64 bit chip was the Athlon64 back in 2003 -- over a decade ago. If you're a developer in a compiled language, you presently either must (a) make a 32 bit version and ship it for both or (b) make separate versions and make yourself a support/testing nightmare. No surprise -- most developers opt for (a).
 
...but in a way, that makes using x64 Windows moot. Since there's no software for it (other than the OS itself a web browser or two), why switch? From extra registers, to more available memory, to the no-execute bit -- there's many good reasons to be using 64 bit software.

The real reason, of course, is that many business run ancient 16-bit applications that won't run under a 64-bit OS. This could be fixed with an emulator, but MS, unlike Apple, doesn't have a history of making backwards incompatible moves tha ultimately improve its platform.

Thanks! That's helpful.

GNOME Terminal lists Ctrl+Shift+C in its edit menu (that's how I learned it) -- but the combinations you list work as well and better across different programs.

...which I may add, does not work on Linux. Ctrl+C is break, so most terms use Ctrl+Shift+C. It didn't really become apparent how weird this was before I started using a Mac, where Command+C and Command+V were consistent across both the normal programs and the CLI.

Perhaps the flaw is identifying the "deliberate practice" as the only dependent variable. For example, I play guitar. I'm probably better than other people who have put in the same amount of practice time than I have, since I've put in 10 years on clarinet. Those ten years of music experience, give me an ability to interpret rythym, understand some music theory, read notes quickly, hear pitch, etc. than someone who is "just picking it up".

Similarly, I know some quite good chess players who play Go as well -- one of whom is the champion of a small Nordic country. A player of Shogi recently switched to chess -- and he's quite good. Or perhaps, a good COBOL programmer could be a good Swift programmer with less effort?

There's very little in the article discussing the role of "related skills" -- and perhaps this can help explain the gap.

I don't have mod points today, but I listened to the interview and this is a good two minute summary.

I'm happy when there's a good discussion of huge political issues here on /. -- I remember reading on 9/11/2001 and recently when we decided to bomb another country in the Middle East and enjoying the information and perspective this community brings. I would even argue having more of it is better. However, those are stories which are important and warrant attention from everyone -- regardless of which OS is your favorite (i.e. "Stuff that Matters"). It's good to hear from a self-moderated community rather than a bunch of suits claiming to be experts on cable TV.

This summary is just self-serving political propaganda.

You have no idea about Shaw do you? If you put together a bunch of Stephen Colbert quotes, it's clear that Colbert loves totalitarianism as well.

Shaw was advocated for such revolutionary ideas as equal rights for women and was against eugenics. "Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account" I guess you are one of those idiots?

Check out Kerbal Space Program. You can build rockets, send them into orbit, land on the moon, and learn about concepts like apoapsis, retrograde burns, orbital transfers, and learn astrophysics -- plus it's simple enough I've seen multiple dads who have a blast playing with their kids. It runs on Linux/Mac/Windows and has a good free demo.
 
...but does it really teach orbital mechanics? Oblig XKCD says yes;)

Before "terrorism", there was communism. Before communism, there were anarchists who assassinated an American president.

The FBI once called Martin Luther King Jr. "the most dangerous man in America" (and given death threats). Sartre wrote about suicide bombing as terrorism in the 40's (and thought it was going out of style! page 80).

Tyrants in the US government have always used name calling in the name of "national security" to justify whatever inhumanities they wish to commit. "Terrorism" is not new; its use as a boogey man to scare the citizenry into the creation of a surveillance state is.