This actually makes me laugh :P Sadly, a casual user is not as logical as you think.

And that is what I don't understand. Why do people keep relating CS with programming directly? Programming skill is NOT a required skill in the field for CS as long as CS students can get/develop the alogithm to work with any assigned language they work with. In other words, CS students learn to use a language to demonstrate how they understand the concept and are able to implement. They do NOT learn different languages to be an expert in those languages. I know many of my CS friends who understand algorithms but can't really code! That doesn't mean they can't finish the degree, but it means they may not be a good programmer/developer if they are going to work in software development.

PS: It also depends on school they have been to because some schools are more lenient than others in order to get the degree...

Hmm... You are missing something... You are using "quantity" against "subjective feeling" in this case. Let's say you are making $10,000 a year and you are taxed at 10%, so it would be $1,000. Then another person is making $1,000,000 a year and he is taxed at 10% also which would be $100,000. Now, let's talk about what you said. Yes, the $100,000 is much more than $1,000; however, what do you feel if you are losing $1,000 from your overall $10,000? Do you think you should spend money on a new iPhone with the left over amount when you may not have enough money left to pay rent/car? How about the other guy who still has $900,000? Would he still be able to spend money on "the same" item you may not be able to afford? If you are going to argue about different life styles, that is a totally different topic.

The "quantity" and "subjective feeling" should be considered together in the taxes talk. They are collerated but could be looked at from different points of view. The poor look at the "smaller" amount as a big chunk of money to live on. On the other hand, the rich look at the "bigger" amount as a loss in their investment. They both are NOT the same because the former is for neccessity/living and the latter is for making more money (getting richer). Therefore, arguing on how much taxes should be paid by using only quantity alone would be ignorance. It is extremely difficult to find a happy medium between these two. That's why the progressive rate tend to be favorlable and used (in democratic countries).

I thought the GP (AC) is making a joke, but the parent post (another AC) takes it a serious way...

What are you going to do with a wild chimp (no "human" owner/guardiance)? And what are you going to do with the chimp's parents because they are partially response to the murder of another chimp???

Sorry, but your stereotype is OFF.

Computer Science is not teaching you to do "programming"! If you want to replace the core course with "programming," you are picking the wrong major. You should rather change your major and go on Information Technology/System instead because they do learn more in programming (look at their course catalogue).

If "rote memorization" is what I think (multiplication tables), then kids in Asia are required to memorize up to 12 as well, but may also memorize up to 25 as an optional which is very common.

I agree that they need to collect data in order to improve thie OS. But what MS did is to take the easy way out! There are many traditional indirect ways to get to the same goal, but they need to collect lots of data and have experts analyze the data, let alone the cost to get this work done. Using keylogger is a direct, easy, cheap, and intrusive way to do the work! If those who don't care, it would be fine for them; however, many laymen do not understand what security and privacy are. If MS want to use keylogger, they should display a SUCCINT and HUGE text at the installation to let those who are installing know what they are doing (i.e. "This test verion of windows comes with KEYLOGGER to automatically provide us the feedback. If you do not want it, do NOT install the OS!") instead of play with words (and pretend) to make people feel that their texts entered are not being logged.

I agree that the sample size is too small and the result could be the one hit wonder. If they keep researching and allow publishing of any result (both support and against), I am quite certain that the outcome is much lower.

However, it is a common sense that humans would face more danger if their olfactory becomes malfunction (if you think about it). Why? What are the purposes of smell? One is to help you identify what is good and what is bad. Even though it is more subjective, it is a very common tool for screening any possible toxic to your health. Without smelling, you may accidentally walk into an area or room full with poison or danger (i.e. gas).

Also, smell could enhance your appertize. If you do not or cannot smell, you may not be hungry when you should. As a result, you may not consume enough nutrient each day and could weaken your body.

Last but not least, smell helps you identify what you should put in your mouth. Smell relates to your taste. If you do not smell, you may not know how bad the food you are eating. Try to do it by closing your nose and eat something smelly. You would see that whatever you eat is no longer that smelly; besides, its taste is a bit different (more toward bland). So if the food is already bad, it could cause trouble to your stomach because you do not properly smell and/or taste it.

So to me, it is NOT a promising lines of research but rather a confirmation of common sense. Death can be related to many many factors! Of course, losing smell could be one of them, but making it as a big player in the death is non sense.

Not really. The flavor of the leave is mild but helps your taste bud and eases the spiciness as well.

As the GP said, real Thai food has strong balance; however, it also depends on where you get the food. Each region has different preferable taste. Normally, Northern part tends to be mild to medium spicy hot, Eastern part is medium to hot, the Central part is mild, and the Southern part is medium to very hot.

I guess it is the reputation that Thai food has to associate with peanuts and/or coconut. This is NOT TRUE especially peanut. Most Thai dish does not contain peanuts. Many does not contain coconut and peanuts. I guess the reputation comes from curry dishes (most of them contain coconut but not all types). For peanuts, I guess it is from Pad Thai (but I never order it with peanuts). By the way, Sriracha is NOT a traditional seasoning in Thai but rather a brand name of hot source that makes its name to the west. They don't usually use it in Thailand.

I had trouble for a while trying to figure out the word "Krueng therm." As the parent post said, "Krueng" can be "engine" or "ingredient," but using the word alone will not give you a clear meaning like that! In Thai, the word does not have a complete meaning until you put it in a context. However, it gives you a sense of something that usually has more than one thing involved, and the word is a noun. The word "therm" or "toem," if I guess correctly, means to fill or to add. However, no Thai people would ever use these 2 words together. Thai people either use "Krueng Proong Ros" ("Proong Ros" means to season food) in a formal way. As you see, the word "Krueng" is in there to indicate the word as a noun. Or another word that Thai people would use is "Puang Prick." The first word means a bunch of (normally you would see 4 different kinds of seasoning). The second word means chilli (which indicates some if not all of them contains chilli as an ingredient). I know that some Westerners would want to make fun of the word, so go ahead. If you don't know, the "F" word in English is actually a type of vegetable in Thai, so go figure.

I would think this comment to be more "funny" than "insightful" though. The reason is that this kind of event would happen to any kind of securities -- dame if you do and dame if you don't -- but many people do NOT see it that way.

Let me put it in a simple model. The man is either a terrorist or not, and the security decision either arrest him or let him go. So there are 4 possible ways that the situation can occur: the man is a terrorist and security arrest him, the man is a terrorist and security does not arrest him, the man is not terrorist and the security arrest him, and the man is not a terrorist and the security does not arrest him.

The first possible way would be a news, but appreciation may not really be that high from people. I would also ask, how many of those who already dislikes security at the airport would say? Would they say "Oh it is their job"? Would they really appreciate their work? Very likely not.

The second possible way would also be a news later, but the security would be chopped into pieces. It has happened before and I don't see that it will not happen again. They will be called "incompetent" and many other names. I don't blame those who call them names for this kind of event, but for myself, it also depends on how the situation happened.

The third possible way is this situation because the precautious causes chaos but no harm found. It is annoying and frustrating, of course, but I would try not to criticize them because it is the man's fault. He, who ignores his surrounding, goes through the terminal without going through the security. What if he is a terrorist? If I were working as the security, I would not take a risk to ensure others safety over the noise from people that blame me on my precautious.

The last possible way, as you know, is not very important; however, there will be some people posting about it and say negative thing about how incompetent the security is (again) -- dame if you don't -- even though there is nothing happened.

So overall, I think the situation is appropriate. No harm found and I think it is an unfortunate event to happen...

I can't imagine how your post could get insightful. I guess, so many people do not read TFA but rather throw in their opinion.

Your analogy fails. Now let me give you another one. Let say someone is selling bombs (not kits or tools, but ready-to-use bomb). Do you think it is wrong to arrest the person because his/her customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes? My example is a bit extreme but you should get the picture why this software, which could do harm more than good, would get you arrested.

If I remember correctly, a similar app was offered in a show "Shark Tank" called "Cate apps" or something similar. The apps has very similar functionality in the sense that it can intercept the incoming message or phone call on your own phone, so that others but you would not see. They gave a new name as "Cheater" apps. However, this app goes even further than that. It can intercept both incoming and outgoing (see quote below) many things: Call Recording, Call Interception, Recorded Surroundings, Electronic Mail, SMS, Voicemail, Contacts, Photos, Videos, Appointments. Once the phone has been installed with the app, you can monitor all of those without having the phone!

I understand that many people (including myself) want "freedom," but the real "freedom" does not come with privacy and/or security. Unless you live alone in the middle of no where and completely no interaction with others in anyway, you have to pick the scale between freedom and privacy/security.

I don't think it is necessary to double encrypt your password or increase security; especially the way you do (using SHA256 and MD5). A good explanation about why double/triple/etc encryption may not be necessary can be found at http://security.stackexchange.... (look at the answer to the question).

If and only if you are being targeted. I have no idea why a person who can hack or like to hack would go around and mess around with anyone randomly. There must be a reason why. Hacking is not something you do and expect no consequence (backfire). If you are smart enough to cover your track, then again it is even more questionable why you would go around and do it randomly? Even theft, it is not worth while to select a random house with the system to rob. Why? The theft may get only worthless junk from the house and is not worth the risk.

I agree that they should not implement something and disregard the security, but your reasons is not enough for the argument. If you simply said the reason they should have better security just in case to save their behind for any security incidents, I wouldn't disagree with your reasoning.

I am not sure why the parent post is marked as insightful??? Wouldn't China still use coal if they are not being hired to do the labor work? If their children are forced to work, does that mean the West force them to? Or the local contractors? Or it is simply their own will because many of Chineses are so poor and want to make money regardless what others (especially westerners) rules are or what they think? The culture of Chineses, who are poor, is that they want to make a few bucks if they can rather than sit around doing nothing because they do NOT have government to spoon feed them (both children and unemployed). So if there is an opportunity regardless what kind of work is, they WILL do it (may or may not be happy but resources to buy food comes first).

So I do not understand why should the parent post blame the West for whatever they are now and being insightful... :-\