I'm not sure you are entirely on logical footing here. Theologians are those that study the bible as a professional career, probably not a large overlapping set of folks to those that are Christian criminals (unless you think most theologians are criminals, or that most Christian criminals are christian theologians). When I claimed most theologians interpret these things, I meant those that study the bible as a professional career.

Again, as cited by the article you linked, you conveniently omitted the opinion of Muslim extremists on the internet qualifier, as if they were somehow representative of all Muslims or Muslim clerics.... Citation of statistically valid poll required please... (to paraphrase your rules).

I don't think you are understanding the origin of the Koran correctly if you use the word of "has made his". Mohammed was an illiterate prophet who allegedly received the word of god and communicated it to scribes which is recorded as the Koran. You can choose to believe what you wish, but I suspect many followers of Islam might use this slip up mischaracterization as a signal that you really have no idea what Islam is about or what the motivation of followers are.

BTW, I am not Islamic, or even religious in the slightest (now or in the past), but have studied the Bible quite in depth in the past (grandfather was a minister) and the Koran more recently just out of pure curiosity and contrast.

You are comparing the common practice of westernized Christians to that of radical Muslims.

FYI, the christian bible is somewhat ambiguous on the tenant of following secular law vs god's law. As I remember it, although much of the gospels deals with the idea you bring up about submission to the laws of man, in Acts 5, the apostles clearly state that "We must obey god rather than men." when confronted by authorities with illegally prothesizing their new Jesus worshiping religion. The take-way by most Christian theologians on this topic is that the bible says you should always honor the laws of man, but you must fear and obey God's word when it conflicts.

That kind of pulls the rug out from your so called saving grace depending on how you interpret God's word. If you think god is telling you to stone someone, you should "fear god" and obey, but if it's something simply described that someone else stoned for some specific reason in the bible and God didn't tell you to do it, well, perhaps you should honor to the laws of man (this is a paraphrase of Peter 2). Kind of a slippery slope for a radicalized religious type isn't it?

In case you aren't aware, the reason the Muslim and Christian (and Jewish) religions seem to be so close is that they hold several common old testament scriptures as canon. It is these old testament books that have the aformentioned description of religious law and punishments. The main difference of Christianity is the identification of the prophet of Jesus and how he may or may not be the embodiment of god (depending on how the Christian sect interpretation of the trinity, etc). The gospels which recount the early days of the christian church and the Revelations about the second coming and salvation are really the only "technical" differences in the basics of the religion. The details are really in the interpretation of the same texts and unsurprisingly track each other very closely (e.g., like halal and kosher foods, similar but not the same)...

FWIW, providing much of the information about institutions such as graduation rates, student debt, etc is already required by Title IV... Except for faculty pay and overhead.

Although that information might be interesting for a typical community college, that information is likely silly for a typical private prestigious research universities. Basically private universities charge whatever they want and don't even bother computing the fraction of pay for "teaching " for hot-shot faculty members (who are basically hired as research grant rain makers), but still teach as part of department rotations (or even for "fun"). Also splitting the administrative costs for research and teaching at these types of institutions would be difficult at best. List price tuition at these types universities are basically funny money. Nearly every student pays a different amount due to private grants given to gross up loans and required parental contribution to the full tuition amount.

For most prestigious private schools, I suspect if they were required to do this crap, they would simply opt-out of the loan programs and finance loans through their endowments. This wouldn't impact their application rates, nor the tuitions they charge at all, it would likely only punish middle class students (who rely the most on these programs). The ~$5000/year cap on most of these programs is a drop in the bucket for the institution, but a big deal for the middle class family trying to put their kids through these types of schools. Once free of federal direct loans, all your other proposed requirements would then be moot for those institutions.

As for your loan repayment suggestions, I suspect you already realize this means it isn't a loan you are getting (with someone fronting the money and expecting to get paid back with enough interest to make it worth the risk). This would make it basically more like an entitlement program (like social security or medicare or unemployment insurance, or worker's comp) which needs to be funded somehow by a combination of fees (getting payments from those that can "afford to pay back") and taxing others to make up the difference. Not that this is wrong, but you should call a spade a spade. It is no longer a student loan, but a progressive tax you pay for taking advantage of a reduced cost education.

Leviticus 24:16

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Although you can probably label every born on earth as ignorant to make any case, I suspect all such behavior by religious "moderates" (including Christians) is simply explained away by suppression of cognitive dissonance.

For example, the GPL (in abstract) vs GPL v3, vs what they do in their day job for their employer. Some people will happily work for a company that chooses to for a MIT/BSD license (or perhaps closed-source license), yet privately support a more radical GPL v3 position and occasionally hope for a more radical change. In fact over time, their radical views might mellow and reject GPL embrace a more moderate MIT/BSD philosophy yet still promote the GPL out of fear of persecution by their comrades.

There's no need to call these people out as being "ignorant, in denial or just lying -- either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause". It's simply a common behavior hedge in a social environment. We are all ignorant, in denial and often lie to our selves or other people and fear persecution and privately root for things that advance our causes which generally causes cognitive dissonance. It's just a matter of degree and how much we are able to suppress the discomfort associated with it.

I think you are confused. Actually, filming a real bank robbery (even if you film it yourself) is perfectly fine. The mere act of filming your action (e.g., the bank robbery) does not make the crime legal, however. I doubt that such a film can even be excluded as evidence against you by self incrimination since the camera is not you (although it may be more difficult to establish a chain of custody). People get caught on "tape" by their own security cameras all the time and that is not problem as far as I know.

For the most part, there is no laws in the US to control what people should make movies about. The only filming that appears to be out of bounds today from a legal point of view is child pornography and sadly the laws against this do not stop it either...

FWIW, it appears from the paper that this extra "mass" is an artifact of analyzing entangled particles in a linearized gravity framework and observing a stress-energy tensor term that seems to appear higher for entangled particles and radiated away as particles move to decoherence. This perhaps might be considered the mass of the entanglement.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be cool if the reason for the observed equivalency of gravitational mass and inertial mass was somehow related to quantum entanglement? (yes I know this is unrelated to this phenomena, but still)...

Although I only have access to public information, AFAIK, it isn't Apple that invested in Corning, actually it is Samsung that invested in Corning (~7.4% stake which makes Samsung the largest single shareholder of Corning).

Although in the past, Apple had made an investment in Samsung Semiconductor to ensure flat panel technology availability, I believe they no longer use Samsung flatpanels nor hold that investment.

For their semiconductors, their relationship appears to be a foundry deal only. Samsung has made investments themselves on fab capacity based on being an Apple supplier. Of course as industry practice, Apple likely makes component pre-payments based on forecast demand on a discount basis (which gives Samsung funds to finance it), but that's not the same as an equity investment.

On the other hand, Apple apparently has invested a few billion in Sharp as their new flat panel supplier. There is also a rumored multi-billion dollar Foxconn investment (for expanding iphone production capacity), but I can find no public evidence of a Corning investment.

That's not to say that Apple and Corning don't collaborate very closely on gorilla glass production, but there doesn't appear to be this billion dollar investment in Corning that you are referring to.

Apple didn't spend their own money on production of their "special" glass (it is purchased gorilla glass 4 from Dow Corning)...
On that whole GT advanced technologies sapphilre disaster, they attempted to purchase their own production labs (and lease them back to GT for production), but apparently that ain't gonna happen now...

Actually Nvidia, Apple, AMD, Qualcomm and Xilinx are major customers of TSMC's advanced processes and all are subject to the whims of the supply and demand for wafers at TSMC. It's just that Apple is a bigger and newer customer and generally customers in that position get preferential treatment to win their business. FWIW, at a capital cost of about $2B, I don't think Nvidia and AMD are going to get back into the fab biz any time soon. Then their is the whole poly silicon suppliers and wafer suppliers and Applied Materials steppers, etc, etc... Companies are all highly independent on specialized suppliers. This is not unsual in this business (or any other modern enterprise). Very few companies are totally vertically integrated these days...

FTFY. Might be true someday, but not today...

In reality, public money passes through government default subsidized student loan programs to allow students to borrow money at favorable interest rates to allow many students to pay textbook companies that otherwise could not afford to pay textbook companies. But I digress...

Fortunately, student funding/debt has very little to do with how most universities are funding their research. In actuality, most prestigious research universities are pretty much directly funded by public money (including private institutions in the USA) in the form of research grants. The tuition they charge their student (esp at the undergraduate level) generally is a small part of a typical schools budget and generally could easily be covered by a fraction of their endowment income. Most grant money *includes* overhead for operations.

However, student funding has very much to do with how universities fund their non-research operations that aren't covered by grant overhead. This is especially true at institutions that do no research at all and of course most acute at diploma mills.

The reason that prestigious research universities charge students so much is that it conveys a sense of value to the education they are providing and is easy to get the students to take out loans (esp publically subsidized loans) for their education and once they max out loans, they often discount the remainder to cover the difference. The reason less prestigious universities charge so much is that more prestigious universities set the price point high (basically a type of comparative level-set pricing collusion).

Sadly, the way it is set up now, by making it so easy to borrow, the government is essentially tax/spending the students future income to transfer this wealth to universities. Is it fair that only students are burdened with this "tax" rather than the public at large? The universities are charging more because it's easy for the students to borrow the money and the students are caught in the middle. Why is the government making it so easy for students to go into massive debt (esp for diploma mill paper)? Well that's a political question...

Textbook money is also a drop in the bucket at any research university. Other than undergrads, who's using textbooks for research anyhow? Instead, researchers are reading and writing papers for journals that are probably 10x worse at gouging money than the worst offending textbook companies.

That summary is a total superficial read of the article.

It seems to me the point of the article was that 1994 (the web 1.0 boom of silicon valley) seemingly should have been more women friendly, but the valley was already being run by money from the previous booms in silicon valley and for a multitude of reasons which they list (e.g., male dominated venture capital firms), was unfriendly to women as chronicled by the biographies of the class of '94 from Stanford. One of the reason they cited was that women seem to gravitate towards "safe" jobs (e.g., law, finance, medicine) and a new "boys-club" mentality of the startup culture (specifically mentioning Paypal which was a Stanford dominated startup).

These same trends were most certainly true both before 1994 and after 1994 and not exclusive to Stanford... TFA didn't say techs' gender gap started at Stanford. TFA used Stanford as emblematic of the issue.

There's an obvious solution this... Assuming you don't want a cat or a home...

No? Can we assume this is the only product on the market (and before it was invented, cats littered homes with reckless abandon)...
If in the end, this is your only solution, then make your piece with the DRM, or with bypassing it. Don't forget, you always have a choice..

FWIW, the longshoremen solution is a container royalty central collection fund which is like a "tax" for intermodal shipping containers... The money from this "tax" goes to... the few folks that got to keep their jobs (to pay for lost employment opportunities).

There isn't a specific pallet tax that I know of... Yet... (although there are often redemption-like fee associated with pallets)

You may have meant it sarcastically, but since the 60's, longshoremen have acquiesced to the use of efficient containerization in exchange for a royalty payment to compensate for lost job opportunity... You can read about the on-going fight about this here

Of course, jobs have been lost, but the folks that still have jobs are being compensated quite well for the time they took to process the container, almost as if they actually stuffed and stripped the cargo (what packing/unpacking is called in maritime transport lingo) w/o actually doing so...

This has less to do with pallets, but advent of multi-modal shipping containers.

FWIW, having worked in a warehouse for a production line, I can say that even material handling w/o pallets is basically a non-starter. The line expediters in our warehouse worked with unpacked material and the inventory tracking and special transport handling that went along with that is easily on par with simply just discarding the partial pallet storage that was left in its wake. It isn't just shipping that relies on the magic of pallets...