Is that actually going to help? Isn't the whole problem that the thieves didn't understand what they'd stolen? (I guess you better make sure you stencil all sorts of radioactive/biohazard/warning signs over the stuff, too) (Also - please make sure to mention this post 6 months from now when you AskSlashdot "Why don't women want to date me after the first time that I bring them back to my place?")

(Yes, I know what they mean. I think they meant to write "In particular, interfaces between two languages (when neither is C) are often difficult to construct".
Still, it amuses me to think about making an interface from C... to C :)

Turns out recording stuff in private without first obtaining active consent from everyone who's being record is illegal in Washington state (RCW 9.73.030). So if the Google Glass guy decided to turn on video recording while enjoying his dinner he wouldn't have just pissed off the owner/other patrons, but also broken WA law, too

I can't believe that the summary writer can actually suggest that "Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants" - I can't think of a single restaurant that wants to spend the vast amounts of cash to prevent wireless communication

and (my) parent post has been down-modded yet. :)

if it was geek oriented it would be "some uncanny suggestions", like the Uncanny X-Men! Amirite?

that this is not a complete sentence:
"Although carbon nanotube based processors are showing promise [...]."

Go, speed-editor, go! :)

Y'know, I was wondering which was going to win out- /.'s general disdain for Formal Education vs. /.'s worship of technology. Looks like MOOCs have been around long enough for /.ers to start thinking about them like the rest of Formal Education.

If anyone's interested, we could probably find some open source software to run a betting pool on how /. will break in it's next article on MOOCs (my money's on "back to mindless adoration").

*cough* that's just "several", not "several of". I should have just stuck with " a couple of", as defined by XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1070/

I had a prof in college who explained the whole 'grading on a curve' thing.
He started his explanation by saying that a good exam would have:
* several of no-brainer questions to check if everyone had at least done the minimum and give them a warm-up for the real questions
* several of real questions, to make sure people actually did study, and to produce some differentiation amongst the general population
* one or two incredibly difficult questions. Questions so tough that most people are NOT expected to get them. Questions so tough that if you do get them then you the prof should come talk to you about majoring in the area (the prof taught Freshman/Sophomore level math).
According to him the point of grading on a curve was to be able to put that third category of questions on the exam without destroying the grade of everyone else in the room.

I, personally don't grade on a curve but I thought it was interesting that it can serve a purpose in some situations.

Based on your rule, shouldn't it be

"instead I got an unicorn"?

A unicorn sounds right to me, your rule seems right to me, but I can't quite reconcile them. Ah, cognitive dissonance :)

Yes, that's what I was getting at. :)

"Java Cyber Army"? Really? Shouldn't they use the best tools for the job and not restrict themselves to just Java? I mean, Java's cool and all, what with write-once-run-anywhere and the nifty Spring Framework, but-

-Wait, you mean the other Java, don't you.

Yeah, ok, that makes more sense. :)

If so:
No
No
No
and No.
But thank you for posting a summary that's nearly 50% questions!

Why would I go to a market to buy a service (with a middleman markup) when I could just buy it directly from a provider? Do we really expect to have shortages of computing power that would benefit from a secondary market redistributing computation around?