So two years after CEPT approved working towards the SMS messaging standards 3 dudes who nobody ever heard of met and invented the standard.

Unless the two unnamed people in this story are Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert it is a myth sold to a reporter.

Otherwise it's like the guy that copyrighted email.

It is a completely acceptable defense if you aren't on the losing side

Nice slut-shaming.

It doesn't matter if the plaintiff enjoys sex, or is flirty with some people, or anything else. If she was sexually harassed at work, she has a case. Her dress, her sexual conduct outside the office, and her general attitudes make no difference to the question of sexual harassment.

Nate Silver's use of statistics is geeky. Really. That's about all he talks about -- not politics, but statistics. (Well, and sports, but even there, he's all about the statistics.)

Bwah? 97.7%? I'm only seeing an 86.3% chance.

Or is the "Chance of winning" sidebar item incorrect?

10k? People are terrible at estimating the worth their stuff has. So that's probably closer to 2 or 3k (I'm not talking replacement cost I'm talking if we had to sell the stuff wholesale)

So we got the MRI and an aspirin covered at ER rate... congrats what are we getting for the rest of your bill?

Health insurance mandate protects the responsible part of the population from the irresponsible part that thinks they are invincible. Because right now we as a society are paying for the idiots that are using the ER as their general physician

What do you do when you are trying to maximize short term shareholder value in a distribution based business?
Cut R&D, get rid of sales staff for new markets...
Hit your profit goal, sell stock, get bonus by the time the company goes under you're long gone with your friends at McKinney.
Usually it takes 3 years in hardware for a R&D cut to show in sales figures... Mark it down also mark down the current CEO will be chilling on his new island by that time

'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'" The only harm is to these business' pocketbooks.. For once I'm on MS side in this matter...

Then you are failing to think this through. The only effect of this will be to give advertisers an excuse to ignore "do not track". How does undermining "do not track" help anyone?

For once I agree with Microsoft that WE DO NOT BENEFIT FROM TRACKING.

Are you stupid, or can you just not read? Microsoft is UNDERMINING "do not track" by turning it on by default, because that only gives advertisers an excuse to ignore it. "Do not track" is entirely voluntary on the part of advertisers.

Because it renders "Do Not Track" useless. Apache is already ignoring Do Not Track if it detects that you are using IE10. It's a boneheaded move on Microsoft's part.

The Tahrir Project is trying to create an anonymous microblogging platform, similar to Twitter or Facebook. Google was sponsoring development on it over the summer so with any luck it won't prove to be vaporware like Diaspora.

Those were replacement parts purchased on contract. Some small business probably got the contract for replacement parts and decided to cut corners

For items that absolutely need to be TAA compliant a lot of auditing is done. Especially with products that require that all handling is done on a NOFORN basis. If one of the units we manufacture and market under these regulations would be found to have a ROC sourced component it would be good night sweetheart for us.

Ah, yes. Argument by dictionary. That's an excellent strategy: it allows you to avoid the substance of an argument by focusing instead on specific word-use.

Let's try this instead: no religion has been shown to be true. In fact, no religion has demonstrated a basis by which its truth-claims can be evaluated. Religion has no epistemic footing.

You indicate this yourself when you mentioned, "There are over 4,200 religions in the world." (This ignores the various nuanced schisms that exist in many of those 4,200 religions, but we'll let that slide for the moment.) This number indicates there is no real epistemic foundation on which to build a reliable religion. Basically, it's all just gut-feeling, social mechanisms for control, pareidolia, and a desire to know things that are effectively unknowable (or, without answer because the question is bad, such as, "Why are we here?")

So, yes, I think I can say that all religions are wrong, even if they are right in some details. It'd be like the claim, "The earth is warming." That is a correct statement of fact. However, one can be wrong in stating it: "The earth is warming because Hell is getting closer," would simply be wrong.

Religious statements are effectively without basis. Every religious statement that is not grounded in observation and logic (basically, science) can be summed up thusly: "I believe this thing, but I have no basis to assume this thing is true." Asserting a thing as true without a solid basis in observable reality is worse than being wrong. At best it is misleading. At worst, it papers over ignorance, effectively vetoing reason and inquiry.

This is the model that passed peer review despite not passing the smell test, right?
Also the model that hasn't predicted anything yet? It simply correctly models past elections back to 1980. That's not quite the same thing.

A lot of it is also crap: The model for example claims a huge multiplier effect for unemployment ONLY for incumbent Dems, incumbent Reps are not affect by unemployment in this model.

Basically they threw bunch of crap of crap together , tweaked it until they got past elections correct... it also required them to be able to selectively dismiss 7 measurements from 8 elections

And not I didn't come up with this analysis, Nate Silver did. http://www.twitter.com/fivethirtyeight