Well, I did read that before posting. It says:

"Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and the submissions of the parties and non-parties, the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding of a violation of section 337 and find no violation. Additionally, the Commission has determined to deny AMD’s motion to file public interest comments out of time, to grant AMD’s motion to file a reply in connection with its motion to intervene and terminate, to deny AMD’s motion to intervene and terminate, and to deny Apple’s motion to terminate." ...which, as I said, seems to mean "we've dismissed the case without considering the motions to dismiss based on AMD's alleged ownership."

Should I be reading it differently?

I read it as AMD claimed to own the patents in question but the motion claiming such was denied when the case was found for Apple without needing it. I don't think there was a decision made regarding the ownership.

Yeah, speaking for ADHD, I don't think it's widely considered to be a chemical imbalance. The prefrontal cortex is underactive, compared to the average person, and increasing dopamine levels will counter that to an extent. I'm not sure that's the same thing as saying the dopamine levels were low to begin with.

As parent says here, there are a number of different causes that are thought to contribute to the underactivity. To what was said there, I'll add head trauma and just being an extreme outlier, as well as pointing out that a lot of ADHD-like conditions can be seen secondarily to other psychological conditions.

I don't find it completely beyond the pale that something like excessive TV watching can do this. As simple example: if a child can't see through one eye for a long enough time, the brain'll never develop the pathways necessary to process that eye. If there are similar pathways that excessive TV (or whatever) short-circuits, they may underdevelop too. Mind you, I want to see a hell of a lot more evidence before I believe that, but I don't believe it to be impossible.

Keep in mind "under" is a relative here, though; we're talking about the body adapting to the conditions present during maturity, which is a pretty normal (and on the whole healthy) biological process. If childhood conditions extend into adulthood, it may well be perfect development. All too often, our gauge of whether a kid is normal is "possesses the same skill set as me," but that's just not going to be accurate--especially in times of technological leap where the environment changes quickly.

This. I never touch paper media anymore. I do read Kindle books; study Wikipedia as well as a number of other primary and secondary sources; read, listen to, and watch the news from several different regions and countries; stay more current in my hobbies than magazines ever let me; and even subscribe to a few traditionally dead-tree magazines in electronic format because I like their editorial style. I'm considerably more broad than I ever was with paper.

As far as lowering study scores, sure. Studying more often than not--or at least the easily testable type--involves a crapload of rote memorization. You know what's not particularly important anymore now that you can look just about anything up on your phone? Rote memorization.

OTOH, I bet these kids are a hell of a lot better than I ever will be at knowing how to find relevant information and benefit from easy access to the work of others. And for the benefit of others, they'll contribute what they want to and are able to as well. In fact, they'll be able to contribute that much more that's novel because they're not wasting their time and brainspace memorizing other people's knowledge for lack of a good way to have it at hand.

Speaking as an adult who wasn't diagnosed with or treated for "nonexistent" ADHD until 39, in no small part because his parents bought into the absolutely bullshit line of crap you're spouting when his teachers pointed it out at age six:

Fuck you.

Your other points may be valid, but your straw man is so deeply offensive that I can't possibly absorb them.

These two things could be related. I realize you're not a strict "no watching anything" household, but if TV is rare enough to him it will be supremely interesting when it is there.

Not speaking as a parent here, so take with as much salt as one needs, but I suspect giving a child something else to be interested in is just as important as enforcing moderation in things like TV, games, whatnot. Sounds like you do that. I also commend the attention you're plainly giving your child.

A lot of parents seem to just yank the TV because it's "evil", throw the kid a book, then wonder why it doesn't work out. I think anything can be made into a constructive backdrop for an interactive activity. Even books can make a lousy passive babysitter, especially for kids who for whatever reason don't end up loving reading.

To your direct question, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming -- we're getting there.

There are a number of ways that artificial-intelligence-like routines have directly improved your life, particularly if you've recently listened to Pandora or shopped "related items" at Amazon. Association is one of the core qualities of intelligence. Without knowing the specific algorithms involved, my guess is that some of the closed-loop optimizations in powertrains and similar self-adjusting systems may also have gotten some benefit as well.

We still code in text because we've tried a number of other things and--for humans--text is largely superior for everything except UI layout.

If you only define computing by the interfaces, what you're going to butt up against isn't computing's limitations, but ours.

I'm pushing 40, and getting into the range where ergo issues come up more than I'd like--have occasional RSI issues in my arms and wrists, and my back and neck aren't quite as forgiving as they used to be.

One thing that's worked well for me was moving to Herman Miller Embody chairs at both work and home. I'm not necessarily recommending that exact model. I like them, but the styling is unusual and they're pricy if you don't find a good discount somewhere (hint, ask if you can arrange to piggyback on your work's furniture orders so you get volume discount. I got mine for ~$700 with warranty intact).

What makes them good, though, is that they're built to move around with you so you can fidget properly. The back is built like a spine that flexes, they're shaped to let your shoulders swing back while sitting, there's just enough side-to-side give under the seat to let you shift your weight meaningfully without feeling like it's unstable, etc. Working with the tension settings also lets you find a sweet spot where you're suspended at a proper ~110deg recline by spring tension so you can use your legs to move you forward and back with no effort, which encourages you to flex them. It's no replacement for getting up and walking around, but it keeps you from getting locked into one position and that helps hugely.

I'm sure there are other and probably less expensive chairs out there that give you the same freedom of movement while providing some level of back support. Finding one may make a big difference.

But...beware of armrests. Someone above me mentioned resting the elbow of their mousing hand. Yeah, seems like a good idea, feels better in the short term, did it from the beginning of my hardcore computing career. 20 years later, I've got all kinds of nerve compression issues that probably come from repeated pressure on the radial nerves that run along the outside of your elbows. Plus, if you don't get the height just right you'll shrug your shoulders while you work, which causes another host of issues with neck and back.

Armrests are good--when you can rest your whole forearm on them flat, at rest, with no tension in your shoulders. When you're actually working, may be best to drop them low enough to not be convenient elbow holders though.

In fact, if you can swing it the absolute best position is no armrests at all, or dropped out of the way to seat level (the Embody chair does that too, which I like) and then working w/ keyboard and mouse in your lap instead of on the desk. That'll completely relax your shoulders and keep you from compressing your forearm nerves on anything. When my arms are hurting, I put my keyboard and mouse/trackpad (I use both for different things) on a small portable lapdesk; Logitech makes one that's really light and has a pull-out mouse tray.

Whatever you do, pay attention to the ergos though. You're basically drawing from the "RSI bank" every time you work, whether or not you have any symptoms yet--good habits will get you there slowly, and bad habits will get you there quickly. Make it as slow as possible.

The simplest "people you may know" method is to mine people's contacts when they voluntarily upload them (email, phone, IM, etc.) in a "find my friends" flow. Most of the "holy crap it's my decade-ago ex-girlfriend" style shocks I get are because they still have me in an address book somewhere and they shared it.

...or, reading further, the legislative override. That's actually heartening news to be reminded of that check.

Where did you get the idea that the bill was remotely unconstitutional?

It's perfectly constitutional for me to pee in the street. The state can decide it's illegal, and they're within their right to do so.

It's apparently perfectly constitutional for the police to search cell phones without a warrant. The legislature can decide it's illegal, and they're within their right to do so

This is how the system of checks and balances works; the judiciary is checked by the legislature. But in this case they got checked by the executive on their way to the goal. It's all on the up-and-up, but it's one of the more blatant examples of the government attacking civil rights I've seen in quite a while.

I guess the next step is a ballot proposition for a CA constitutional amendment. I'd think this would be a pretty easy one to get passed, unless some people out there really have a compelling interest in having their own phones searched next time they're speeding. Next step after that is not voting for this asshole again. :/

How true it is. You can approach defect-free by testing against clear requirements, but genuine quality has much more to do with decisions than defects.

I wouldn't call it terrible--just low-level. Building on top of it (or finding a package that already has) is the right idea. Re: the grandposter, JS lets you subclass; not sure how much stronger support you might be looking for there.

So, true, so true. I've been in the position multiple times of having to explain why "removing all this useless workteam siloing and hierarchy" or ditching modularization will sink a project. It's really, really difficult to cite a book that came out in the 70s without A) it sounding obsolete and B) making your manager sound like he's an idiot for not having read it yet.

Protip: if your explanation includes the equation "n * (n -1) * 1/2" they will tune out and your argument will not succeed, however mathematically valid it may be.

Judging by the wording of his statement, sounds like Gutheinz's contingent is going for an unjust enrichment argument: basically that the rock may have been abandoned, but that Capt. Anderson had a legal duty to attempt to return it when he recognized the value.

My guess is it'll come down to whether leaving a high-ticket item in the trash as an oversight is considered an affirmative statement of not wanting it anymore or equivalent to losing it on the street.