Let's see if I can account for also factors that are just as like culprits for lower test scores in Missisippi

1. Unemployment rate, MA - 5.6 MS - 8.0
2. Average Income
3. Disposable Income
4. Parents that actually care about their children's education
5. Belief in a supreme being
6. Racial diversity?
7. Bio-luminescence
8. More Shore line per state volume
9. BP retarded the state with an oil spill
10. I just put this one in here for giggles
11. Mississippi is used to space out counting closer to a single second
12. Proximity to NASA rocket centers
13. We are Legion
14. Anonymous is skewing the scores.

You still have Something Awful.

Give me about 100 million in campaign funding, and I will show you how at the federal congressional level. Give me a billion or so if you want to find out at the presidential level.

So these guys are clearly on the payroll of Boeing and Lockheed.

Does this surprise anyone that this trio of tards is obstructing progress that could be detrimental to their profits?
Considering the cost overruns that Lockheed and Boeing have had as both military contractors and NASA contractors, is anyone surprised that we have representatives trying to prevent the end of their gravy train?

Trying to get piss off Ray Ozzy?

Honestly, I have nothing on the subject of why they would do that.

The current justice system has no respect for boundaries and is willing to strip away what ever rights to privacy they feel they need to bring about their form of justice. While I might not be a fan of Microsoft or Apple or any other company which uses loopholes to evade taxes, I don't want to see privacy violated either. This includes corporate entities like Microsoft.

Granted, Nokia sold their phone/mobile device business to Microsoft and before that, I thought they sold their network appliance business to Checkpoint which is a BSD based kernel if I remember correctly. Old, but still fairly solid.

I honestly didn't know Nokia had anything left, so color me surprised with this.

I can see this point several times over. For instance, if complex animals developed on land before sea, perhaps we would have a eye better suited for terrestrial conditions instead of one that has to work in suspended aqueous solution. A terrestrial eye would benefit a great many species. Instead we managed to get this one trait passed on from generation to generation only modified to work in the existing environment. The downside of complex evolution is once you have committed to a certain path, getting rid of a trait can be next to impossible unless that trait no longer serves a purpose. Even then, we have moles with eyes that haven't seen light for generations.

When being asked, why re-invent the wheel, the best reply is because just maybe the wheel isn't good enough.

I can think of numerous times where people tore everything down and started over and found some flaws in designs that wouldn't have been seen otherwise.

Currently I work around 62 hours a week with a 45 minute a day commute. Presently I consume more than 72 hours of my week either working, traveling to or from work.

So... when do I get the money? I suppose I could get an extra job on the weekends and see if I could get a full 80 hours a week, but for right now, from 6:30AM to 11:30PM, Monday through Thursday and 6:30AM to 4:00PM on Friday, I am pretty damned busy.

Not rich by any standard. Have a used car, 60 year old 800 sq ft home, no wife, no kids.

How others do it on less, I don't know.

This is the same sex discrimination as a scholarship aimed at single mothers or getting women into STEM fields. There is a lack of women in STEM fields. Offering incentives to get people to work in areas out of their comfort zone or to get people to teach others so they can enter an area out of their comfort zone should not be discouraged.

That would be like offering free housing to police in a slum area to bring attention to problems in the inner city.

If we were offering incentives to women to become nurses, I would have a problem with this. We need women in these fields. I say we do what we can to balance the gender inequality in the IS and IT areas.

While there are some social issues that people would argue about, I would consider you to be in the same vein as the person griping about having a ladies night at the bar.

While we have seen a lot of products that lead us astray, even the worst products had some sort of hint of what was coming.

Steve Jobs would deceive many people about a product through various ways, "People don't read anymore?"

Still, there as been enough momentum inside Apple to indicate that there is some sort of wearable technology coming from Apple. This might be a while yet because Apple will want to get the technology correct.

The original iPad wasn't that great, but the apps that followed made it great. The original iPhone wasn't that great, but the apps that followed made it great. The original iPod wasn't that great, but the music catalog with iTunes that followed made it great. They are all devices that open up a new world and revenue source to Apple.

Nobody doubts the potential of wearable technology. We have seen so much through science fiction as we used to see the PADD back in the star trek days. People have jumped into the market and flailed around. If you study every market that Apple has ever dived into, you would notice the same pattern. They aren't out to capture the market share, they are out to succeed where everyone else fails. If they wanted market share, they would have built the crappiest computer they could and raced to the bottom to get the largest market they could. Instead, they build a respectable machine that performs well. Overpriced? Perhaps, but steaming pile of crap? I don't think so.

Watching Apple in the past, they look like they are ready to pounce on the market.

The iWatch will be the precedent to decide if Apple is Apple without Steve Jobs. There are many factors to what Steve did which made their products something to be a part of a person's environment. Wearables have to provide a service that people really want. While the submitter and the article mentions about how 50% of the wearable market is sitting on the shelf, people should take note of every other market before Apple entered it.

Anyone remember the Tablet PC in 2003? That thing was a giant pile of steaming crap that people bought into, but barely used.

Smartphones were alright, but passable. I didn't see much of the advantage and waited until the technology matured. Microsoft nearly killed it, Blackberry saved it, and Apple allowed it to flourish.

Anyone remember the first MP3 players? I had one. They were terrible. I didn't see the point of having a 64MB device that was a nightmare to use. Apple introduced the iPod and everyone else followed suit.

People can trash wearable tech all they want, but I am not going to write it off until Apple fails at it. This will prove that the magic of Apple is truly gone, or ... there really is no point to wearable technology.

From what I see of the leaks though, Apple is doing what they do best so far. They are making the technology simple, small, unobtrusive to one's lifestyle. My iPhone to me is the same way. I don't have the device latched to me in such a way that it feels like an anchor. It's either there or not, but if it's around, I want to use it. Some of the wearable tech that I have seen so far appears to be large, clunky, has a terrible battery life and while might have a lot of functionality, requires too much effort to get anything useful out of.

My best student would qualify as on the street in the AC. He may very well end up that way. He is no doubt my best and brightest student that can't make it to class. When he does, he's straight A, all the way. Yet because he's working extra hours just to get by, because he doesn't have backing to focus on school without having to have two jobs to get in, he's struggling to make it to class.

While I know you are just trolling, I do want to point out that I have some of the best and brightest who just can't seem to get the assistance they need and because of that they are struggling with the basics. The bigger point is that we aren't seeking out these bright few and culturing them to become the best and then we wonder why our advanced college programs only have a select few from other countries in them.

This argument, tried and true boils down to the following:
1. We don't have the support infrastructure in place to culture the best and brightest
2. Society is too busy with bread and circuses to care about those of innovative talent. As long as we are fed and entertained, we are happy.
3. We focus on people who use the existing infrastructure to get ahead as leeches.
4. We do not respect hard work at all levels. Ditch digging is hard work, and I don't think you could get a CEO to do that for a day. (A new show idea.)

I have to admire the technology behind cloning, but to clone a dead chicken is one thing, but cloning some dead mammal would be a better example. Whether this be a rat or something of that nature, we need to consider what we are doing. How do we gestate that clone? Japan is working on technology to carry a human fetus to term, this should be adapted to larger creatures.

Yes, I know a seeded comment says that size is irrelevant, but I have to counter that point and say, "Size is very important."

If we spend millions on a clone and have no way to carry the thing to term or care for it when it's out of the womb, we just blew more money than the idiots who programmed the Mars Climate Orbiter.