>but will be placed on display in the Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall in 2016

No. Fuck this. It's not a milestone of flight, and it doesn't belong there in the least.

Crazy, isn't it?

Evidently, there is some unwritten law that states that Geolocation by IP address shall override any and all set preferences by the user on their device, and ignore any possibility that barring or redirecting the user makes no sense.

I get a version of this periodically on Spotify, where I'm informed that the particular album or single I'm looking at can't be played because it isn't licensed to my region. And of course there's the small matter of my being IP-blocked from Pandora Radio for the same reason.

I ran into a particularly nasty geolocation issue back in late 2012, when I was informed that I couldn't access my National Lottery account because they no longer believed that I was accessing it from the UK. Went back and forth between them and my ISP (VirginMedia), with each blaming the other for the problem.

I've also heard of situations where people have found the books on their Kindles vanishing because they're holidaying in an area where said books aren't licensed.

>Simple math. $5 of gas, split 2 ways, is $3 each. /facepalm

That's just about the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say this year.

Science doesn't explain things, it's just a framework to help with discovering the validity or invalidity of an idea. If you can't find a way to test something, you can't really apply science to it.

Many religious people depart from science the moment it begins to conflict with their own insane views of how the world (and the universe) works. Some religious people feel that there is no contradiction between science and religion, and rationalize it as science discovering God's rules. Honestly I don't have a problem with this, since we don't really know who (if anyone) made the rules.

Atheists tend to like science because it's grounded in fact, and isn't bound to blind faith which I find is also reasonable. Religion has never really proven itself to be anything other than a source of control over people's lives and its value is at best, questionable.

> If motorists drove the same entitled way cyclists ride, we'd all be dead.

Finally, someone who *gets it*.

Our problem isn't with cyclists on the road, it's with how cyclists conduct themselves on the road. The real problem is that cyclists seem to think traffic laws don't apply to them and in doing so put everyone else - including themselves - at risk. You should be fined, have your bike confiscated, and be barred from riding if you're *ever* caught disobeying road rules. Especially a failure to signal, which is something cyclists constantly do. It's too bad you're too dense to understand this.

When you start observing traffic laws like every other person in a car or on a motorcycle, you can talk to me. Until then, go fuck yourself. You're a scourge on the roads.

Also true in actual careers like nursing fwiw. There's a nursing shortage (at least in the U.S.), and men are very underrepresented in the field, so nursing schools have been going out of their way to recruit men.

Well, I certainly didn't. Actually had a better throughput on my connection than I did the previous day.

Meh :) At the time I was reading, only one other comment in response to the article spelled it properly, and I just figured someone might actually be wondering, as a result.

Oddly, the site is offering to let me moderate you now. But that would be immoderate.

Isn't it pretty explicit that the lights are on? Review of applications isn't some kind of blind-review process.

It's not unreasonable to see a prototype, or some work in the direction of the idea you're proposing. It's not unreasonable for people to expect some form of tangible proof that you can do what you claim you can do. This idea that it should be acceptable to place all of the risk on to the customer is ridiculous.

It seems to be structured as kind of an intro to programming, which is one way CS101 classes (in Harvard terminology, CS50) are structured. Not really an intro to CS the discipline, but a broad intro to computers/programming in general for people who may or may not go into CS. Traditionally MIT took the opposite approach, but many schools took this approach.

Fwiw, you can find the 2013 version of the curriculum here (it seems to have been also co-offered as a MOOC). It does seem a bit like a grab-bag of "random stuff in computers".