Absolutely false. The Riksbank gets its authority from the Swedish Parliament.

As you can see in this photo, Krugman is being handed his Nobel by King Carl XVI Gustaf who is a strictly ceremonial head of state. The King may be a customer of the bank, but he isn't a honcho at the bank; Parliament controls it.

However, figurehead Carl XVI Gustaf has no say in who gets the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences; that is decided by this group of professors. Not the Sveriges Riksbank at all. Yeah, I know, you've got a conspiracy theory to explain why all these professors are puppets of a bank. Bullshit.

I just don't get why people post lies on the internet that are so easily checked on the internet. Makes no sense dude; for a ten second chuckle, you've branded yourself a liar in the Slashdot community. Where's the win in that?

I think the thing to do is have two SIM cards; one for USA and the other for the UK. That's what I did on a trip to Italy, and I'm assuming not too many band differences between Italy and Scotland. With that in mind, hopefully my Moto X experience in Italy will be helpful for someone.

I took a stock Verizon Moto X to Rome, Italy. No unlocking, no rooting, no special side-loaded apps; just a plain vanilla Moto X. I pulled out the Verizon nano SIM and plugged in a T.I.M. (Telecom Italia Mobile or something close to that) nano SIM. It just worked! (Note: you'll need a paper clip or earring stud or something to pop the tiny SIM tray.)

When I boot the phone with the foreign SIM card, it first asks for a 4-digit SIM PIN. This number is printed on one of the cards from T.I.M. Then the phone puts up an annoying message: "Sorry, this SIM card is from an unknown source". Then it goes to the home screen, and all is good. Two small annoyances: you have to enter the 4-digit SIM PIN every time the phone boots (you get 3 tries at the PIN - after that I don't know what happens); and it seems to want a reboot about every 2 or 3 days - the symptom is data seems very slow or gone, but a reboot (with 4-digit SIM PIN) makes it all good again.

In the place along the top notification bar where the phone would (in the USA) display the "4G LTE" logo, in Rome it would often display "H+", presumably indicating some kind of HPSA+ connection. I know nothing about European signaling standards, but presumably H+ is good.

We used voice and maps pretty heavily: for example, speak the command "navigate to the Borghese Gallery," choose walking, and you're on your way. Mostly it could understand my english names for places: the Pantheon, the Vatican Museum, the Trevi Fountain, etc. If I had an Italian street name or piazza name, I'd have to type that in (for example, it never understood the voice command "nearby gelato" or "nearby gelateria."). On the other hand, commands like "find nearby ATM" or "find nearby artist supply store" worked pretty well. YMMV

According to https://developer.apple.com/li... Swift includes several C pointer types.

C Syntax ---- Swift Syntax

void * ------ COpaquePointer
Type * ------ UnsafePointer
Type ** ----- AutoreleasingUnsafePointer

There are several more C pointer types on that page, but you get the flavor. You can take that C baggage into your room, unpack it, and make it all home-like.

Not exactly. I have no particular objections to the implementations of C++ I've encountered.

Nope, it's the design of C++ that makes me want to scream...

Many sites are reporting Swift as having "none of the baggage of C."

However, they also report that "Swift code can still be mixed with standard C and Objective C code in the same project."

Seems to me that if you can call C routines, C can happily malloc() and free() the heap and leave stale pointers into freed heap. Likewise, C can happily point into the stack and leave pointers into stale stack frames, and point past the end of arrays, etc.. I don't think they can get rid of the "baggage of C" withoud building all kinds of performance killiing safety checks into the C code. If I'm wrong about this, please don't hesitate to let me know!

Many sites are reporting Swift as having "none of the baggage of C."

However, they also report Swift code can still be mixed with standard C and Objective C code in the same project."

If you can call C routines, C can happily malloc() and free() the heap and leave stale pointers into freed heap. Likewise, C can happily point into the stack and leave pointers into stale stack frames, and point past the end of arrays, etc.. I don't think they can get rid of the "baggage of C" withoud building all kinds of performance killiing safety checks into the C code. If I'm wrong about this, please don't hesitate to let me know!

Yeah, that TouchWiz layer is pretty annoying.

Check out Motorola. The Moto X (4.7" diag) is very highly reviewed & I like mine far better than my earlier Samsung Galaxy Nexus. My mom must bought herself a Droid Maxx (5" diag) that's pretty good also. Being owned by Google, Moto keeps its UI pretty close to pure android.

Not quite. Not quite.

Personally, I recall the $700 billion dollar TARP program advocated by Henry Paulson and signed into law by George W. Bush. Can you provide us with links describing the Obama bailout program you refer to? (Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath).

I also recall Obama announcing that the banks had paid back their loans with interest, such that the government made a profit on TARP.

In summary, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts!

We pretty much already knew that the MPG we saw on the sticker was higher than the MPG we would actually be getting. Hence the phrase "your mileage may vary."

But we also know that the sticker MPG numbers are good for comparing among similar cars, and that's mostly how we use the sticker MPGs. Kudos and thanks to 'What Car?' for calculating the 19% offset figure. I wonder if they could tell us how the offset varies among different types of cars. Maybe SUVs vs econoboxes vs sports cars have somewhat different offsets.

BTW, I would bet that different driving styles, lead foot vs hypermiling, makes a bigger differnece than the 19% calculated by 'What Car?'

I agree, this could be used invasively, and I'm not in any hurry to show the world the interior of my house.

That said, this could be incredibly useful in public spaces.

For example, you get off a bus in New York's Port Authority terminal, 2 stories above ground, and you need to get on a subway to the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. It would be very helpful to have stairwell & corridor directions to the correct platform. Suddenly smoke starts pouring out the lead car train in that maze of platforms. It would save lives if people, not only on site up upstream from the affected area, were suddenly told to reverse course and clear the exitways. It could be like traffic for pedestrians.

Another example:

You have a factory full of pipes and valves and 2000 amp busbars and 440 volt 3 phase machinery. You've always painted your piping different colors (raw materials, steam, cold water, product, etc). Now you would like to be able to pay someone to build a digital model of the whole factory, including locations of every pipe, valve, switch, gauge, etc. The cost of building that digital model used to be prohibitive; suddenly now it's reasonable. With the digital model, you can plan improvements better, find potential safety issues, target repairs, etc.

So yeah, I get that it could be invasive, and we need to make sure it's not. It could also be incredibly helpful.

2000000/(365.25*20) = 273.785 lines per day; 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year.

If we assume a very heavy work schedule of 3000 hours per year, approx 60 hours per week, that's 66.667 lines per hour of fully debugged working code. Seems a bit of an over-estimate to me. (Exaggerate? I don't know the meaning of the word!

Interested readers might also like to see what the Catholic Church itself wrote regarding the 1992 pardoning of Galileo. They cite a mutual misunderstanding, and place blame on both sides. Here's a quote from a portion blaming the Church:

I think the fact that in 1992 the Church itself, after more than a decade of studying Galileo's case, concludes that Copernicanism was Galileo's suspected heresy, should lay the question to rest. Heliocentrism, AKA Copernicanism, was indeed Galileo's heresy.

Actually, the funny thing about Galileo is that he wasn't so much challenging the Bible as he was challenging Aristotelian ideas that got conflated with scripture. A few years ago I asked two Jesuits and a Protestant minister (on separate occasions) where in the Bible I could find statements about geocentrism. They all told me that the Church at the time was full of Aristotelian "science" and that the source of geocentrism was Aristotle, not scripture, though one fellow did note the "sun stopped in the sky" line from Joshua.

Galileo's famous "ball drop experiment" (whether or not it really happened at the Leaning Tower of Pisa) proved Aristotle wrong in one case (Aristotle claimed that heaver objects would fall faster). Galileo's observation of four of Jupiter's moons proved that not all objects orbit the earth or the sun, and that, combined with observations of the Earth's moon, Venus, and Mars, gave him the idea that maybe smaller object orbited bigger ones. These views also opposed Aristotelian teaching, but just like with the ball drop, Galileo arrived at them with some evidence in hand, after observation.

Therefore, I don't think it's fair to say Galileo touted geocentrism without empirical evidence. Without proof, certainly, but not without evidence. And again, the funny thing was that Galileo wasn't so much opposing the Bible as opposing Aristotle.

There are enough errors in the parent that I think a few corrections are necessary.

(1) The USA GPS system was designed from Reagan's 1983 directive onwards to be used by both civilians and the military, and to provide better accuracy to the military. The first GPS satellites were launched in 1989. So it's not really accurate to say "when the system was opened up to civilian use in the late 90's."

(2) The "discrepancy" in civilian signals was known as "Selective Availability" (SA) by "dithering" the clock, and it was designed in from the start so that if an enemy tried to use civilian GPS, civilian GPS could be degraded worldwide without disturbing military GPS. That doesn't mean SA was always enabled. In fact, during the Gulf War, there was a shortage of military GPS units, so the military handed out civilian GPSs and turned off SA.

(3) The " idea of checking GPS against a known good reading" has three forms: differential GPS; only useful locally for work like surveying; WAAS, designed and implemented by the Federal Aviation Administration; and NDGPS, which is still being implemented on US land by Dept of Transportation (it's fully for US waterways thanks to the Coast Guard). WAAS is what you're using now unless you're a ship captain. The point is that except for local surveying equipment, the "someone" who made GPS better is your federal government. This is not a case of clever entrepreneurs outsmarting the government, this is another case of the government providing a new infrastructure that enabled new industries and widespread benefits.

(4) The reason President Clinton turned of the global selective availability dithering is because by then the GPS constellation had a new ability to deny civilian GPS regionally. So it's not accurate to say, as you did, " that the military eventually discarded the idea of putting in an intentional margin of error for civilian signals." In fact, the military has a better method than ever for putting error into some regional civilian signals. http://archive.wired.com/polit...

Galileo's peer review came a few hundred years too late. Torquemada was never peer reviewed. Neither were these Popes.

Conclusion: in religion, peer review is more the exception than the rule.