Deep space exploration could benefit from that kind of durability. It's lasted longer than most governments...

It should pick whoever prefers the cooler temperature, because the other person can button up and then both are comfortable.

In practice it will pick the woman's, even though that makes the guy less comfortable most of the time, because of the way interpersonal dynamics play out between most couples.

Unless you're in one of the few states that either has proportional representation or is a swing state. I have seriously considered moving to a swing state for that reason.

Any job where a significant percentage of people will have a compromised immune system. If you work in estate planning, for example. An illness can be life-threatening for the elderly and if you put them in that position when it was easily preventable you should be liable at least for their funeral expenses.

News for Nerds. Nerds like editing stuff.

I read it. It's pretty, exploratory, well worth a read.

The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation (things are extrapolated and created to be as they should exist when we look at them) or or if something like quantum superposition applies on a macro-level (the observed matter's state is changed based on our observation of it).

The camera didn't change the universe, it changed the *known* universe--made us a little less ignorant. For millenia mankind expanded its knowledge of places by travelling to them. That has now become prohibitive for almost every place in the known universe.

The easiest stuff is done. We still need to explore the oceans and the solar system, where travel is quite inefficient but not utterly prohibitive.

We also need to develop defense against world-killers. Biological, nuclear, and simple kinetic energy.

And the big hump after that should be interstellar exploration. Multigenerational, multicentury.

We'll need to figure out relatively stable world government and economy before that happens, so give us another four to twelve centuries, I'd say.

The team they have working on this is excellent, the idea is promising, the reviews are great, and the advertising is good. Looks like a solid win. If they have good patents on it, they should be able to control a large and growing market 5-10 years out.

It's more of a continuum in the US. A student's history suing his school is only going to help him if he was suing them when they were doing something very wrong, the admissions committee at the school he applied to believes that, and the school he's applying to is rich enough that they can risk a small lawsuit or two.

So if you sue your high school because they wouldn't let you play on a men's sports team because you were gay, for example, Harvard and Yale and a few dozen of the top schools would definitely count that as a major plus, whereas many small private schools struggling to make ends might well count it as a risk they were unwilling to take.

Yes, it *sounds* like that, if you don't remember the constitution and due process parts. This is about which judge is able to issue a search warrant, *not* about whether the police have met the requirements for a search warrant based on probable cause (or falling within a few exceptions, like border searches).

One of the images they've recovered literally says "HEY".

No, really.

Search warrants are still subject to constitutional requirements of reason and due process; this is a procedural rule independent of that.

It will allow a judge to issue the warrant even if the FBI or police are not sure what judicial district it's happening in. It's important to let a magistrate judge approve a warrant on that basis, because the current rule 41(b) does not provide for it except in terrorism cases. So if you have someone selling hard drugs online, for example, but the government can't tell whether they are located inside the United States or not, this provides a way for them to get a warrant to search.

See the proposed rule (from last November) on page 111 of http://www.uscourts.gov/uscour...

The old one is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul...

And isn't it racist to get rid of the blackberries?

All of these are things a kid should come across while growing up in a few parts of the world.

Acorn is an especially disappointing word to lose--suddenly all these things falling from the sky don't have a word. We just live in a world where things fall from the sky and are undefined.

Minnows are a bit strange to lose because it's a basic fish, for a pet or for feeding to pets or for following. But I suppose you could always learn the word when you got the pet.

Finally, did they get rid of blackberries because it was racist?

There are lots of legitimate reasons why they could do it. Ultimately I'm sure it was a small part of a larger strategy to do something community-relations related on page 25 of a powerpoint presentation.