I refer you to the answer I gave earlier

I second that "best money I ever spent" (well there was this night in a Hilton Hotel that came close...) opinion. I was -10.25/-9.75 and spent lots of money on high quality glass lenses and contact lenses, both of which I hated.

Unfortunately my halo effect (in low light conditions) has never disappeared, but that's a minor inconvenience.

I needed some artificial tear solution occasionally for about a year afterward, but compared to the agravation of contact lens solutions and the area of irritated skin on my nose caused by glasses this was a minor inconvenience. I can read and focus on distant objects more than 15 years after the operation.

I had mine done around 2000, and at -10.25/-9.75 was on the limits of what could be achieved back then. The cost did mean I didn't have to wear glasses, so represented good value for money. My eyes do have a faint ghost image in low light conditions, which means whilst I can drive at night, I do have to make sure I'm alert. As I'm now 50, I'm investigating whether I can have a second minor correction.

Some avian packets will be flash fried.

We are in trouble when it buys Airborne and Water transport.

If they have a foreign visa, then that means they are living in America, working in America, and paying American taxes. The question is, why are they willing to accept less pay than an American citizen if they have all the same expenses as an American? They may (most likely?) have less student loans, but other than that, there's no reason you can't live off the same wages they are. I can understand complaining about overseas workers, because in some places it's actually cheaper for just about everything, even if you buy the exact same stuff. But for foreign workers living in the same city, with the same housing options, and shopping at the same stores, if they think the job is worth the lower wages, maybe you are the one who's expecting too much.

But why does it have to be the most efficient? I know a woman who took software engineering. After she completed her degree, she went to teacher's college, and ended up becoming a teacher. To be a teacher where I live, you need 2 things. A bachelors degree, and to graduate from teachers college. For the most part, it doesn't matter what discipline you get your bachelors degree in. For her, at the time, it was interesting to take software engineering, and it gives you something good to fall back on in case you can't get in to teacher's college, or you decide you don't want to be a teacher, or if the number of jobs for teachers goes into decline. It's a much smarter path than taking an English degree, and then for some reason you can't get a job as a teacher, and you end up with a degree that doesn't help you get a job either.

Did YOU look at the graph? The bars are comparing all of 2013 against the first half of 2014 (obviously, as the second half is in the future). So the fact that IE already matched last year's record is where the 100% figure comes from - it's another way to say "doubled". Unless the second half of 2014 has a lower exploit rate then the conclusion will be correct.

I love how pretty much every country has come to the same conclusion: We can bypass our own laws if we have someone else do it for us.

There's nothing surprising in this. Most countries hire consultants and advisors from the same international legal/accounting firms, who themselves have been trained in the same schools of thought, and often the same universities. The international ascendancy is mostly a mono-culture.

Even after looking at the full report, I see no actual numbers for how many vulnerabilities there were. Going from 1 vulnerability to 2 vulnerabilities would have been a 100% increase, without a huge reason for concern. They also state:

a trend underscored by a progressively shorter time to first patch for its past two releases

Is time to first patch really a bad thing? It really means that vulnabilities were found, and that they were fixed quickly. As opposed to vulnerabilities found and not fixed quickly. I suppose it's worse than "no vulnerabilities found" but even if none are found, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Fixing things quickly is about the best thing you can do. It also goes on to say in the report

Both IE exploits released in 2014 (CVE -2014-1776, CVE-2014-0322) used Flash to build the ROP chain and launch shellcode

Which really leads me to believe that the numbers really did go from 1 to 2, and that the exploits were more due to flash than they were to specific functionality in IE. MS was able to work around the bug by stopping it at the first step, but looks like the exploit isn't possible without Flash.

And about 1 in 1000 actors succeed and become movie stars.

It takes hard work, connections- and a lot of luck.

Unless you have all three, you lose.

Your story is atypical.

One pathway for electron/positron collision can produce a neutral Z and a Higgs. In fact, they already tried that at the Large Electron Positron collider, the predecessor to the LHC. It came very close, at 115 GeV. There were hints of the Higgs, and so it came as no real surprise to find it just 10% higher.

This is actually a more efficient way of producing Higgs particles, at lower energies. The LHC produces the Higgs with two quarks, but there are six quarks involved in the proton/proton collision, so a lot of the energy you put in doesn't produce Higgs bosons. (In very rare instances you'll get two Higgs bosons, but most of the time the other quarks just produce other stuff.)

Engineering is the application of science to the real world. Colliders had already been built before, so it was not a scientific task to build/research a new one. There were undoubtedly a few problems to be overcome, but they were not really scientific ones.

Of course once it had been built, it was science to find the Higgs and other particles by firing it up and seeing what happened.

Similarly, the Manhatten Project was again largely engineering; they largely knew an atomic bomb was theoretically possible. The main problem was to work out how to build a bomb such that a reasonable bang would occur with a robustly engineered device. i.e. that the energy budget would not be lost in the tolerances that they were capable of at the time.

A million pigeons cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.