False. Science paradigms, for better or worse, remain in place for as long as it takes (Plato to Copernicus/Kepler, anyone?) for a paradigm shift to come along and pull the rug out from under the previous paradigm. This is how its always been. BTW, "modern physics" is always wrong... because its only a model, and NOT REALITY, and merely the best model we have to explain observations as close as we can. What science observes is reality, but the description and explaination is a model, a fictionional likeness of reality, but not reality itself. You're probably thinking of mathematics.

However this is not how vaccines work. I suspect the fine article got a lot wrong.

The idea is that if you vaccinate people they have an increased immunity to the pathogen and have a greater chance of not becoming infected if exposed. This slows or stops the spread of the pathogen amongst a community.

What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).

Our assumptions about evolution is that its driven by the need to survive. When a pathogen is faced with a change in their environment bought on by a pharmaceutical treatment it is possible for a pathogen to adapt to fight or avoid that treatment. This does not mean they'll automatically adapt (they're not the Borg), in fact in most cases the opposite can occur where the pathogen is completely (or nearly completely) wiped out such as the case of smallpox.

Evolution does not consider risks and benefits, changes are random. Sometimes these changes can cause a species to die out by destroying its environment. As for pathogens, killing the host is often required for a pathogen to spread, especially for pathogens that only spread through direct contact (not air, food or water borne), not killing the host by producing symptoms that allows the pathogen to spread is going to result in the pathogen dying out.

In nature, when there is a rapid change in the environment, most species end up dying. This is the bad part of anti-biotics as its a similar event on a mirco scale. They're indiscriminate, so they'll kill the micro-organisms in our body that aren't just benign but helpful. For this reason alone we should try not to not over subscribe anti-biotics, however anti-biotic resistant pathogens are also a consideration.

I have a very strange method of storing my passwords. I keep them in the mk I human brain.

The real security risk is with the online service being compromised and databases or details being downloaded... As what happened to LastPass a few months ago.

What is this them that you talk about? Them, the company with personhood?

If you bothered to read my post, it would have been obvious that I inferred the owners of the effected vehicles.

I really don't see any need for any plugs or ports on a smartphone. I haven't plugged my phone into anything for at least a year.
It charges wirelessly, backs itself up wirelessly and communicates (WiFi, cellular data, NFC, Bluetooth) with everything.
Why would I ever want to fiddle with a plug?

That doesn't always work unfortunately. Some pages are set up to redirect everyone to prevent this. When that happens I move my thumb 2 cm to the right to hit Androids menu button so I can swipe the offending page into oblivion.

Then I make a mental note never to go back there again.

The thing that's going to hurt them is the fact that they'll be forced to buy back hundreds of thousands of Jeeps if the owner chooses.

I suspect quite a few of them will chose to do just that, everyone I know who's owned a Jeep will rabidly warn you off them.

Jokes aside, THIS.

Cup holders are essential. I can live without Twitbook integration, voice activation, in-car DVD and all that other bollocks but cup holders are a basic need in an automobile.

If you're going for a long drive, you'll need a bottle of water and this sits in a cup holder. Same with transporting a drink from where you buy it to where you drink it. Especially if its in a cup instead of a bottle.

I'm one of those people who instantly turn off whenever I get an Interstitial. If I dont get taken directly to the page I wanted I'll mash the back button.

The main reason is that if I'm going to a site, I want a specific page and when you dismiss an interstitial 9 times out of 10 instead of taking me to the content I want to view, it drops me on the sites main/landing page.

Its the same with popup/popover ads. On mobile these are a pain in the arse to close and they interfere with the content I'm trying to view, so again I'll just mash the back button until its gone.

Clothing is among the fundamental elements of civilization. Clothes make the man -- always hated this, but seems true enough: dress affects behavior, behavior determines performance. It certainly doesn't seem fair that those among us with poor taste should be punished for it, but nearly everyone I've ever encountered is very quick to judge based on incredibly short and shallow impressions. If one desires success in corporate career, one will make themselves more attractive, less offensive, and embrace a level of vane pageantry. Yet most prefer to dress how they feel, or as an adjustment to their attractiveness to increase or decrease the level of their social engagement.

If they are summaries of cases, they probably could be considered creative works and eligible for copyright. However, if they are being used by the courts to decide cases, we would have the odd situation where a private party was writing law... and if they were then considered "law" then probably not eligible for copyright.

Are the annotations creative works of a third party? If so, why are they being used to decide cases?
If they are "indexes" they are not eligible for copyright.

I was wondering... What are these "annotations"?
Are they creative interpretations of the law written by a third party? (probably copyright eligible but odd to have a third party creatively interpreting the law and having that used by the courts)
- Are they "indexes" (as some have stated)? (probably not copyright eligible since no "creative" work done)
- Are they "case law examples"? (probably not copyright eligible since these cases would be a product of the court system and therefore not copyright eligible)

Whilst I dont expect that Facebook, Google or Microsoft will deliberately steal money, they certainly wont make it as hard as the banks currently have to.

Beyond this, the possibilities for datamining and targeted advertising is just scary. Roseanne Barr and Margaret Thatcher erotic fan fic scary.

That being said, I'd still not keep money stuffed in a mattress, I'd buy some precious metals and keep them buried in the back yard as metals have the chance to appreciate.