It's not Yahoo that's at fault here, at least not all by itself. Microsoft chose to implement an "on by default" DNT feature in IE10, which goes against the agreed intention of DNT. Microsoft can fix this in many ways, the simplest of which could be to offer the user a choice upon first using IE10 - heck, they can even have the "activate Do Not Track" option selected by default, so people will only have to click "OK".
Why, do you think, did Microsoft choose not to do this? Do you really think that removing that choice from the first use degrades the user experience so much that it validates ignoring a standard and risking justified behavior from parties like Yahoo? Or could it be that it is Microsoft that would like to see DNT marginalized and sees this as the perfect way of doing so: embrace (done), extend (done), extinguish (in 3.. 2.. 1...)
I agree with your point; that intelligence is not just nurture but also nature and that genetics play a role in this. Whether that link is "very" strong, is probably up for debate.
However, you open yourself up for serious criticism with a poor example. After all, IQ test do not (just) measure your genetic predisposition for greater intelligence. So, the parents with an IQ of 90 may well have been genetically predisposed for high intelligence, but raised in an environment that failed to capitalize on this. Passing on these traits to the kid, it may well surpass its adopted parents if it receives the same quality education and upbringing they have.
Backing it up with anecdotal evidence doesn't help the case either. Bottom line is people still aren't sure what is causing the rise in IQ, but we can be fairly sure it's not (or hardly) genetics. The rise seems to be too steep for it to just boil down to natural selection doing its work on our gene pool. The linked Wikipedia entry offers a few reasonable explanations.
In the end, the piece isn't about why any single individual might have a higher or lower IQ. It's about the constant need to raise the bar and re-calibrate IQ tests to make sure that a score of "100" represents average intelligence. The parent was just making the point that (average) intelligence might be raised mostly through better education and upbringing and the Wikipedia article offers a few more explanations.
My, my, no end to the pendantry[?]
It's perfectly fine to say "epidemic laser strikes", indicating that the laser strikes (compound noun) were epidemic (adjective). Apparently, the laser strikes were "like or having to do with an epidemic" or simply "widespread". In this case, I think it's an apt choice of words, as the author may want to evoke the image of the occurrences spreading in a pattern similar to the spread of a disease.
Expansions of the phrase "epidemic laser strikes" to "laser strikes becoming epidemic" and "laser strikes on aircraft becoming epidemic" maintain that interpretation just fine.
Note: apparently
.. the answer is still "No", apparently.
No, Google Glass is neither the Future of Movies nor Monkey Cam 2.0? This is just an example of uncreative minds failing to see the potential that's apparent to engineers and other creative minds at Google. Of course, that's no guarantee they will succeed with this product, but I think we'll see a couple of big things within the next couple of years where people will say that "it started with Google Glass".
And addressing the specific question: the camera mounted on Zippy was not bad technology; the problem was that it was mounted on a chimp. If you give Google Glass to an able cinematographer, I'm sure you'll be able to get something worthwhile. Runway models and fashion designers don't count as able cinematographers, just like the pictures you shoot with that SLR don't even get close to a Capra.
This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity". After all, the security only lies in not publishing the exact configuration of bumps on the key required to open the lock, or the characters making up the password.
The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or finding the URL other than trying every possible combination. GeenStijl provided the public with the right combination (the key or password if you will) and this is where their publication further infringes on the copyright.
Your remark begs the question whether my country would actually extradite someone for a copyright infringement or something of the sort.
Actually, I seriously doubt any country would, unless it's an excuse to extradite someone who cannot be extradited on other grounds. So, no, U.S. law does not apply everywhere and most people get by fine without ever visiting the U.S.
Actually, the Dutch water defenses can take quite a bit and do so regularly when storm surges occur. Of course, when a storm surge would come on top of a sea level increase of 1m overall, that would cause flooding sooner, at least temporarily.
However, this lame website simply colors every bit of land that just happens to be below the set level and ignores any defense that would keep the water out, even at the lower settings. It's utter bollocks and I'm betting it's only there to generate ad revenue. Oh
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.