Nearly all of the development tools of Linux are available on OSX via ports, brew or simply compiling oneself. Even fairly advanced stuff like valgrind. There is no shortage of cross platform GUI toolkit like Qt.

In what way is OSX crippled as a dev box ?

Since OSX 10.4 or so, it has been relatively easy to install OSX on any PC. So if one is curious and wants to try the ecosystem, one can do it at a very low cost, that of one already existing, partitioned PC, or a virtual machine. This does require some technical skills, for sure. In recent years it has become easier, not harder, to do so.

This usually is a fairly smart move on Apple's part. This test will usually convince people who try it that they can trust Apple to be their provider for their next laptop purchase. In this department, their approach truly shines.

From an ideal standpoint it looks as if super-intelligent kids is something every parent would want. However there are some drawbacks. First, IQ is only a rough measure of intelligence, there are many factors involved and success in life is not immediately linked to IQ. See Unabomber, etc. Also super intelligent kids may not be that easy to handle. They typically hate school and may actually do poorly in school. They demand much more attention from parents (more activities, more time with them, etc). There is plenty of evidence that IQ is also linked to the environment kids grow in, so simply selecting the gene stuff and thinking this may be enough will not work. Intelligence is also linked to curiosity and independence and so perhaps to more risky behaviours. Finally there is a correlation with very high IQ and some severe forms of mental illness.

All in all, there is a cluster of reasons why the average IQ of the population is 100. High intelligence is not always that comfortable. Think of Sir Winston Churchill, hero of the battle of England, most effective Prime Minister in a time of war, Nobel prize winner in litterature. He had severe depression all his life (his "black dog"). I agree we should raise the general IQ though, cautiously.

Bill Gates claimed to be doing that that (among others) and he is not finding it easy.

John Bardeen has won two Nobel prizes in physics. The first for the discovery of the transistor, and the second for the BCS theory of superconductivity. Read the page, it is highly entertaining. Bardeen was very unassuming but clearly a genius as well.

Tesla cars are interesting, but their impact is currently limited. The cars are simply too expensive. We'll have to wait and see if the impact of Tesla can change the industry. Other Elon Musk endeavours are also too early to tell. SpaceX is already going to space, but as others have commented, low Earth orbit is not really space yet. This is the cosy neighbourhood of our home. Getting to Mars and beyond is currently nothing but a dream.

It is too early to compare Musk to Jobs. In spite of its many documented faults, Jobs had the drive to start and set Apple on the path to spark the personal computer revolution in the 1970s, particularly with the Apple ][. Recent Apple products are quite nice for some but this is the earlier feat that matters. Many other companies tried to do the same thing at the same time and did not meet the same success. The IBM PC was a late comer and got started after Apple and others had demonstrated that producing personal computers made business sense.

The only reasonable post in the entire thread. Please mod up.

The spin of a photon is a boson is always 1. That's not too hard to transmit. Approximately 0 bits are needed. Furthermore, the momentum of a photon is always h\nu, with \nu the frequency. So if you know the frequency of a photon, you also know its momentum, with another 0 bit to transmit. Finally I don't think a photon can have an orbital quantum momentum. Electrons can have those. That is unless things have changed since I last took a class on quantum mechanics.

In other words the summary is the worst I've seen in a long time.

And telephone sanitizers.

Basically correct, and we will either achieve strong AI within a century, or never.

Basically, yes. There is basically no job that a man can do and a woman cannot, except producing sperm. So there you go (posted as a man). Think about it.

The parent is absolutely correct. Why is he modded "troll"?

To a degree. Science is a human activity, and so necessarily flawed. However Jean-Pierre Petit's work is very speculative. There is a critique of his work in the linked page that you give here. It is in bloody french, but the gist of it is that is work is not coherent and not predictive. It does not seem very interesting then. It may be that his work has been rejected for very good reasons.

Authors are not necessarily the best people to be objective about their own work.

In english you can verb nouns if you want. However, like Hobbes said, verbing weirds language.

We should not be polarized about it.