I don't think, therefore I'm not. - Rene a la Carte.

Really? I haven't seen it at any of the private companies I worked at. I admit some were big companies and I saw only a few subgroups; I also admit my sample isn't big, but I wonder if you have any better data than I have to make your claim.

According to my read, he was remorseful for actual damage done. Just curious, what remorse do you have for your wrongs against others? If you have any, one would think you would be a bit more forgiving toward someone who has remorse and who has changed his ways.

To err is human ... I forget the second half, what was it again?

I'm sympathetic to those teachers who have to teach kids whose parents have no interest in their own children.

That said, I'm not convinced that the vast majority of teachers are underpaid and underappreciated (they may be overworked). From what I see, retirement for teachers is ridiculously generous. If you are a teacher, I'd be curious about your take on the total package teachers are given.

Apple is fine to make left handed people, people with big noses, people who wear red shirts, and people with crooked teeth pay more for their products. All of these groups have alternatives they can and should give their business to. Many in Australia are apparently willing to pay what Apple is asking. If Australians stopped buying Apple products, it would force Apple to reduce their prices. I say, "Go for it." Vote with your pocket books and Apple will lower their prices.

There are many more destitute people on the streets of Calcutta than in London and we don't hear of them looting and burning buildings. I have heard various accounts of the rioter's socio-economic makeup and don't know which of them are based on facts, but the way any disadvantaged group has made any real and permanent gains has been to prove their detractors wrong by facing the odds and succeeding, which also serves as an example and incentive to their fellows.

Why people justify destroying innocent people's property and wrecking their people's lives is beyond me. But to answer your question to the GP, if I could afford a Blackberry, I'm guessing I wouldn't feel justified burning buildings, beating people, and stealing their possessions. If I was starving and without food or shelter, it is conceivable I would descend so low as to steal, but if I did indulge I would probably feel pretty guilty. If my conscience bothered me as I expect, I would even try to make amends.

I grant you that a certain percentage of that is because I have not been surrounded by lots of peers who think it's OK to beat little old ladies, smash cars, and take things other people have earned. When everyone around you says some bad thing is OK, the element of shame and disapproval from others is eliminated. Conscience should still remain, though. And I hardly think the problem is to eliminate cultural and societal strictures.

What about the people these yobs can harm next? Don't they have a right to be protected? A law has to be reasonable, not stupidly rigid. Let the courts decide if RIM violates privacy of honest citizens or helps put thugs in jail.

"Yes, and if we spent the military budget on educating the world and promoting equality (as opposed to pushing economic interests, which is what practically every military conflict ever fought has been about) we could probably achieve world peace."

World peace? Changing human nature? It would require more than the military budget to do that. Well, unless you can buy a magic lantern for a few billion.

Now over time, I think evolutionary change is possible. But that is more a function of human experience than money or some educational agenda.

Bush Sr. and Clinton passed legislation that required the administrators of the CRA to rank banks on their lending activities and to deny banks the right to open branches or to buy other banks if they are rated low. Pres. Banks were required to show the numbers of loans they made in their neighborhoods. And Congress made “blackmail” by neighborhood activists’ legal by providing for public hearings on the ratings. If there were no pay-offs, you can be sure the neighborhood activists would find grounds to challenge the banks.

Look it up.

It might be able to retrieve tiny satellites, but it's too small for, say, one of the Key Hole spy satellites.

I've wondered this for a while: IBM, Toshiba, and Sony developed the cell. Pray tell, they sell a cell, how do they divide the income?

So I have heard from many who have visited China. However there is a small percentage in any population that thinks outside the box. Many of the innovative Chinese went abroad because of herd mentality in their homeland, but the flow is starting to reverse. Some of the innovative and out-of-the-box thinking Chinese scientists are returning from American and European universities because there is at least now oodles of capital back home to work with. It's just my personal reading of early trends, but I wouldn't be shocked to see more innovation coming from China in the future. If you read the names on publications from American universities you see an astonishing number of Chang's, Wong's, Li's. That's in addition to Chandra's, Krishna's, Gupta's ... etc. Many, of course, do stay here. Time will tell.

They are not redefining what size means. They are measuring the distribution of charge more accurately by looking at transitions between energy levels of electrons (or muons in the newer experiment.) If they can measure an energy difference to within a certain accuracy and the difference is bigger with a muon transition than with an electron transition, the percentage error is smaller, hence the error in the derived charge distribution is smaller.

The ballad of Freddie Blassie

Rather myopic and opinionated.

Science has its own unproven beliefs. For example, that the only reality is what we can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell. Cautious scientists do not go so far and say that they restrict their investigation to matter, but consciousness cannot be separated from matter. It is always the subject looking at the object. In medical science, doctors are having to take a second look at mind/body dualism, as the body cannot be totally treated as a meat machine.

Much as most scientists have a closet kind of metaphysics, even most confirmed materialist atheists operate as if love is not a group of chemical reactions in the body that we label as love.