Not much really. Hell they used to let kids play with mercury in science class, even allowing them to put it on their skin. Those were the kids in the 40's 50's and 60's and it turned out fairly well, I mean we did have that fuckup with the 70's but we seem to have done okay.

You don't think I should be able to cancel that buy order due to the new information?

No, you shouldn't. You tried to profit from random events going your way, so now you just have to deal with the fact that your lottery ticket was empty.

Partners have always had the power in law firms -- but how long can they maintain power when their underlings are so much smarter and more ambitious?

They can't, which is why it won't happen. People at the top are there because they're very good at hamstringing competition. So the only legal performance enhancers will be those that are either inefficient, like coffee, or too expensive for you to afford.

Of course the situation will change once more efficient things like direct brain-computer hookups become available to top dogs; but until then, all the little muffs will be kept down.

Since I'm already a organ and tissue donor on death, and have been in at count 20 different trial phases for migraine medications, I think I've got that covered already. How about you?

That would be why we don't accept a bullet entering a person as "probable cause" to believe the shooting is justified.

It's fine to use the dogs to find drugs. It is not fine to consider the dog alerting to be probable cause.

They do have uncanny accuracy for telling drugs from not drugs. They are also a pack animal and want to please their master. So it doesn't take them long to learn when their master will be pleased if they act like there's drugs in a car. It takes quite a while longer to teach them the fine points of the Constitution.

It's easy to just claim there must have been drugs in the car at one time and write it off.

Even if you bought your car brand new, you cannot be sure that nobody on the assembly line had drugs on them nor that a salesman at the dealership never rolled one in the car.

What do you base the claim of consistency on? I haven't seen any analysis showing any consistency at all in the field.

ESRI is the Tomacco of GIS software. It's terrible, but they can't stop using it.

I was pulled onto a legacy application that was using ESRI, and after seeing what a disaster it was (the project was on the verge of losing funding) I trashed the whole thing and rebuilt it from the ground up using open source tools and libraries. What used to take weeks to months of hair pulling frustration from programmers now takes a couple minutes for a non-techie user.

Anecdotes are a dime a dozen though. I'm sure ArcGIS and friends have their uses, and in some cases may be the only game in town for some features. I just haven't found where'd I use ESRI vs. an open source equivalent.

Am I the only one who sees that as the "adult" version of siblings in the back seat: "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!".

The problem isn't that they share certain characteristics. The problem is that they share the same characteristics with healthy cells.

Killing cancer cells is easy. Killing cancer cells without also destroying everything else is a very hard problem to solve. If this protein can force cancer cells back into healthy cells (or at least self-destruct) WITHOUT negatively affecting healthy tissues then this would be significant.

To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view. Some of these threats are simply extraordinarily disgusting.

"Targeted"? What exactly do you mean by that?

If you mean that people disagree loudly and vigorously when they speak, well, welcome to being an adult.

If you mean that people threaten them, an actual, credible threat is a crime. And in such instance Twitter should be forwarding info to help the police to catch the criminal.

But hyperbolic speech -- even speech you or I may find "extraordinarily disgusting" -- is not a credible threat. If you don't want to read disgusting speech, Twitter lets you block people. We've had the solution for dealing with asshats on-line since the glory days of USENET. It sounds like this: plonk.

It's broken because it subverts democratic representation and allows the already fantastically wealthy to get a bit more wealthy at the expense of moving everyone else closer to a situation like East Germany before the fall.

Was Dr Martin Luther King Jr an SJW?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while MLK was all about social justice, he wouldn't have been happy to be called a "warrior".

The term is well-known. Saith the wik,

In internet culture, the term has been used as a pejorative for someone campaigning against things they perceive to be instances of racism, sexism, homophobia or other social injustice. Frequently initialized as "SJW", it is used to accuse opponents of sanctimony, to insinuate pretense, as a pejorative, and as a general shorthand for a person believed to be overreacting to social issues. Although most commonly used to cast negative implications, some have attempted to reappropriate the term as a neutral or positive source of identity.

I'm all for social justice myself. But the fact that someone is arguing for social justice doesn't mean they have their facts or their reasoning straight. Heck, the fact that someone thinks they're arguing for social justice doesn't mean they are actually arguing for social justice, as opposed to riding a self-righteousness high.

The thing is, it wouldn't just suck for people who know what they're doing. VOIP and some games won't work well that way either. Anything like that needs to be seen as a stopgap only running in parallel with IPv6 deployment. There actually are people claiming that more NATting faster is an actual solution to the problem INSTEAD of IPv6.

It's important not to mistake the bridge to the solution for the actual solution.

One way it might help is that it will make IPv4 feel very much like the second class citizen.