...just because scientists can't explain it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have been struggling to explain and model altruistic behaviors for centuries, and our failure has caused many to claim that altruism does not exist. However, this obviously clashes with the reality that we observe every day. This dissonance is shown most vividly in the tragic story of George R. Price. "Survival of the Nicest" seems like a refreshing attempt to explain what we can observe, instead of giving up and declaring that we are all deluded because our observations do not conform to our models.

Perhaps the reason that we have never sent a dedicated mission to Uranus is that the scientific benefits would not outweigh the social harm caused by the puns that would be sure to follow.

Interesting, it does indeed appear that "open source intelligence" is a separate term, distinct from "open source software." I see from the Wikipedia article on Open Source, that the term was first formally adopted vis a vis software in 1998. The page for Open Source Intelligence links to a corporate whitepaper from 1997 using the term "open source intelligence," which suggests that this term predates "open source software." I wonder if the OSS people knew about that usage when they chose the term.

Do you know of any other usages of "open source" that predate the OSS usage? The term is used very widely today, so I'd be interested to know of any other cases with a distinct history.

Last I checked, the term "open source" referred to "a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone" (Wikipedia). It does not mean "a process for creating online content using information which is freely available." It is worth noting that Google Earth and YouTube, the main tools used, are not open source. Just because something happens on the internet, or can be done for free in your Mom's basement, does not mean that it's open source. Although, I hear that your Mom is open source.

... revealed the location of its missile-launcher factories." The real story is not how clever the researchers were (though they were clever), but how stupid North Korea's government is.

I pay for The Economist not only for what it contains, but for what it lacks. There are no cat videos, no "top ten differences between men and women," no pop science fad of the day. I stopped reading the NYT because it has too much fluff, and their web design makes it difficult to find the substantive articles. Plus their "most emailed" list is just full of horrible clickbait which disappoints me every time. Really the NYT's sensationalist science/health fad reporting was enough to drive me elsewhere by itself; it made me stop trusting them as a reliable source. I know that The Economist is biased, but they are obviously biased in a particular way, not randomly careless. If I want the other side of the coin, I will read the New Yorker and the NYRB.

Also, I like the weekly format because it gives the journalists more time to write something thoughtful. As Chesterton put it:
"The tendency of all that is printed and much that is spoken to-day is to be, in the only true sense, behind the times. It is because it is always in a hurry that it is always too late. Give an ordinary man a day to write an article, and he will remember the things he has really heard latest; and may even, in the last glory of the sunset, begin to think of what he thinks himself. Give him an hour to write it, and he will think of the nearest text-book on the topic, and make the best mosaic he may out of classical quotations and old authorities. Give him ten minutes to write it and he will run screaming for refuge to the old nursery where he learnt his stalest proverbs, or the old school where he learnt his stalest politics. The quicker goes the journalist the slower go his thoughts. The result is the newspaper of our time, which every day can be delivered earlier and earlier, and which, every day, is less worth delivering at all."

"At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom..."

Assuming that most people who comment on Slashdot articles know how to code, it does not follow empirically that learning to code in itself makes a person more logical or intelligent.

A constant, minimal buzz.

My eye has the largest field of view of any of those options, and is the most portable. However, I went with my binoculars because they are better for viewing the Andromeda galaxy than my naked eye (or a telescope). I live in a large city and have to go on camping trips in order to stargaze, so binoculars are by far the best equipment for my needs. A couple of my friends have telescopes, but they are nearly useless in town, and too large to take camping.

True enough; I did not take care when copypasting my definitions. Let's try Wikipedia instead of Dictionary.com: "a mechanical or virtual agent, usually an electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry." I think that does the job better.

I will strongly second this based purely on anecdotal evidence. If the OP has any science to cite, I would be interested to see it.

I would second items 1-3 regarding sleep, diet, and exercise. I took the bar exam in July, and to prepare, I gave myself a strict sleep schedule and ate only foods that made me feel great. After the test was over, I decided that I should keep doing everything that I did while studying, since I should always be at my best. It has worked fantastically well. "Lifestyle change" is definitely what your are looking for.

A robot is "a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." A cyborg is "a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device." The Terminator is a robot; Robocop is a cyborg. The writer became a cyborg, not a robot.

Friedman has made a career of making poor, conjectural arguments which have no factual support but which appeal to your emotions if you don't think too hard about them. His articles read like a last-minute college essay that mentions many things but fails to address them in anything close to a complex way. He is a waste of time, and a waste of the Times.