I use it all the time. Currently watching Downton Abbey.

Anyway, I dropped Netflix streaming and started using Prime, since I also shop a lot on Amazon and appreciate the quick free shipping. I keep the cheapest Netflix DVD plan to get movies that are not free on Prime or aren't available for streaming anywhere.

On the website you can search and then check "Prime Eligible" on the left.

And this is also why I didn't end up buying an iPhone for my wife.

I'm a happy Android user, but when I was looking at getting my wife her first smartphone, I was thinking about going with an iPhone, mainly because she saw one of her friends playing with Siri and said, "I want that!" I'm glad now that the whole maps problems happened before I bought a phone. She now has a Galaxy Nexus and loves it. The maps on Android are awesome, and one of the apps that both of us use the most.

So, anecdotally, I'd say this is hurting Apple a lot.

Actually, Nate explained a few days ago that the main reason for the relatively low probability is the very real possibility that the state polls may be systematically biased:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

I disagree. I think the breakdown happens when people think that scientists "believe" in evolution in the same way that creationists believe in what is said in the Bible. If the evidence for abiogenesis is flimsy, then there is room for alternative theories. And if one of them explains observed phenomena well and is better supported by scientific evidence, I'm sure there will be scientists willing to listen. In other words, you can't just reject the prevailing theory without offering an alternative and call yourself a scientist.

I'm also surprised that you say that abiogenesis is the main sticking point. You may be right, but I thought it was more the suggestion that man shares ancestors with other primates.

If somebody has studied evolution closely and still rejects it as an essential underpinning of modern biological science, then perhaps they fall into one of the other categories that Dawkins mentions: stupid or insane.

Actually, Mozilla is signed on:
http://www1.webplatform.org/stewards/mozilla/

Which IS very important since Mozilla arguably has the best current documentation wiki.

This was my first thought too. It might make sense to assume that some sort of artificial gravity will be a requirement for manned deep space travel. I mean, let alone the advantages for surgery and all the other things we do on earth that are made easier with gravity, but it would probably have a profound impact on the overall health of the travelers.

The point is that it's not the same story. The story you refer to is, as you point out, a satirical story that was not taken seriously by anyone except the most gullible. The more recent story was, according to many news outlets, being investigated by the secret service.

It may in fact be a hoax, but the article you link to is from over a month ago and appears to be totally unrelated to the current story.

True, and I'm not saying I read the whole article, let alone the patent. I just saw the word "limited" and immediately posted the link.

The "pinch to zoom" patent is certainly getting a lot of attention. Based on this, though, it is more limited than most people seem to think:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/

Caveat: I don't really follow this stuff closely.

Well, if their stock price reflected the fact that people thought they were going to make 1.2 billion, then it makes sense that it would go down when they make less than that. I'm no expert, but I think that's the way the stock market works.

... and StatCounter has a bias towards small sites.

Swilden's point is spot on. Arguing over the specific percentages produced by NetApps and StatCounter is useless since neither can remotely claim to provide a random sampling of websites. The stats are useful to see overall trends in browser usage, but that's about it.

We got this one and are pretty happy with it:
http://www.amazon.com/My-First-Lab-Duo-Scope-Microscope/dp/B000NOU54O

It's not stereo, but is well-made and inexpensive. Definitely a cut above a mere toy. My kids don't use it often, but we've had it a couple years and they still pull it out occasionally when they have something to look at. I would say 7yo is old enough to start operating this kind of microscope too rather than just viewing (isn't he really going to want to do that anyway?), so something inexpensive like this makes a lot of sense.