Oh god, I saw the "--" in your comment and assumed it was the signature... only then I realized it was the final section of your comment. Sorry about that.

Actually, Euclid's proof for the infinitude of primes says that the number itself is either a prime (which your example shows isn't always the case) or that the number can be factored by a prime not in the list provided (thus proving other primes exist). In your case both 59 and 509 are primes, showing the original list of primes was incomplete. Rinse and repeat.

Clearly you've never seen what humans do on highways in foggy days...

People will drive recklessly when they can't see crap. They'll drive too fast, out of a sense of security, out of stupidity, out of an illusion effect coming out of the foggy conditions. And you... well, you can't do much about it, since you only control one gas pedals over the entire highway.

Computers, on the other hand, can "see" in different wave lengths than we do. Potentially wavelengths that are visible through fog. So, when you don't know there's a car there, because it's hidden from the fog, even though it's only 40 meters away (which will take what... 1 or 2 seconds to travel) the computer may. And if all cars are driver-less, worst case scenario, they'll be programmed to reduce the speed in foggy conditions to keep within a predefined safety margin. And that my friend, can be a lot better than having more f-stops in your eyes which you can't use anyway.

Thanks for the correction, I had not understood that. An experiment called ALPHA and another one called Alpha MS both coming from CERN... how could I mistake them!

Just a minor correction...

The instrument was eventually changed to a non-superconducting version. This was discussed here on Slashdot, but here's a section of the Wikipedia page on the experiment that states it briefly:
"With Obama administration plans to extend International Space Station operations beyond 2015, the decision has been made by AMS management to exchange the original AMS-02 superconducting magnet for the non-superconducting magnet previously flown on AMS-01. Although the non-superconducting magnet has a weaker field strength, its on-orbit operational time at ISS is expected to be 10 to 18 years versus only three years for the superconducting version. This additional data gathering time has been deemed more important than higher experiment sensitivity"

I think IKEA sells furniture to those as well.

Sure I could, but then you wouldn't start ranting right away. Where would the fun be?

Perhaps my point was... What if the person who is currently using a non-standard browser is so oblivious of what's happening with the computing device that he/she simply hasn't realized that someone close to him/her has replaced standard browser with non-standard browser? I know a few of those... from both sexes.

How's that for a gender neutral paragraph? What about from a technological neutrality point of view? The fact I never mentioned Firefox or Chrome pleases you? The fact that I didn't mention computer, specifically, but computing device so it can include phones, tablets and what not pleases you?

"Among other things, its analysis found that those applicants who have bothered to install new web browsers on their computers"

How do they distinguish those who installed a new browser from those that let their boyfriends, brothers, friends, etc. install a new browser?

And was it one of these independent artists that sued this company?

And how much do artists* take in from the sales of their albums? If the labels are here to help the artists, then it's certainly a big share. But all I hear/read points in some other direction.

* When I say "artists, I'm not talking about U2, Britney Spears, Linkin' Park or any other big name, who basically have made all the money they'd ever need if they weren't wasting it in Ferraris, coke, or whatever. I'm talking about small bands who are starting their careers and make their first albums through a label. Those with basically no power to negotiate the terms with the label.

One acronym for you: RTFA.

I'll give you some of the content. Warning, there's some spoilers:
"Lecerf has filed a legal complaint after his Renault Laguna, which is adapted for disabled drivers, (...) and the brakes failed"
"A Renault technician had been on the phone with police throughout the chase trying to help but couldn't come up with a solution."

So yeah, he should have done all that... and obviously in a one hour run over the highway, with police involved, no one came up with that idea. Why aren't you a French policeman... everything would have been so different!

Take a look at what happened to AF447 the Airbus that crashed over the Atlantic a few years back. Indeed the standard operating procedure from Airbus limits what the pilot can do. However, when the system detects problems (e.g. faulty speed sensors) it goes into a more permissive mode. In this mode the airplane gives full(er) control to the pilot.
I won't introduce any spoilers, but a take a look at the account of the end of the flight. Worth a read to know how things work (when they don't) in the cockpit.

There's Gustafson's Law exactly for this. Amdahl's law is not appropriate at this case. In fact, even the Wikipedia page of Amdahl's law mentions this. You are never going to use a computer with 1 million cores to do something done manageable time for a 4 core cpu or whatever. If the portion of the code that is serial is consistently small (let's suppose just reading the initial conditions from a text file) then you make sure you are applying the 1 million-cpu machine to a large enough job.

People don't want to compute fixed-size jobs (which is what Amdahl's law refers to). People want to calculate the biggest job possible and parallelization helps for that... otherwise no one would make a 1 million cpu machine.

The cell phone I bought quite a few years ago (more than a decade) has a Li-pol battery.
This seems to be based on a similar idea (they mention a polymer matrix as well) so solid but flexible electrolyte is not a first, as I have a consumer device over a decade old that has exactly that.[1]
The novelty seems to be (from reading the actual pay-walled article, God forbid!) that this can be printed. But even this may just be similar to all of these "in a computer" patents. Maybe back then it was also true, but now printable is fashion in science.
So, this seems to be a case of "scientists develop an improved version of what has been on consumer devices for over a decade. Expect to see it in the market by 2030 due to costs."

[1] Granted, it's packaged in a non-flexible case, but I that's how I like my phones to be anyway.

We must have seen different versions of it. All I saw was the 3D being used as a gimmick to make me pay a few more bucks. I only remember one scene where the 3D was readily noticeable. Independently of that being a good or bad thing, it hardly makes it that the 3D helped the story.
Of course, this is just my opinion... which happens to be just the opposite of your opinion.