Problem solved.

Assuming they're not total screwups (like they can hold down a decent job)

Then deploy automatic jammer destroying drones to destroy the other guys jamming drones :-).

But if you need to fairly complex things like convert strings, aren't you just better off sticking a CPU on whatever you're designing?

Then it was done very poorly and is barely noticable. Why not have Google+ updates right next to my inbox? Why do I have to go to a separate page for that? I don't have to go a separate page for chat.

That was my biggest disappointment with Google+. They had a golden opportunity to integrate social networking, chat, and email, and all they did was throw up a knockoff of Facebook. I have gmail up nearly constantly, not so much with Facebook

No, I think it has its place. Look at the Holocaust. What would you call the people who claimed it never happened (or that the death toll was only in the thousands), in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It has to do with the approach to the debate One of the most common approaches is link bombing. Basically whenever someone posts a story about AGW on an online forum, they throw out a bunch of links to contrary to opinions, even if they has very little to do with the particular aspect of AGW they are talking about

I think there is a distinction between "healthy skepticism" and "denialism"

Motorcycles are simply not practical for most folks. You have to brave the elements, at most you have a one passenger capacity, and you can't haul much. And they just much more dangerous than cars. Everyone I know that owns a motorcycle also owns a car.

Understanding wave-particle duality and the nature of light is critical to understanding modern physics. The easiest way I know of explaining this is through double-slit experiment.

With the double-slit experiment, you pass light between two slits that are space closely together (on the order of the wavelength of light). If you then place a screen some distance away from the slits, you will observe an interference pattern. Thomas Young used this experiment in the early 1800s and it appeared to settle the issue of nature of light (namely, that it travelled as a wave) in the physics community.

Then in 1905, Einstein wrote a paper which deduced that the photoelectric effect could only be explained using a particle model for light (This is what he won the Noble prize for, not for relativity ...).

The problem is that something can't be a wave and particle. Waves can interfere and pass through each other, but particles cannot (they collide). So, which is light? Since the time of Newton, it was suspected to be a wave, due to interference. Young's double slit experiment was especially convincing.

The modern answer is "It depends, depending on how the experiment is performed." If you repeat Young's interference experiment, but place a detector at each slit, you will not get an inteference pattern, you will get two sharp peaks on the screen centered around each slit. This is what you would expect from a particle model of light (the photon must pass through one slit or the other, it cannot pass through both). Even if you do the experiment so slowly, and only allow single photon at a time to pass through the slit, you will still get an inteference pattern.

In brief, what happens is when you make an observation, the wave function of the particle is said to "collapse" onto one state or the other. But, when we aren't observing, the particle exists in a superposition of all possible states.

And now that country has money to buy the goods and services that your country produces...

In FY 2010, the U.S. collected $2.1 trillion in taxes, and borrowed $1.3 trillion, I would hardly consider ~2/3 to be a small part.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200