You're probably thinking of the Ashkenazi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

Not with a link, no. Referential humor works best when everyone knows what's being talked about without having to say it explicitly. Clearly this didn't work for you.

... is measured only by success. --Bruce Feirstein

If I want to try KDE I just download the kubuntu distribution?

Shore answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Yes, but by default, Kubuntu 12.04 doesn't use KDE 4.9 yet, it uses version 4.8.2. That's in a long term stable release for Kubuntu, so it seems like a pretty safe bet that the October release of Kubuntu (12.10) will go on up to at least 4.9.0. Really, I'm at least slightly impressed that Kubuntu's board feels a version of KDE that's only a few months from cutting edge is fine for an LTS release.

You caught yourself on using a technically incorrect definition of IQ - Thanks! You're halfway to understanding what you are wondering about, because you are at least trying to phrase your questions accurately.

A few points:

1. Intelligence does seem to be rising with each generation, if you use some of the standard tests and factor out a few questions for obvious logical reasons, (Such as one, for one example, that shows a picture of an old style rotary phone.). I.Q. remains at 100, but how many questions you get right to score that 100 goes up a smidge, in general, with each generation.

2. Intelligence is greatly affected by more than one gene. It's quite likely there are genes that together create a higher than average intelligence, mentally stabile person if they are all there together with a gene we'll call (as a convenient fictitious example) I.Q.Factor3A, but create a person with a higher than average intelligence, and a dehabilitating mental illness, if they are in the same organism as the gene I.Q.Factor3B version. It's also fairly likely there are cases where the I.Q.Factor3 gene doesn't, by itself, cause any problems in a person of average intelligence, whether it's version A or B.

3. One example of this is Aspergers syndrome. People (including many researchers) have tended to assume that a person with Aspergers has a lot of good genes for general intelligence and a bad gene that causes Aspergers, and that the same bad gene causes more 'typical' Autism in people without the bunch of good genes. But, that doesn't have to be the case. It could be, just for example, that a certain combination of otherwise good genes causes Aspergers if you have all five of them, but if you have any three, you get better than average intelligence without the problem side, and if you have any four, you get the smarts, plus only a few mildly limiting side effects that in general don't cause enough problems to be diagnosed. Factor in environment on top of this, and you see what a puzzle researchers are trying to unravel.

It reminds me of Netscape Constellation. Netscape invented a pretty cool system where you could have a network-portable desktop - you could log into any computer anywhere, and all your stuff (programs, documents, desktop, everything) would come up for you. Think Chromebook, but more app-oriented, and in 1997.

One TINY feature of this was push content. Then the Netscape marketing department got wind of it and said "You mean we can use this to PUSH ADS?"

Then all the other stuff was ripped out, and the push content part of it got released as Netcaster, part of the Communicator suite.... And then was promptly ignored by everyone, because the only people interested in pushing content to you were advertisers.

Yeah, whoosh.

You retain the copyright on them, you grant them a license. Facebook doesn't own your photographs, just the right to do whatever thy want to them. Oh, and you only have to have left them public for a second for Facebook to transfer this license to a subsidiary, at which point the 'unless already shared' clause kicks in.

Because your privacy settings are defined on a scale that Facebook controls, separately to the T&Cs. If they want to sell something of yours, all that they have to do is change the definition of the 'private' setting to mean 'share only with people who pay money, or are on your authorised people list'.

The Facebook T&Cs grant more rights to Facebook than the contract I have with my publisher grants to them. They don't own that content in the strictest legal sense, but they can act as if they do in almost every way.