Man missuses word. claims it was a joke even though it would make no sense in the context. News at 11.

What problem? They post stories about what's going on in labs. You don't like that, so leave. Stop whining like a bitch and leave.
It's very simple.

That’s how websites work.".

No. It's what some unethical douche bags do. it has nothing to do with how websites work, asshole.

He'll probably end up in an ally shooting up and explaining why unlike all the other junkies, it really and truly isn't his fault.

In some cases, they HAD to start taking drugs to control agonizing pain.

Later, they get cut off when they heal (or the doctor, threatened by the DEA dares not continue prescribing) and find they are addicted. Then stupid laws made by the small minded turn these ordinary citizens with a medical problem into criminals.

A) If you don't want to read about what's going on in a lab, go read CNN ad comment with those idiots.
B) There are several produce available right now and more are coming out all the time.

Stop complaining or go away.

Then leave.

For a while now:
http://www.eatthismuch.com/foo...

Those are called training wheels.

And reinventing something thats been done to death is neither a challenge or fun for most of us.

Why are you posting on your own story? Story can't stand on its merits so you have to swoop in and try to defend it?

Hint: You're just re-enforcing his point, this is a stupid story to post to slashdot. WTF is wrong with you guys?

You seem to be impressed because he's trying to sell something for $50 which most of us made in one form or another 5 years ago in the earlier days of Arduino while were were dicking around on the weekend, bored. Worse still is that its about $45 over priced.

Any hypothesis that doesn''t allow being disproven isn't science. period. That's hardly silly to point out. I may have been too polite by phrasing it in basic English - maybe I should have jumped right on a bunch of working scientists with the bold claim they had departed fully from the basic scientific method, before actually taking the time to read the original paper in detail and recrunching all their numbers, if that would make you feel better. Better yet, why don't you take "Let's You and Him Fight" elsewhere? I'm raising the question of whether the researchers took something into account, not accusing them of not understanding falsifiability as a fundamental of science, and if you want to turn a legitimate question into an accusation that insults both them, and me by the implication I would make it without doing a lot more work than could be done in the few hour since this article was posted, why don't you make that extraordinary claim, and sign your real name to it. A letter to the journal that published the original paer is appropriate there, not discussion in a non-vetted online "news" source. So I didn't spell out that I thought there were implications for falsifiabilty like I was lecturing the thinking impaired, particularly when I would much rather hear just what the paper's creators think are possible tests rather than assume they just didn't think about it.

            This also isn't a question of either whether Jurrassic Park got something scientifically right or whether Michael Crichton was a good author. That was just an example many readers would recognize. I could have used examples they wouldn't have even seen before, but I picked one they might know.

            Tell me, when somebody says there's hugh potential trouble in the nation's underfunded infrastructure, and mentions, as just one example, how many truck drivers are putting in excess hours and falsifying logs, does that make the whole article, in your mind, about trucker's bad penmanship? The real questions (now pay attention this time) are firstly "Do humans have a blind spot in the way they percieve flocking, even though there's 'logical' arguments why they should not, and we aren't bothering to look for evidence of a blind spot because those arguments make it so easy to ignore?", and secondly "Is an experimental model of flocking only going to be scientific if the researchers first make sure they have accounted for that blind spot?" My argument is that both questions need to be answered yes. Since that's my opinion, I'd also argue that a good mathematical model that ignores this, vrs. a bad mathematical model that just knowingly fakes flocking well enough, becomes like a better Planetary Epicycle model vrs. a worse one or even a deliberately false one. It doesn't matter much if the planets don't move in epicycles at all.

          I'd also say it's vitally important to figure out why the human brain seems to have many such blind spots - for just one, watch all the people, on all sides of the debate on the Theory of Evolution, who keep slipping into talking about what "Nature's Goals and Intentions" are. That's either because English (and at least most other languages) has/have a lot of superstitious cruft built in and we need to work at improving that or we will never be able to communicate properly, or it's something more fundamental to the human brain, and if it is the latter, figuring it out is probably going to be the biggest scientific achievement of whatever century it happens.

Yes, I do assembly programming when necessary. Of course, this is a compiler, not an assembler.

But since I am speaking of a specific case of a compiler's behavior, I wouldn't actually have to be skilled in assembly code to evaluate if it did or did not run correctly with the offending function overridden in the object code.

The optimization flags have nothing to do with CPU errata. You should know that.

Compile with -On where n>3 and it may not behave correctly on GenuineIntel or on AMD with the crippler defanged. Oddly, it might work on AMD with the crippler in that case (or it might not). Most of that is due to the compiler taking a few liberties with floating point correctness that may or may not work out OK.

Except in Soviet Russia ...

[ Ya, I hate myself for this, but it's been a really slow day. ]

YOu mean besides these:
Alcatel Sparq II
HTC Merge
Kyocera Milano / Jitterbug Touch
Kyocera Rise
Kyocera Verve / Contact
LG Cosmos 2 / Cosmos 3
LG Enact
LG Enlighten / Optimus Slider / Optimus Zip
LG Extravert 2 / Freedom II
LG LX-290 / 290c
LG Mach
LG Optimus F3Q
LG Rumor Reflex S / Rumor Reflex / Freedom / Converse
LG Xpression / Xpression 2
Pantech Renue
Pantech Vybe
Samsung Array / Montage
Samsung SGH-T301g
Samsung Stratosphere / Galaxy Metrix 4G

hahaha, nice. I though for sure you were going to say:

You get a spot between the blacksmith and the punch card show.

two things:
A) You can get a phone with a keyboard still
B) You can get a keyboard add on.

I suspect the real demand isn't as high as this person thinks.
Like Gyms and pools.
Almost everyone who walks into a gym asks about a swimming pool. A majority of those people won'e even consider a membership at a gym without a swimming pool, yet the swimming pool is the least used asset in a gym for most gyms.