Have you considered a career in congress?

But neither of your IQs are as deep, shapely or green as mine.

And another one gone and another one gone...
Another one bites the dust!
Hey! I'm gonna get you too!
Another one bites the dust!

My skepticism is limited to Rossi, whose behavior is that of a classic con man. As for LENR, who knows? Nobody had come up with anything consistent after 20 years. I'm skeptical, but as with so many issues surrounding energy (e.g. peak oil), I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong.

I stand corrected, however, the principals regarding both suckers and bafflement remain sound.

There's far more than one sucker born every minute.

Firmness in your stated hiring practice will allow both the employee and employer satisfaction to rise, encouraging tight teamwork and clear improvement in fullfillment issues as well as business to business relationships.

Anything can be pushed to the limits of what we know, and on occasion, things work, but not for the reasons you think it did. This is sufficiently close to the cutting edge that it may be operating correctly, but that we only think we understand why.

F'rinstance, for years, we thought about electricity as a liquid. Voltage equaled pressure. Amps equaled volume. The math worked. Nature wiggled it's eyebrows suggestively.

BUT, electricity is NOT a liquid. It works the way it does for completely different reasons. It just took a while for us to figure that out. Yet, even before we understood this, we build practical machinery.

But doesn't this suggest that arrays of narrow domain analog computers of this type might be constructed in such a way as to produce a *really* fast general purpose supercomputer? For example, sorting routines are built into most software frameworks. Could we not hybridize a system wherein np hard problems are called from the framework that transfers the sort to an quantum adiabatic solver and returns an answer?

Then we not only get a useful machine, we eventually get new science in the bargain. I *like* it!

For narrow domain searches like installed software, I simply find a hierarchically organized series of visible prompts to be a faster alternative than a series of tiled blocks that I need to scan. Typing the name of the program to find it, as Unity on Linux does is all well and good, if you remember the name.

Unable to admit mistakes, there will be no start button that brings up an easily navigable menu. There will be a bitmap that brings up the desktop or something equally stupid/lame.

In other news, Microsoft will give developers no clue as to their long term language strategy. Developers, with no interest in investing limited time, money and resources into Microsoft language technology shambles, will go elsewhere. Top managment at Microsoft will continue to be baffled as to why nobody is writing Windows 8 Apps, or Windows anything apps, anymore.

Well, if you live in Europe, I propose this little hypothetical for you. Tomorrow, the USA's contribution to NATO disappears. No more bases. No more soldiers. No more weapons. No more obligations to defend. Suddenly, every country in Europe must pay for their own defense.

So, how long, do you think, your generous social benefits would last under those circumstances? Please provide numbers, and sources. Not hot air.

Though your response intimated that my basic assumptions about resource allocation by governments and industry were wrong, that too is useful insight. I'm not sure it's entirely correct, however.

Both private industry and goverments are littered with failed ideas, and I am skeptical that one really does better or worse than another at picking winners and losers. Private industry, I think, simply has more active public relations machinery.

Capitalist societies seem to act more like a bacteria colonies, successfully reacting to resource availibility and strategies with immediate results while ignoring long-term consequences of their actions. Capitalism, it might be said, doesn't think ahead. That's what governments should be for, although in a democracy with a 4-year cycle, this view is often too limited for useful long-term action on matters like hydrocarbon energy depletion and global warming.

OK, I'm more than willing to admit we don't have a clue about many neurological disease processes. Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorders may be dozens of different specific diseases that happen to present in a similar way. I get that.

But until we *know* what those diseases are, schizophrenia is useful in that it describes a set of symptoms that commonly occur together, that we can treat.

Theoretical models are never "right" or "wrong." These are meaningless terms. They are only more or less useful in that they provide some predictive and/or manipulative power. Period. End of story.