Standards have never been as high as I'd like - typos and grammatical errors abound in articles - but noospeek is definitely a new low. I would suggest sacking the current editors and replacing them with Grumpy Cat and Happy Cat.
It is not only valid but required, so although your thoughts are appreciated, they are nonetheless wrong.
Actually, archaeology shows that only some societies are greedy. It happens that those are the societies that dominate, but that is a consequence of short term gains being militarily better than long term gains, in early history. You were very vulnerable back then and even small losses had large impacts.
Ultimately, though, it means that humans are not compelled to be a bunch of arrogant twits. At the very worst, some societies may have a genetic propensity for it, but that dictates nothing. Even if it did, sending the right-wingers to Mars (or, better, Venus) and using gene therapy or eugenics to reduce (not eliminate, that would be bad) violent tendencies should be sufficient.
The Pledge is an affront to all that school stands for. Unthinking obedience simply isn't compatible with intellectual growth or rational questioning. Obedience to a nation is also incompatible with the international semi-borderless worlds of science and art. Neither paints nor positrons have any respect for local laws or political boundaries. Boundaries exist to maximize the benefits within and minimize contagion from flawed systems, the notion of "loyalty" to any standard is relatively modern as society goes and has been a failure from start to, well, it hasn't finished yet but it's time for philosophers to stop poking at their navels and start thinking about metanations and paranations, how to draw on what has always worked (cooperation across strengths) to derive a notion that is functional, rational, sane and likely to (as an early Megadeth noted) work this time.
Not really. The NSA costs more to run than the national debt. Closing it would be one of the most cost-effective ways to save the nation from bankruptcy. Not that the US is anywhere near close. It will be, if it continues to not spend on the arts and sciences, but economies can remain entirely stable when running 110% of GDP, at least for a few years. Nations aren't like personal bank accounts and you cannot run economies as if they were private budgets.
At this point, the NSA has cost the economy not only its own expenses but billions in international trade (plus interest spanning decades), but can produce no evidence of any benefits. Skipjack is broken, as was SHA-0 (the NSA version of the algorithm). Cryptologists ignored Skipjack once it was determined to be faulty and spent a fair bit of time fixing SHA. These are additional costs, created almost certainly as a result of deliberate breakage by the NSA (it's either that or they're incompetent, take your pick).
When you have something very expensive with no direct or indirect return, you generally term it a failure. When something fails on that scale when your economy has been crippled by neocons and kept defunct by Tea Partiers, the sound fiscal move is to cut losses. When a ship is struggling to stay afloat, you dump the deadweight. The NSA is deadweight until or unless it can show value for money.
If you look at AV Comparitives, who seem to do pretty good testing, MSE is about 90%. That's quite low (though there are commercial apps that are worse) but the tradeoff is zero false positives on essentially every test.
It's certainly not what you get if you want highest security, but it does a reasonably good job, and doesn't generate false positives, which can piss off newbie users and make them want the AV scanner off. It also updates definitions via Windows Update, if its internal updater has an issue, which is nice for people who won't mind after their AV software.
It's not what I use, but it isn't a bad baseline. I'd sure as hell use it rather than Norton
Before science gets hot and bothered about the loss of data scientists need to do something about the quality of the data they produce to begin with. Frankly given the complete lack of quality controls that a lot of scientists use the loss of their data is probably for the best. Depending on the field as much as 60% of all scientific research cannot even be reproduced. Work that cannot be reproduced by another team is far from isolated to one field either:
Depending on the study that means that either the data has been fabricated by unethical scientists, or the data has been misrepresnted for political purposes. Studies are often improperly interpreted by failing to take into account sound statistical modeling and noise is reported as science. In some fields politics have effectively taken over (e.g. social sciences) and standards are used that would never be tolerated in other scientific fields.
The very culture of science that demands quantity over quality needs to change as the rat race that inspires junk science to begin with. I can't think of any other field where those kinds of failure rates about the reproducibility of your work would do anything other than get you fired for fraud and destroy your career. I like science, I have since I was a young child, but the junk were getting labeled as science doesn't deserve the label.
How can anything have a shape that turns into an electromagnetic wave when you're not watching...
There's no reason to avoid using your bandwidth when you can use QoS
You seem to forget that many ISPs sport bandwidth caps, which is a misnomer; they're actually limiting the amount of data transferred during a given timeframe. QoS doesn't stop a fat bill from showing up the next month showing you used up 1.5TB on an account purchased at a 200GB level.
Dare I hope that this law will contain specific text prohibiting service providers from abusing this for contract issues or nonpayment? Naaaah, that would be asking too much of our corporate overlords and their paid^H^H^H^Helected cronies....
US only contributes 22%.
The US "only" contributes 22% of the UN budget? Not only is that more than double what the next country contributes (and more than 3x what the top European country contributes), but 22% is also the maximum allowed for a contribution for the period of 2013-2015 (the minimum is 0.001%). The US is at the max, we can't contribute any more, sorry. Maybe all of Europe can step up and help out a little more to lower our $618 million bill. Here is the document that lists the actual contributions from each country, and the rules for contributions are here.
There was a time in England when you paid fire fighters insurance. They marked the houses that had paid. Houses that didn't pay - well, picture two Mafia heavies sauntering up the driveway, making comments about how combustible things are and what a pity it would be if an accident were to.... happen. (Terry Pratchett made a reference to this in his books because it is such a sick, evil and yet utterly predictable outcome.)
The service became one of the first truly national services because organized crime syndicates, even firefighting ones, are not approved of.
By moving mills away from slicing the arms off children to being run by trained adults interested in mill work, those children got to have this thing called education. Instead of being a burden to others, they became valued members of society, including scientists and engineers.
The left was arguably a major factor in the Enlightenment, without which no science could be done except in secret from the conservatives.
A large proportion of schools and universities in Britain were founded, funded and run by the left. No left, no Faraday, no Rutherford, no Turing, no Crick or Watson - name something you can't live without and I can show those components that would not exist without left-wing establishments, left-wing idealists and left-wing philosophies.
Can you name anything, anything at all, developed because of right-wing ideology?
The really interesting science, that is, there is no guarantee of a return accountants would recognize as such. (Scientists consider no result a result.)
In space science, this is worsened by rockets failing, the harsh conditions of space wrecking probes, the hazards of space junk, the very long-term nature of the work, the fact that all costs are up-front and the commercial rewards beyond satellite relays are never tangibly linked to space research by the public, creating the illusion that space has done nothing.
Just cut back on projects. Starting with those involving spending money in districts whose politicians work to cripple NASA. Remember, we're coming up to yet another election year and there's no news like bad news to shape the outcomes.