Let's died at 19 ascended to the throne at age 10. married his sister.

Let's say starting around age 17 he slept with a different woman every week(like Bieber). That is a possible 100 different kids that go unacknowledged.

Of course officially he had two kids that were stillborn. born of incest, and married to your sister will do that.

So he had anywhere from 0-100 kids.

You are also forgetting volume discounts.

I bet NASA doesn't pay the same price for jet fuel as a small private jet does.

So you get volume discount, taxes, handling and profit margins.

So in reality NASA didn't make money from the endeavor but didn't lose it either.

That is total bullshit.

People pay for everything. Corporations pay nothing whatsoever. I'm not talking about dodging taxes, I'm talking about the simple fact that any tax you leverage on them will simply be added to the price of whatever they're selling, so whatever money a corporation pays in taxes was first taken from its customers.

It's an absolutely horrible precedent. It is a step back more than 2,000 years. The closest thing in real history was the very first firefighters in ancient Rome - a private enterprise that made its owner one of the richest men in Rome through a simple principle: Whenever there was a fire, he'd show up with his firefighters (slaves, btw.) and offer the owner of the house to buy it on the spot and make him a tenant in his (formerly) own house. The price he offered was ridiculously low. If the owner sold, they'd put out the fire. If not, he'd let it burn to the ground.

So, will this be a personal/private cop? No, that would be too obvious. They'll all make sure it looks all clean, because it's only the first step.

But it does mean that if ever Facebook runs afoul of the law, there'll be one less cop willing to raid them...

You know, I've been hearing this from Creationists about evolution for years, and it's as big a lie coming from the AGW pseudoskeptics as it is coming from their intellectual brethren in the Creationist camp.

Grow up, for fuck's sake. Only morons and children deny reality.

This seems to suggest that a theory must be complete to have utility, which is absurd. General Relativity and quantum mechanics aren't complete and in some ways are even contradictory and yet both are incredibly useful at describing physical phenomena. Hell, even string theory, which may not even describe a real physical system at all, has created useful mathematical and conceptual tools for physics.

The fact of the matter is that AGW models while not perfectly matching up, all generally agree on certain trends, so this idea that you have all these models with wildly contradictory and incompatible predictions is wrong, and is exactly the kind of hyper/pseudo-skepticism which isn't deserved.

How many actual scientific theories have been outright debunked. I don't count pseudoscientific bafflegab like phrenology or Ptolemaic cosmology as being science. I'm talking about out and out scientific theories posited under something approaching the methodological naturalism that evolved out of the Enlightenment.

Take Newtonian mechanics. While in the strictest terms it isn't right, but for most non-relativistic purposes (like building bridges or getting a probe into orbit around Saturn) it works just fine. In other words, Newtonian physics was never falsified so much as subsumed into relativity, and become a useful non-relativistic simplification.

A few theories that I can think of that were outright falsified would be cosmological theories like steady state theory, or some pre-plate tectonics geological theories. The ether theory, which had a brief reign could be classified in this category, but my understanding is even by 19th century physics it was highly problematic. Some of the softer sciences may have issues as well, though many of these "so-called" theories were often more philosophy and metaphysics than science anyways.

The bulk of scientific theories may get modified or subsumed into larger theories but never get outright falsified or debunked. Generally speaking, to become a theory means that a helluva lot of work and observation has gone into it. That isn't to say that any given theory might be not be wrong, but still I'd say it's a lot less likely.

Obviously, you've never used one of them. They are "the same thing" in the same sense that a Lada and a Veyron are both cars.

Tools matter. They don't replace skill, but if you want to get really great results, you need both skill and the right tools.

There are, however, good and bad tools. Powerpoint is a bad tool, and it is not by accident that almost all presentations suck, and it's not because everyone is bad at it. The whole program is focussed on being flashy, not on content. There's 50 buttons and options for animations, colour, flash, bling, look-a-three-headed-monkey - and maybe 5 buttons for content. There are plenty of examples included for different visual styles, but none for different methods of content presentation.

And, like almost all Microsoft products, it wants to be everything to everyone. So it doesn't restrict you, but every designer knows that restrictions are great. You can put 9pt fonts on a Powerpoint slide. For 99% of the usage cases, that is an absolutely abysmal idea. But it leads to people misappropriating habits from Word for Powerpoint - if your content doesn't fit, shrink the font size. Ugh.

Powerpoint is for sales presentations to a large and anonymous audience. Basically, when you want to be Steve Jobs(1). In a small meeting, or something with interactivity, Powerpoint is probably the most misused tool on the planet today.

(1) Actually, if you want to give a professional presentation, you'll use Keynote, but if you want to be a cheap ripoff, you'll use Powerpoint.

apply a/c to a chicken doesn't help. if you want to cook it, you want heat, not a/c.

Don't get too complacent, though. Even in the worst cases, the chem labs always send you home to mommy in a finite real number of small boxes. That...isn't always true... after certain classes of mathematics accident.

This. Even asking the question is fucking stupid.

He wanted to be left alone, there is nothing the public gains from knowing his identity except some entertainment. There are cases where identifying someone serves the public good, but in this case it really serves nobody except the rag that published it.

Hiding under his real name was actually pretty smooth. I'm sure a dozen nosy reporters passed him up before because they thought that can't be.

if you are not private or protected, you are public.

(sorry, been doing c++ too long, I think).

Thanks, that is good factual information to have.

Still, would losing 100 or 200 coins make headlines these days when thousands got lost and stolen in what makes the news (Silkroad, Mt. Gox, etc.) ?