It's 'The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel'. Pretending it is a 'real' Nobel just serves the interests of those who like to pretend Economics is a 'real' science. Let's not give them a legitimacy they don't deserve.
 

Our emails at least get a bounce message from Microsoft addresses, which I suppose is something :-)

Earlier in the year, following WannaCry, we were getting a lot of bounces from UK government addresses as they tightened their filters. At the time, we were using the service providers webmail (1&1 as it happens), so everything went through their pool of SMTP servers. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of unsavory characters using these same servers, so blacklisting them wasn't unreasonable. The solution we adopted was to move mail onto our VPS and run our own Postfix server, which so far has worked perfectly for the entire planet EXCEPT MICROSOFT.

Hotmail (and outlook.com etc) routinely bounce our emails because the IP address of our VPS is in the *same block* as a blacklisted server. Numerous emails to Microsoft and 1&1 have failed to resolve this, and frankly I now just tell people not to expect mail to these addresses to get through. If there was a concerted effort by SMTP admins to blacklist MS addresses until they honour the RFCs I would sign up in a flash - they just think they are too big to have to play by the rules.

Yeah, had a very similar experience - set up my hotmail pre-Microsoft, and used it as a principal destination address for about ten years (my work and ISP based addresses changed quite often back then, so it was good to have a stable point of contact). Nowadays I use gmail for the same purpose, but I was still getting the odd email sent to the hotmail address, usually from old work colleagues or mates wanting to get back in touch - all autoforwarded to gmail.
Then earlier this year Microsoft decided that I needed to verify my account to carry on using it - never got as far as cellphone verification as I couldn't remember what fictional date of birth I'd entered 20-odd years ago to set up an account in the name of a mythical wizard. That was it - locked out of 20 years of email history.

The optimal strategy (as many posters have said) is R = 1/2, P = 1/6, S = 1/3 for the constrained player (A) and r = 1/3, p = 2/3 for the unconstrained player (B), and the value of the game is 1/6 in favour of B (pretty straightforward game theory). If a fee is charged on every round of the game, then $16.66 is the fair price. If a fee is only charged on rounds with a definite result, then the fair price is $23.07 since 5/18 of the time the result will be a draw. Fair odds for each player, if draws are counted as 'push' bets, are 8/5 for A and 5/8 for B. If B can choose the stake for each round, and is paid off at evens, he should bet 3/13 (23.08%) of his current bankroll to maximise his long-term expectation.

This is a point that has been made several times in the thread, and I'm not sure I fully agree with it. Although the personnel at a team may have changed several times, they don't all change at once, and the team (especially in the wider sense of backroom staff and fans) retains a distinct identity over long periods. Significant events in the past, such as strings of defeats against another team, winning against the odds in key games and especially losing a key game that you looked certain to win, remain embedded in the psyche of a team for decades.
I would agree that the effect of such 'group memories' is minor compared with the value of current form, but to say that it has 'absoloutely no bearing' is, I think, incorrect.
(I am basing this argument on my experience of UK football, rugby union and rugby league teams, and to a lesser extent on observations of large european football teams such as F.C. Barcelona - I have no idea if this transfers to NFL franchises, and while I can't see why it wouldn't, I appreciate that certain factors could well diminish it's effect)

How about Caradog (Caractacus), handed over to the Romans by Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes?

Doesn't any Kensington station automatically mean old money, or does the Cameron Eurodestruction Protocol supersede that?

High Street Kensington

Unless you do it it somebody else's country without asking or even informing them first - then it pretty much is.

Dozens of people around the world contributed to the early development of powered flight, and even though the Wright Brothers were (probably) first, their excessive and draconian use of patents ensured their work was largely irrelevant to the development of the aeroplane. A lot of other people shared what they learned, which is why many of their machines quickly started to look like our modern idea of an aeroplane rather than the tail-first pusher-prop wing-warping monstrosity that was the Flyer.

I have no problem with giving the Wright Brothers credit for the first sustained heavier-than-air powered flight over level ground, but their subsequent actions had the effect of holding back rather than advancing the field of aeronautics, which is kind of the point TFA is making about Bunsen and patents. The only worse example that comes to mind is Matthew Bolton, who through his sharp business practices and political chicanery only narrowly avoided bringing the entire Industrial Revolution to a grinding halt.

I suppose some do, but since autocompletion and syntax highlighting are enabled by default in recent emacs, they would need to edit the .emacs file and turn off M-/ and global-font-lock-mode.

Because that would be a meta-wish, and before you ask, you can't wish that it wasn't because that would be a meta-meta-wish, and genies don't do those either.

In England you can; In Wales and (shortly) Scotland there is no charge for prescription medicine - we take 'free at the point of use' to mean what it says.

Ah, the classic example of a typo - (allegedly). The story is that the word was misspelled on advertising in the ninteenth century, and just stuck. Some people disagree, but the fact that patent applications by the same firm use the spelling 'aluminium' lend creedence to the claim.

IUPAC did try to sort this out a while ago, but swiftly folded in the face of massive indifference from the American people. Seems a bit unfair to me, since we Brits got saddled with the US spelling of 'sulfur' in the same drive for standardization, and seem to have adopted it pretty universally.