The actual news part of Fox News is usually factual. The pundits often lie, and Bill O'Reilly is far from the worse offender.

For me Google was better from day 1. With AltaVista you could spend 30 minutes crafting the perfect query and the result you needed was still buried on page 5, while Google just seemed to know what you wanted. You're right about the attempts of AltaVista, Yahoo, and other to be "portals" rather than simple search engines hurt them badly, but Google was simply better at search as well. Your recollection of Google's early functionality is incorrect. Automatic AND, "-" for NOT, and phrase searches were in place at the start of 1999. https://web.archive.org/web/19...

Yes, they did. For their IBM PC clones, for the C128 in some markets, and for the Amiga. Your theory that "PC" referred exclusively to IBM PC compatibles is not true. It did eventually come to mean that, but in the 1980's it simply meant "personal computer".

Not anymore. Google now returns results which don't always have all the obligatory words in the page, though it does tell you if some are missing.

Where did they claim to be playing in the big leagues? And yes, there is a niche for microsatellite launch services. Your unnecessarily grumpy comments are largely correct, but you've missed the whole point of the operation, which is cost. Virgin's LauncherOne is aiming for $10m per launch, these guys are claiming half that price.

I suspect the Numberphile videos about shuffling inspired this article.

Was going to say much the same thing. Whoever wrote that needs to get some perspective.

It's not always so black and white though. See, for example, the Justine Sacco case. She made a satirical joke and it was misinterpreted. Then there's this story on This American Life: act one specifically. It highlights how the ire of a community can be directed unjustly.

Like many others in this discussion you've reduced it to a black and white situation: they did something wrong, therefore they deserve everything that might possibly come in terms of consequences. That's an extraordinarily harsh attitude to take to mistakes made by teenagers.

This example supports my point: the justice system deals with this sort of thing in right way, with a measured, proportionate, just response. Sex offender lists do amount to public shaming (and they are somewhat controversial for that reason) but even you are not sure that would be appropriate in the above scenario. Yet that's exactly what you're advocating in online cases. Also note that if they are on your lawn the threat is rather more immediate and credible than bullying online. That makes a difference. Finally, I suspect you've overestimated what the justice system's response to a single incident of that nature would be.

In the general case, the problem with your position is that it assumes that this sort of response is always justified and correct. But at best this is mob justice and the mob will get it wrong at times. The Justine Sacco case is a good example. She made a joke that was misinterpreted. The consequences far outweighed the "crime".

The problem is that the response is not proportional because everyone who hears about this and is offended on behalf of the victim can take their little piece of revenge. There is nothing to keep this public shaming reasonable or just.

Are you really claiming that the only options are "do nothing" and "destroy the perpetrators lives"? That's ridiculous. We have created a justice system in our society to punish wrongdoers in a measured, proportionate way, and also to give the accused the opportunity to defend themselves. We abandoned public shaming decades ago because it is not measured, proportionate punishment. So why are you so keen to go back to public shaming? Why don't you think the justice system can work in these cases?

He could have contacted the bully's schools/employers directly, as he apparently did with the other 7 college athletes he mentioned. He could still have publicised the resulting consequences as a warning without exposing these assholes to the inevitable internet pile-on that is occurring now. He's obviously made a judgement that those 7 deserve a second chance and the 4 he outed do not. But while I have little sympathy for these dickheads, and I completely understand his motivation, I don't like this eye-for-an-eye response. There is no proportionality when something like this goes viral. Should these guys have their lives ruined over this? Should they be subjected to the same bullying magnified through the lens of a million internet users out for "justice"? I think not. If one of these idiots kills himself over the response Curt will have effectively sentenced him to death. We shouldn't be comfortable with that outcome as a society.

Both the "inevitability" and "good-faith" exceptions might apply in this case. But in the end the defence didn't or couldn't use parallel construction to get the laptop evidence omitted so it's irrelevant.

I have an old laptop with 4GB but it's running Windows XP 32 bit so I can only use 3GB. Have I also been lied to?

That's hardly surprising. Titanic had 5 times the budget of Serenity and Avatar's was even larger. I was at least as impressed with the visuals in The Avengers as I was with Titanic and Firefly was extremely impressive visually for a TV show of that period.

It's quite hard to separate Cameron's direction of Avatar from his other roles of writer, editor, and producer. When a scene didn't work was it badly directed? Or badly edited? Or just poorly written? It's hard to tell. A perfectly well written scene can be ruined with poor direction and even if well written and directed it can be butchered by poor editing. In the end it doesn't actually matter because ultimately the bad result was the product of the same man's creative failure. As you say Cameron wouldn't simply direct a Star Wars movie. Whedon would probably not stick to directing either but I have rather more confidence in his ability to produce something good.

So don't vote in it. No-one is forcing you to.