The goal seems to be to get developers aware of and experienced using particular features of the most premium editions of VS.

The summary brings up stem cells, but as far as I can tell the actual paper attributes the benefit to white blood cells.

While her nutrition advice generally aligns with current research, the only evidence that her "protocol" does anything for MS specifically is the anecdotal evidence that Wahls, who had relapsing-remitting MS is not as bad off as she was awhile back. The first three pages of Google results for "Wahls protocol" are connected with the Wahls foundation itself.

You don't have good insurance. When my daughter was born, I paid $150 out of pocket.

DARPA doesn't recruit UAV pilots - it does R&D to meet the needs of the service branches. The USAF on the other hand wants all the UAV pilots it can get its hands on. I've heard from people in the air force that once you are trained to fly UAVs it is basically impossible to get transferred to anything else because the UAV stations are so undermanned. Of course that means they work the pilots so hard, and don't let them transfer, so retention is poor, keeping the cycle going.

We could have, but we wouldn't have - at least not in the same decade as we did.

The point of the commander was not the commander abilities, but issuing commands to coordinate the team. Without a game mechanic for this, it only happens in prearranged clan matches.

We always know the speed of a photon, but velocity is a vector. As for the article, it went through way too much journalist filtering to say anything about the science.

It's an application of the Meissner effect, just ensuring the superconductor is thin enough that penetrable locations exist.

At most universities, sports are revenue positive (even after coaches' salaries, stadium construction, etc.) and education is revenue negative based on tuition alone.

That post was art.

There's definitely no longer any validity to the 90's moratoriums, as there's no longer anything nascent or emerging about internet retail that needs protection.

On the broader issue of taxes, if it were even possible to overcome all the vested interests to do a ground-up redesign of taxation in this country, it would only make sense for the state to be the single point of contact for a taxpayer. The state can distribute money to counties, and the federal government could tax the states, in an arrangement that's truly "federal". Preferably these taxes would not include income taxes, as per the Fairtax.

Any moral position reduces to either utilitarianism or uncritical appeal to authority, when placed in a broad enough context. A society's position that people should be secure in their possessions, including bodily integrity, is because the inefficiencies that result are far preferable to the total war of "all against all" that would threaten the very existence of that society. You don't cheat on your wife because the satisfaction you gain ongoing adherence to that commitment exceeds your expected enjoyment of breaking it.

There's a difference between identifying externalities, and making a cost/benefit analysis, versus declaring that since externalities may exist, whole domains of human behavior are inherently illegitimate.

You seem to have redefined reality to exclude use of force. I think you meant that use of force to prevent monopolization is unethical, rather than unreal. A consequentialist argument for this position would be inconsistent with a historical examination of actual monopolies in practice. A deontological argument would propose that the monopoly has a right not to have violence done to it, or society has a duty not to perform violence. Proposing such a right or duty would require supporting proof.

A right may be a natural or legal right. The supreme court has ruled that, in the U.S., the government possesses antitrust authority on the basis of its authority to regulate interstate commerce, so there is not a legal right for monopolies to be free from interference.

The only way for a right to be a natural right is for it to be naturally secured de facto. If a right is not secured in a state of nature, then it can only be secured by human agency - and is therefore a legal rather than natural right. Any right not to have violence committed upon oneself is not provided by nature - rather the opposite. The right to commit violence is a natural right because it cannot be curtailed without being exercised. It is however an alienable right, whose provisional alienation is the foundation upon which legal rights are built.

Establishing that the government has a (natural, rather than legal) duty not to commit violence would require recourse to Kant's categorical imperative (or Rand/Rothbard's clumsy reformulations of the same). Since the key criteria of the categorical imperative is to act by principles that that one would wish to be applied universally, this is essentially consequentialism in deontological clothing so brings us full circle.

Deontology can only get us so far as to say its sensible to alienate our right to violence to participate in a political system. The political system defines within itself what actions are right according to itself. Consequentialism can judge the correctness of the political system.

With reference to telecommunications monopolies:
We are participating in a political system.
The political system has determined monopolies require regulation.
Examination of the alternatives gives no reason to believe life would be better without this regulation.