I agree with the above about R. But as regards to reliability, I would prefer SAS to R, even though I hate SAS even more than R. Yes, R has lots and lots of features, good documentation, better libraries than any other out there. But sometimes I find discrepancies between R and SAS in performing the same operations, and when I test which is right SAS always seems to win. That is to say that R as an open source platform has the same problems open source platforms tend to have -- buggy code, sometimes inconsistent or barely-there documentation. Vendor-supported software like SAS does have a quality advantage.

Also, Matlab / Octave rocks when it comes to matrix manipulation. It beats R hands down in working with matrices.

I mean, please, let them do what reasonable people should be expected to do to make a life for themselves!

If you see the conditions some of the families of H1-B visa holders live in, through no fault of their own, you would agree to let spouses work if they can and are willing.

This is a question of decency, and dignity.

Should be Skynet

Mod up parent, please.

Soy lecithin is a good example of how plant-based replacements for eggs can succeed.

No, you aren't.

. . . I'm totally down with it.

NASA should move into a role of supporting commercial space flight. Let players like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace create the technologies needed. Let the lawyers figure out how to grant property rights on the Moon, Mars, etc. At this point, I'm inclined to view the ISS as a LEO flying turkey.

If you think the signatories to the privacy rules really believe in them, you are smoking some awfully strong weed. No politician--NO POLITICIAN--cares about your privacy. At best those rules will be used unilaterally and when some advantage against the US can be secured through those rules.

On the flip-side, if you think the US is doing the same thing, you're right. This is politics, and you have to see both sides, not just one, through political lenses.

On the one horn of the dilemma, we like privacy and want information to be free. So we embrace technologies like Tor, form darknets, etc. But on the other horn, there really are people out there who will use these technologies to bring harm to innocent people--for the greater good, of course (or for a profit). These people will use technology against our best wishes.

This is big news. Expect untold exploits for the Adobe technology stack to emerge out of this. If someone or some group is determined to run Adobe into the ground, they are off to a good start.

That was my reaction when I saw the article. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/08/01/how-did-rich-connecticut-morph-into-one-of-americas-worst-performing-economies/ , Connecticut dug itself a cozy little fiscal hole. Now the proverbial chickens from a whole host of public welfare schemes and public-sector union bloat are coming home to roost.

So what if it if the design is inspired by a Sci-Fi TV show? Show me that this would have cost way more than some other design had a non-Star Trek fan been responsible for its acquisition.

There are two questions here: an ontological one (is authorial intent immanent in a playlist?), and a moral one (would it be right to claim copyright over all of one's publicly created playlists?). Of the two, the ontological one is fundamental to the moral one. If authorial intent is not reflected in the playlist, then there is no moral argument.

You can copyedit it, too.