Focus.

The thing that accused infringement-aiding sites have to prove is that they have significant non-infringing uses. This is obviously true for Google. It is not so obviously true for IsoHunt and others. Sure, you can find legal content (like the latest Linux distros and so forth) - but IsoHunt and its brethren are a) not the sole distribution method for aforementioned legal content and b) the amount of illegal content is significantly larger than the amount of legal content.

Another vote for Boxee. I'm running an old P4 dual core 2.1Ghz box with an NVidia 5200 on Ubuntu. Instead of a standard IR remote though, I use cWiid and an old Wiimote. Since it's bluetooth, I don't have to worry about setting up finicky IR receivers or line of sight. 8^)

*BOOOOM*

(That's the sound of a whoosh breaking the sound barrier...)

I always got the impression that it was because trading systems work - but only as well as the trader using them. I've found that knowing when *not* to follow your system is more important than whatever system you happened to be employing. That's knowledge that only comes with time and (often painful) experience.

Your system could be excellent at predicting market movements, but you may just not be cut out to be a trader. In such a situation, selling the system itself could very well make more economic sense than using it yourself.

To be fair, his email could just be the most interesting thing to ever happen in the recipient's life. ;)

*Note for Grammar Nazis: I am aware I have split an infinitive. So you all can just sic it. :P

You're right, that's phrased poorly. What it *should* say is that "markets are not random although they do not appear to be entirely predictable either".

No one can 100% predict the movements of the market - but because it's not actually random, you can predict correctly better than half the time - which means you can make money.

Your comment reminds me of this (admittedly long, but funny) beat poem about meeting someone with an evangelical zeal for all such hokum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

Science is about making assumptions on how the universe works, then analyzing what situations should be expected according to those assumptions. But if you'd taken a class in Science, you'd have known that. =)

How is the field of Economics special?

Why is the scientific method suddenly invalid when applied to studying human behavior?

Ummm... what? Mr. Watterson still retains copyright over his characters, which he has sued to protect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes#Merchandising

You speak from experience?

So who decided that the Open Source movement was about *not* making money? I thought it was about enlightened self-interest. If we make the source of today's apps available to the coders of tomorrow, everyone wins. Up-and-comers get a chance to see real-world (and sometimes, cutting-edge) code - and the community (of software developers) gets new devs who show up already knowing some of the things *we* had to figure out the hard way.

The new guys get the benefit of our experience and in ten years, we get to hire better new guys.

And the agitator in my washing machine rotates. Does the movement have to be completely exposed to count as "robotic"?

I'm not trying to dilute the meaning of "robot" here, I just interpret it to mean "a machine capable of automatic function." My hammer is a tool, my drill is a machine, my clothes washer - strange though it may seem - is a robot.

Like anti-lock brakes? Or my car's Electronic Stability Program? How about deciding how much hot water to mix to achieve the optimal washing temp?

I think the GP's point is that many of our modern appliances have become more autonomous in order to better perform their tasks. They're certainly not self aware, but they're doing a lot more "thinking" than their forerunners.

He's not certain.

Like Google Voice