Rutherford's gold foil experiment showed that things ARE space between things. At least as far as getting bigger is concerned.

Safety features need not be handcuffs.

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. -- Mahatma Gandhi

CyanogenMod, remove Google apps and stop sync.

Depends on how you define "evolution". In the simplest , literal sense, even speciation is not required for evolution. Just an appropriate change over time is enough.

In the most detailed sense, biologists do not even agree as to the exact mechanism of evolution. So observation is out of question.

So while talking about science being a formal method, learn one of the first steps - not using ambiguous words without precise formal definition. A whole field of study isn't "observed" typically - specific phenomena of it are. Speciation has been observed in fruit flies. Measurable reproductive nucleic acids change has been observed with bacteria. "Evolution" is each of these, all of these, or more.

Similarly, no one has "observed" a comet precise to picometers. Nor has anyone observed the role of all the molecules involved in a snake's body while molting.

There is if you think leaking the information is just the beginning, and over coming decades there is a chance that the public by analyzing this information will vote and behave appropriately to improve the freedom situation.

Meanwhile, one can still distrust NSLs, gitmos, lack of a trial, secret trial etc.

They can install hardware bugs which doesn't need wiping operating system.

Can't be called working. It would be like my 6 year old "working" with vernier calipers - there has to be an understanding of the subject matter, and resulting pursuit of success, for something to be called "work".

You mean fiddling with data. Molesting the data.

How idiotic.

You think THAT. You think exactly that. Actually I think you think THAT. I think you think exactly that.

When Shakespeare said "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", it meant that "Shakespeare thought that that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

(I think) It is a shortcut to make conversation not infinitely boring to skip the I think, you think non-sense because one cannot express anyone else's opinion. (I think) In expressing other people's opinion, people are expressing their own opinion of the other person's opinion.

Mostly true, but I don't think Afghans would behave like this as a group. It was not for nothing that 3 successive superpowers couldn't subdue an impoverished people. Basically when culture removes the fear of death, no one can subdue the people.

How? What about the CCTV with mike at the restaurant ? What if I want the very fact that I conversed with someone (and with someone in particular) to be private ?

A vast majority of work, even important work, is trivial, and spreadsheets won't have problems with trivial work.

So it's "very little work happens to be important, difficult, and suitable for spreadsheets".

While I am not great at spreadsheets, isn't it necessary to store data interleaved with logic/code if you use a spreadsheet? If it is, spreadsheets are naturally unfit for achieving high degrees of correctness and verifying if they have reached.

If they don't program, what are they doing around large quantities of data?

You asked about how many tabs one can fit horizontally, and I replied only to that, that fitting tabs horizontally is idiotic.