They released autodetect APIs for wifi and bluetooth a long time ago. Their selling point was for ad hoc gaming connections, but this sounds like the same thing really...

I had a friend who derided my decision to buy an iPhone because it was, according to him, way overpriced for the specs. He bought some phone that had better specs than the iPhone but then was forced to run windows mobile on it which he hated. Oh he could install android on it, but then the phone was unable to _make phonecalls_.

Hardware specs are worth absolutely nothing without good software.

Seems like the article is a bit late...

Drawing the conclusion that there is no G-spot because it isn't _genetically_ determined is ludicrous. It's like saying humans don't have fingerprints because identical twins have different patterns.

If it's just "some area inside the vagina that is more sensitive than the rest" then just by the uneven expression of genes is almost HAS to exist. If you define it as "some area inside _all_ vaginas that will _always_ produce an orgasm is stimulated" then by definition it does not exist.

But of course, this is probably just the normal case of media misrepresenting the findings.

If the patient asks for antibiotics for a cold, the doctor can try to talk them out of it and if that fails he should just lie and give them a placebo and write it as such in their journal :P

The things that have cut down deaths by diseases since the middle ages are, in order of effectiveness:
1. clean drinking water
2. the water closet
3. hygiene in the form of washing with soap primarily
4. antibiotics
5. everything else

Antibiotics are the _last_ defense, not the first. I have never taken antibiotics in my entire life and that's not at all rare for men in their 30s here in Sweden. In fact, almost all of the antibiotics I know my friends and family have been prescribed have been for post-op or urinary tract infection which still calls for antibiotics it seems (women seem buggy in this respect :P ). It is also illegal to use low level doses of antibiotics when raising cattle, chicken, etc.

If you get staph in Norway, it's treatable. If you get it in the US it isn't. How does that not solve the problem?

I for one welcome our mask overlords

Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript?

And how can you claim that:
set foo to bar on baz
is "less code" than
bar.foo = baz
? 90% less? Yea right.

In House MD when they suggest a diagnosis that means sure death for the patient that diagnosis is ignored because if it has no practical use anyway, no matter if it is true or not. The same logic should be applied to the folding@home project. If these guys are correct and we need to brute force this problem the way they're doing it, we're basically screwed because even with moores law running for decades more we'll still not be able to computationally solve novel proteins in any meaningful time. In essence, if they are correct we should shut down folding@home directly and focus all our efforts on high throughput electron/xray/nmr/syncrotron crystallographic methods because they have at least a theoretical chance of being practically useful. One wonders why people like this manage to secure funding for such a large scale death march.

I'm confused. How can the DOJ, an arm of the executive, "intervene" with the courts? Doesn't that radically break the separation of powers? Or did I mix something else up?

/ a confused european

and 88 mph is the speed it takes to produce a stable orbit while time travelling (why it's not the speed of normal orbits is probably because gravity is weaker in time-travel-space). You just have to calculate the length of the trip to be an even number of revolutions and you're set.

Orwell explains why you become invisible in the intervening time when time travelling in the book "The Time Machine", which the movie is based upon.

Basically it goes like this: the amount of interaction between a time traveller T and an object O is directly proportional to the speed difference. If T moves at 200 times the normal speed of time (taking him forward 200 seconds for each second O experiences as moving forward) the electromagnetic forces will have 1/200:th of the chance to interact, and thus will interact 1/200:th as much. This also explains why T can see the outside world, because although each second gets 1/200:th of a photon per photon, he also gets 200 times the photons, which ends up as 1/1, so light will be as bright to him as if he was travelling at normal speed.

Before we discovered Relativity it was a problem, but Einstein had made it abundantly clear that it is NOT a problem.

However, Einstein also showed that gravity is an accelerating reference frame, which might be a problem since then shit is actually moving.