In my opinion, education falls into one of two buckets: either you espouse to the Social Security mentality in which someone else is "solving the problem" or you are proactively engaged in "solving the problem" for yourself. It's unfortunate that at a societal level the evaluation of an individual's of education operates out of a black box not dissimilar to the evaluation of an individual's credit score. The solution isn't necessarily to make it easier to validate input/output from the black box. Rather, we can employ other methodologies for validating individual aptitude. The question is fundamentally about hiring. It is true that the process of studying and obtaining a degree from specific institutions for specific fields has a measurable, objective, and positive outcome for a limited number of students; however, this is by far the edge case. With limited exceptions, doctors, lawyers and politicians climb into careers without formal training and nationally accepted stamps of approval on degrees. But this is the edge. In reality, there is very little business value in even including a degree criteria for job positioning/hiring. It deters those who are qualified but do not hold a degree, and it does nothing to guarantee even a low bar for the work ethic, aptitude or drive of the applicant. Nothing matters more than the answers to these questions: "What do you know?", "How long have you known it?" and "How have you employed that knowledge?". While Stanford's experiment is great, it is no better than than the Khan Academy or any other resource which disseminates knowledge--and the output is the same: the individual's who devote themselves to the task of learning will derive benefit, but that outcome is wholly unquantifiable to employers evaluating applicants.

No? Well, shit.

His genetic heritage "selected" him for survival. As millions of scientists simultaneously exposed themselves to vast arrays of chemicals in lab environments (with either no regard for common knowledge safety recommendations or that basic distrust of other scientists exhibiting the occasional evil laugh) and produced offspring; it was a matter of when, not if, Alex would be born. Naturally selected to survive both explosion and immersion in a primordial stew of chemicals, he then received the genetic code of the swamp "horizontally", as it were, thus simultaneously being the fittest and taking the fittest. I think Swamp Thing has a lesson for us all.

It stores a local copy of all your data on your primary computer and each computer you connect with it. For example, if I use laptop A to store file X, file X will always physically reside on laptop A; and when I store File Z on desktop B, that file is always backed up locally to that machine. They keep a full backup of all files on their central servers; and your files are essentially torrented into the cloud of all other users. It's as efficient a way that I've found so far to sync files between multiple computers and VMs. It would be nice to see it either open-sourced or available to install on an internal/private or alternate public network. For what it is, I think it works remarkably well. The legal issue of having unlicensed content from other users stored on your drive seems a bit overblown. From my understanding, which could be wrong, individuals couldn't be held responsible for files (and much more likely file fragments) which they did not seek out, solicit and about which they have no knowledge. I can't be charged for pirating movies if a pirate runs through the open doors of my house in his attempt to flee the law. The same rule *seems* like it ought to apply here: allowing open traffic across your device/network shouldn't implicate you in any crime should it be part of that traffic. Could be wrong. At the very least, services like Wuala drive innovation forward and make it easier for the next startup to get closer to target.