If you really are willing to contribute some money, GiveDirectly.org is doing a pretty rigorous study. They have already raised $22.8MM, and want to raise $7.2MM more

https://givedirectly.org/basic-income

GiveDirectly is working with leading economists to organize an ambitious experiment that will rigorously test the impact of different models of basic income over 12 years in Kenya.

Here's how the experiment will work

Working in rural Kenya, we'll conduct a randomized control trial comparing 4 groups of villages:

Long-term basic income: 40 villages with recipients receiving roughly $0.75 (nominal) per adult per day, delivered monthly for 12 years

Short-term basic income: 80 villages with recipients receiving the same monthly amount, but only for 2 years

Lump sum payments: 80 villages with recipients receiving a lump sum payment equivalent to the total value of payments of the short-term stream

Control group: 100 villages not receiving cash transfers

More than 26,000 people will receive some type of cash transfer, with more than 6,000 receiving a long-term basic income.

We will use an independent contractor for all research surveying, publicly register the study to mitigate publication bias, and publish a pre-analysis plan that will guide how analysis is conducted to prevent cherry-picking.

While payments for the long-term group will continue for 12 years, we'll have results on how long-term cash transfers influence short-term decisions and welfare within the first 1-2 years. Here's what we'll learn

Comparing the first and second groups of villages will shed light on how important the guarantee of future transfers is for outcomes today (e.g. taking a risk like starting a business). The comparison between the second and third groups will let us understand how breaking up a given amount of money affects its impact.

We will assess the impact of a basic income against a broad set of metrics, including: economic status (income, assets, standard of living), time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement), risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses), gender relations (especially female empowerment), aspirations and outlook on life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1

Doing a google search for "what have we ever eaten into extinction?" turned this up as the first result:

"A monkey species was eaten into extinction last year - the gorilla could be next"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/24/highereducation.biologicalscience

The monkey species is the "Miss Waldron's Red Colobus". Wikipedia corroborates that it may have been eaten to extinction recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Waldron's_Red_Colobus

I have had my Nexus One for three months. Yes, it's reliable as an alarm.

There are an infinite number of strings containing a specific pattern. A computer can't know all strings that contain that pattern, but it can analyze any pattern to see whether it contains that string.

And yes, a computer CAN evaluate code without executing it. It could just execute it in a VM, simulating itself. Derp!

It is not impossible to build a secure system. You define secure behavior, and you build a system that implements it. Many digital and real-world systems are secure.

They are limited in what they do because of your definition of secure, but those limitations are desired. Saying the systems are then useless is simply retarded.

So. Fucking. Retarded. You're asking the computer to be omniscient. A computer is a machine. You build authorization and security into it because you don't trust the user, not because you don't trust the machine. It will carry out it's security analysis and either do something or not do something based on the result of that analysis. This behavior is defined by the user, and is by definition desired. A user puts the security checks in place to protect himself from himself. The user is the grand authority on whether or not the system should do something.

Way to present a false choice.
Man, you're retarded, and the people who wrote that drivel that you've bought into are equally retarded.

When a disk that big crashes, it will probably set off nearby car alarms.

They got about 80% accuracy. Looks like things in CAPS and other... types! of punctuation ;-) and metadata (star rating given for review) are used fairly heavily in addition to sentence structure. Would have be good to know what the breakdown of false positive vs. missed sarcasm is, but i didn't see it.

From TFA:
"We experimented with a large data set of 66000 reviews for various books and products. Evaluating pattern acquisition efciency, we achieved 81% in a 5-fold cross validation on the annotated seed, proving the consistency of the pattern acquisition phase. [...] each sentence was annotated by three human readers. We found some strong features that recognize sarcastic utterances, however, a combination of more subtle features served best in recognizing the various facets of sarcasm."

Ah, yes, people throwing foam balls around on the street should certainly be subject to arrest.

Despite, of course, that not being illegal in any conceivable manner.

So do I, but I quite like that plenty of my friends take photos and put them online, so I get the fun reminiscing without the effort of taking the photos.

I say this as someone who has paid for several 3D movies over the last year and while I wouldn't go so far as to say 3D is completely worthless, I have yet to see a movie that was improved by the process either.

I'm a huge fan of the movies and I want to see good ones. If it's good and in 3D, that's fine. I saw Coroline in 3D and while I had no complaints about the movie itself, I don't think seeing it in 3D made it any better. Since I paid a premium (at my wife's behest), though, I felt a bit ripped off.

Perhaps some genius of a director will come along who will show what can be done with 3D beyond the gee-whiz aspects of seeing things jump out of the screen at you; that could change my mind. So far, however, it appears to me as nothing more than a gimmick used purely for novelty's sake.