You are most likely not suffering from any fatal neurological conditions.

Telling everybody that they're most probably healthy is not as good... it improves the accuracy of the mail even further without having the same valuable positive effect on the mood.
Why sacrifice the positive effect on mood for that little extra accuracy? You'll probably only send out a fraction of a percent false negatives, when you tell everybody that they don't have a fatal neurological condition!

I loved that phrase:

Some were right but many were mistakes.

Government should just mail an official looking letter to everybody:
Dear XY,
You are not suffering from any fatal neurological conditions.
Regards.

This would vastly increase the accuracy of the mailing and would also be better for the general mood.

This is done with an API method that is only available in iPhone OS 3.1 which is still in Beta. Consequently the App cannot be officially published in the App Store.

There'll be a whole wave of Apps using this as soon as 3.1 is finally released.

Oh, of course we're working on something, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGq69Nyi6p0. Not as fancy yet, but it has spaceships.

Gematik spokesman Daniel Poeschkens poured scorn on the statement that Gematik had insisted on the service provider carrying out a test without backing up the root CA private keys. "We did not decide against a back-up service. The fact of the matter is that the service provider took over the running of the test system, so it also has to warrant its continuous operation. How it fulfils this obligation is its own responsibility."

...at that moment someone handed him the SLAs at which point he turned white, muttered something about an important meeting and was never heard of since.

IE6 users are greeted with a new "Get faster Gmail" message in the menu bar of the web interface. The link leads to a page that promotes Chrome and Firefox 3.

...the word "urging" was redefined.

From TFA:

...I understand this to mean that Spaceport America/Virgin submitted their application to the FAA based on a cost estimation of 200 mio $...

So, does this mean as soon as they have 10% cost overrun their license is revoked?
I mean, surely no project ever has 10% cost overrun!
Either this means this is not a hard limit at all or there won't be a spaceport. Or the article is wrong. Or I didn't get it. Please someone explain.

(Also, please be sure to point out that 200-->225 is not a 10% overrun or your geek-license will be revoked.)

Which is true anyway. At least for a lot of our data, independently of if we put some of it in bunkers or not.