>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

I think I see why you're confused. The curse was an effective way to kick off the revolt, yes. Not any way to start an earthquake, though. Reality doesn't work that way.

OK, let's squash some of this nonsense right now.

I never believed the 2010 Haiti Erthquake was caused by a voodoo curse, and I'm astonished that anyone interpreted that post in that way. What I found anthropologically interesting is that something like Robertson's "satanic" invocation seems actually to have taken place. Not actually "satanic", but within Robertson's impoverished terms of reference that's about the only way he could describe an invocation of the loa.

I believe, and have repeatedly said, that the supposed "scientific consensus" on CAGW is not a conspiracy but an error cascade. I think most scientists are honestly trying to do right, but have been overly credulous about data and models that have been (and continue to be) fraudulently manipulated by a tiny minority of them. Those of you who think this makes me some sort of nut are going to have some explaining to do when measured GAT drops out of the bottom of the IPCC's 95% confidence band, which looks set to happen before the end of 2014.

I might reply to some of these other questions at more length, but these two deserved to be dispatched immediately

Yes, Kuhn was full of horse puckey. Not only doesn't his book describe science outside of physics at all well, it doesn't even correctly describe 20th-century physics, its ostensible paradigm (using the word correctly now) case.

Years ago I wrote a more detailed takedown in Brother, can you Paradigm?

The only amplification I'd write today is that the shifts between large theoretical models generally (and contrary to Kuhn's claims) go smoothly in physics because test by correct prediction of experimental results is so difficult to argue with. The soft sciences have more trouble setting up repeatable experiments, so it's easier for people to hold on to broken theoretical models.

14 CFR 91.21: Portable Electronic Devices
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

Do you mean to tell me that an organization, even a for-profit business, might not be completely unbiased in criticizing its competition if doing so suited its best interests? I find this deeply troubling.

I'm forty-two and an independent developer and my rate has gone up every year. If, as the article suggests, you allow your skills to go stale, then yes you will find it hard to get work. Duh.

If you keep yourself up to date and manage your career like any other field, you'll do fine. This doesn't mean you have to spend all of your free time training yourself on the next new thing, but you find work that involves newer technology and you learn how it works on the job. If you have a reasonable amount of curiosity you'll do this anyway.

It's worthwhile to talk to recruiters now and then to learn what skills are pulling in the top rates in the market. You may not want to pick them up (no matter how valuable, I simply won't do SharePoint), but you can find out where the market is heading. Networking with recruiters and colleagues is priceless, and it doesn't take much more than an extensive LinkedIn profile.

Personally I find I'm most effective when I switch back and forth between architecture (which emphasizes soft skills and leadership) and hands-on development (to keep my technical skills sharp). It's fun, challenging, and based on my experiences in the market, highly valuable. I try to cover as much ground as possible so that I'm as marketable as I care to be. Also, I don't commit to a particular technology/process/tool as if it's the "holy grail" of development. These things are like fashion and you need to roll on to the next new thing as it comes, even though it may be worse than the technology that it replaces.

Stay humble, stay curious.

The MEMS gyros in an iPhone are worthless for this kind of application. Various people have tried to use them for emergency attitude indicators etc in small planes and they simply don't have the stability required. The GPS is nowhere near accurate enough for altitude: you need WAAS (which isn't available in all parts of the world) or LAAS (which you'd need to build yourself). The accelerometers are also not up to any kind of inertial guidance task: it's not what they're built for. iPhones have an amazing array of sensors, but they're intended for handheld operation.

The only way I could see this working would be a fairly large (6-20' wingspan) airplane or perhaps helicopter with a piston engine (you need the size and power to overcome inevitable mountain turbulence: mountains make their own wind, especially when they have snow/ice on them) and a whole pile of advanced avionics and software. Which wouldn't be cheap, or all that safe, really. I'd hate to be in the air with it unless it had some kind of see and avoid technology, and I'd hate to have it crash on me.

Also in the US as many others pointed out it wouldn't be legal.

Since he quoted me, I have replied to the report on Spadaro's article at Imprimatur me!

I don't think Google is remotely invested in Android as a platform. They're interested in getting more ad revenue, and Android provides a convenient vector for that right now. But once the lawsuits start coming to completion I suspect the economic incentive to supporting the platform will dwindle to the point where Google will let it whither on the vine. It's a business decision; Google doesn't care about free and open, they need to make a buck just like everybody else.