The CDC/Johns Hopkins numbers only include people who took the trouble to get a Covid antigen test, so those number are obviously a very weak lower bound. Seroprevalence studies for antibodies in the general population are much more accurate. Here's a study in the Lancet from October that conducted a seroprevalence study for the U.S. in the first week of July:

https://www.thelancet.com/jour..."

Nationally, 9% of Americans had antibodies to the virus in the first week of July, with much higher numbers in obvious places like New York. Even that's an understatement, because the antibodies fade relatively quickly and people who had mild cases of the disease don't have a lot of antibodies to begin with.

Now look at the national increase in reported cases from early July to today, and the number must be more than double the earlier 9% estimate, probably more like 35%, and even more in places that have been hard hit.

Absolutely. This is almost certainly a state actor, not an individual (duh) or a corporation.

Science is about exploring the frontier of knowledge. On the frontier, no one knows what to expect, so almost anything can be surprising. In contrast, engineers (and inventors) are all about turning knowledge into usable products. There's less surprise there because the basic science is already worked out.

I totally agree. The California High Speed Rail Project from LA to San Francisco is *currently being built* and is estimated to cost $96 billion, not $6 billion. If we could cancel that and switch to hyperloop for only $6 billion, that would be a huge cost savings, and it would be significantly faster. Forget Mars, this thing is economical here.

This seems like a huge omission. It's hard to think of a more influential computer game.

Apple Newton???

I have the Samsung ATIV Book 7 (formerly called the Series 7). It's pretty similar in size and weight to a 13" MBP, and it's incredibly upgradeable for an Ultrabook. Here's a nice link: http://www.mobiletechreview.com/notebooks/Samsung-Series-7-Ultra.htm You can easily upgrade the RAM and SSD. You should be able to upgrade the battery, though I've never done that myself. Also, the European version of the computer can be had with a discrete graphics card if that's your thing. By the way, the screen, speakers, and touchpad on the ATIV Book 7 are all fantastic. It's a high-quality laptop.

The battery life per Watt-Hour of the Sony Vaio Pro 13 (Haswell, Windows 8) vs. 2013 Macbook Air (Haswell, OS X) are pretty similar, according to Anand's own tests: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7417/sony-vaio-pro-13-exceptionally-portable/4

Moreover, the Sony Vaio Pro has a higher-resolution screen than the MBA, which puts the Vaio at a disadvantage (because it drains the battery a little faster). So with highly-optimized Windows drivers, the battery life looks the same or even better for Windows.

The comparison to ARM is just stupid. Obviously battery life is better on ARM, at the cost of much lower performance. That's true for Windows and OS X both.

Since when is a legal brief by one of the litigating parties an unbiased source of "facts"? Everything in this post and in the link is stated as fact, yet all of it comes from a single legal brief filed by Google. I thought /.'s standards for journalism were a little higher.

My thoughts were with the original poster, there is a huge (actually Huge, wait I mean HUGE) problem with plagiarism/fake results/fraud/etc. in China. There have been cases of scientists who were otherwise well-regarded getting away with this for years, before the fraud was revealed. Have Dr. Pan's results been consistently replicated by others in the past, whatever his "status" in the profession?

CNet has a nice summary of the main issues: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html

It seems like this "theft" is being blown way out of proportion, for several reasons:
1. The device in question is a cell phone.
2. The finder seems to have made several attempts to contact the apparent owner to return the device, and was told it wasn't theirs.
3. When the owner of the device did surface, the phone was immediately returned.

Regardless of what happened between #2 and #3 above, would the police normally waste any time on an incident like this?

Let me try to pre-emptively respond to some objections. Regarding #1, the only reason this particular cell phone was "valuable" was because of who it belonged to (Apple). If it had turned out to have been a fake, it would have been virtually worthless. So is this really a huge felony? Here's another example: Suppose the device in question had been a t-shirt (value $10), lost by some celebrity (say Brittney Spears). Of course, the t-shirt can be sold for outrageous sums of money on eBay or wherever, if it can be determined that the shirt is genuine. Is it a felony to sell the shirt? Is it really that big a deal? If the shirt was promptly returned to Brittney as soon as she came forward to claim it, would the police be giving this any attention at all?

I say no.