Slashdot Mirror

No reason this should be restricted to apple products as an android tablet would work just as well to view pdf files, but still, very reasonable savings estimate.

Yes and no. I believe the holdup has been more on the hardware side - particularly electromagnetic compatibility - than on the software side. AA, Apple, and perhaps the aircraft mfgs have done the extra legwork in testing to demonstrate that 1) the iPad is reasonably immune to interference in an aircraft setting (because it is just a reader, and doesn't need WiFi or cellular to display charts makes this relatively easy) and 2) does not itself cause interference in the cockpit. The same cannot be said for just any old Android tablet, considering the wide variety of manufacturers out there.

While encouraging to see this becoming more mainstream, this is not the first instance of iPads replacing binders in the cockpit. Alaska Airlines has been doing this for years, and the FAA has allowed iPads for private aviators for a while, too.

^ Now here's a message clearly originating from a paragon of rational intellect... ::rolleyes::

Only Republicans believe corporations are people.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people, when given a chance to understand the issue, would agree that people do not cease being people when they form a corporation. This includes many people who have better things to do than vote (a group that is vastly larger than any particular party), Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians (who tend to be the least irrational political group), etc. Even intellectually honest Communists (all six of them) would agree that they don't stop being people if they join a voluntary commune (a corporation).

This is why having people actually understand this issue is something that the political manipulators want to avoid...

But they also believe there's a deity out there that gives a shit about their little lives and that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

There is no link between pro-capitalist philosophy (which is the subject in question here) and religion. To the contrary, many advocates of capitalism have been outspoken atheists and some of the most significant contributors to atheist philosophy. Ayn Rand alone should be the end of this argument. Out of the top modern pro-capitalist thinkers, the most religious ones you will find are a couple of followers of Reform Judaism, which is more of a cultural tradition. Even in popular culture, many debunkers of religious hoaxes (ex. Penn & Teller's show Bullshit!) are libertarians.

World-wide, you will find a significant correlation between economic freedom and atheism (excluding belief systems like Juche as atheist). Russia leapt from communist mysticism back to their Orthodox Church with astonishing ferocity, as if they both scratched the same itch. Billions of people in economically unfree nations of the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Indonesia, and the backwaters of Latin America, are far more religious / superstitious than even the most fundamentalist religious groups in the USA (which are a small minority).

In the United States, you will find that the two "major parties" represent vast agglomerations of opinions stitched together by political pragmatism. Both use religion for their political means. (Democracy is a dirty game that is forced on us, but we might as well defend ourselves - which can involve building some rather bizarre alliances of convenience.) For a significant stretch of their history, D's were the party of the religious south, while R's were the party of the intellectual elite - then political winds have shifted. (Barry Goldwater was an atheist compared to Jimmy Carter!) Those winds may yet shift again... In 2008, Obama was the candidate of choice among many religious groups - Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Black Churches, Scientologists... that's pretty much every group except the tradition of "protestant work ethic", which has been instrumental to the establishment of the modern world. Many of those religious minorities are so religious that, by some measures, they make Dems the more delusional of the two major parties! (And that's without looking at their economic policies.) So all I'm saying is that the party of Stigmata, Salah, The Chosen People, Xenu, and of course Jeremiah Wright probably shouldn't "cast the first stone"...

According to the dictionary, people are: Human beings in general or considered collectively. Last I checked, a corporation is not a human being.

So you look at a corporation and see it as a contractual entity consisting of... amoeba? plants? wookies?

Get your eyes examined. Then (re)read everything I wrote in this discussion.

--libman

Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government

... while running the most secretive and closed administration ever. Breaking promises about public hearings on health care is just the tip of the iceberg. You then have to look at they way he promised not to take money from lobbyists, which then just turned into have registered lobbyists shut out, while access gets granted to unregistered lobbyists and "bundlers". And the quote doctoring required of all media outlets, as reported by the New York Times, administration officials holding meetings with lobbyists at coffee shops to avoid official logs of the meetings, exerting "executive privilege" over the criminal "Fast and Furious" operation, and on and on.

In fact, the Obama administration was given the GWU "Rosemary Award" for the Worst Open Government Performance in 2011.

I could go on for days about this kind of hypocrisy.

Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government

You must be looking at a different conversion than I was replying to - I don't know where this comes from. The discussion started with Romney's tax returns, which is personal information unrelated to government transparency, at least while he's not holding public office.

"Saudi Aramco says damage was limited to office computers .. running Microsoft Windows" ...

'However, one of Saudi Aramco's Web sites taken offline after the attack - www.aramco.com . remained down on Sunday. E-mails sent by Reuters to people within the company continued to bounce back` link

Organic doesn't mean "safe" -- a pesticide is a toxin and made to kill, regardless of what it is made of.

And it's very important to carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion: Which plants produce these killer toxins? All of them.

Plants do not want to be eaten. Plants avoid being eaten by being toxic, and most of them are very, very good at it. Natural pesticides are no less carcinogenic than synthetics (at least in rats), but "Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues."

Failure to appreciate this fact has, at least once, led to the tragicomic result of "organic" produce being far more toxic than conventional. Celery produces some nasty irritants called psoralens, which are pretty effective at warding off insects. So some organic growers chose to plant "insect-resistant" celery that's been bred for high psoralen content. Too bad these varieties are human-resistant as well. Harvesters suffered severe rashes just from handling this stuff... but that's okay, it's natural!

What we call "vegetables" are simply those plants whose toxins we can digest in the quantities we normally eat. To a deer, poison ivy is a vegetable, but fiddleheads are deadly. In fact, even some humans can eat poison ivy, being naturally immune to the problematic substance, urushiol.

I'm not so sure I would agree with Google's typical defense on this issue, which is that they have an algorithm that automatically ranks all the search results and they can't change that. Except they manually change the results. When companies break their rules, they can punish them. For example, when BMW's German website was found to influence results, Google banned them from their index. An eyeglass company, DecorMyEyes, verbally abused its customers to generate bad reviews ... and more publicity. After being published in The Times, they dropped the company from the index. Even in the Santorum case, they eventually made some results less prominent. Google has also been accused of pushing up the rankings of its own products. So it's kinda hypocritical to say that Google doesn't adjust individual results.

Here is an alternative idea: a Silicon Valley school without technology

You make the same distinction I do - Nutrition is a part of how 'Healthy' a food is, but not all of it.

Still, there's problems organic foods, in that farmers are still free to use fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. They just have to be 'organic'* ones, and some of those are nastier than the artificial chemical ones. Also, there's the question of food safety, as organic certification is separate from safety certification. Fecal matter, E-Coli, Salmonella, etc are all natural and organic, after all. I've read reports that *SOME* organic products have higher levels of contamination than their non-organic counterparts. Given how widespread the field is and how stuff constantly changes, I have no advice beyond 'pay attention to your food source, no matter whether it's organic or not'. For example, I don't worry about organic vegetarian** eggs, but I do worry whether the farm vaccinates the hens against Salmonella.

*Scare-quoted primarily because the distinction on what's organic and not varies by location and certifying authority(if any).
**WTH? I want eggs from omnivores - chickens that get sufficient insect protein produce better eggs! ;)

The probability of him being accused of racism escaping any documentation is rather low. Roth hunting down some of that documentation and citing it for Wikipedia would help settle the mini-feud properly, strengthen the public record for future historians and make Wikipedia that much better.

Then there's the question of motivation: Whether or not Roth is speaking honestly about the source of the books central incident, he could have reason to deny the Broyard allegation: If Roth's explanation is true he'd want the record set straight. If it's false he might want it erased to hide his embarrassment.

I'll ignore the fact that the source of the book (the 'spook' comment), and the source of a major sub-plot (the fictional 'fact' that Silk was part Black and 'passing' as white) are two entirely unrelated issues.

lol I think they just weren't content with the mere few millions they got. I mean who can live on that?

Depending on where you live, for the sake of argument let's assume the first world, someone in the 3rd world could say the same thing about you. About half of the world lives off of $2.50 a day or less.

Buyers can pay zero or whatever they please up to £99.99 (about $212) for the album in MP3 form...

...The band and its managers are not releasing the download’s sales figures or average price, and may never do so. “It’s our linen,” Mr. Hufford said. “We don’t want to wash it in public.” A statement from the band rejected estimates by the online survey company ComScore that during October about three-fifths of worldwide downloaders took the album free, while the rest paid an average of $6.

Factoring in free downloads, ComScore said the average price per download was $2.26. But it did not specify a total number of downloads, saying only that a “significant percentage” of the 1.2 million people who visited the Radiohead Web site, inrainbows.com, in October downloaded the album. Under a typical recording contract, a band receives royalties of about 15 percent of an album’s wholesale price after expenses are recovered. Without middlemen, and with zero material costs for a download, $2.26 per album would work out to Radiohead’s advantage — not to mention the worldwide publicity.

From the New York Times. Obviously there is some merit to this model otherwise we wouldn't see more indy bundles. Unless the band releases figures we can merely speculate as to how successful it really was.

My government has the obligation to provide numerous services such as roads, police, courts, fire service, libraries, and numerous other functions which it is obligated to provide as a condition of its existence.

Where are you from, exactly? If you're an American, you should spend some time looking into the fine print behind those so-called "obligations." You may be in for a surprise.

You are obligated to pay taxes for things like police protection, but the government is by no means obligated to provide what you're paying for. So much for the "social contract."

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

try http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

It's an interesting model, but feeding a poll aggregate into a statistical prediction algorithm has been standard practice for years now. On the internet, fivethirtyeight is probably the first prominent site to have done so (originally as an independent site, before the NYTimes bought them).

Well, look at this article in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/technology/foxconn-to-raise-salaries-for-workers-by-up-to-25.html

I was under the impression that we were talking about Foxconn regular emloyees salaries. The students, for sure, are getting a raw deal, but internships very rarely pay full salary. However, Foxconn's full employees seem to be getting quite decent wages for their work.

"Pandora still far away from turning a profit"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-pandoramedia-idUSTRE8261C520120307

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/spotify-is-said-to-profit-from-its-subscribers-but-lose-more-luring-them/

"Media Decoder recently looked at the books of Spotify and Pandora, two of the most popular digital music services, and noted that both companies â" despite having very different business models â" wind up paying most of their revenue in music royalties."

Here's a nuanced example of some of the things you can do, personally, without any help from anyone:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html

Other examples include driving less, flying less, using less energy at home (running the AC & heater less).

If only. Learn about data aggregators. This is a good place to start, as the NYT uses Facebook as an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/facebook-is-using-you.html

If "here" is the US, it's already a common practice. And yes, if you refuse you can expect your name to be published in the paper.

IMO, this is an obvious breach of our 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches, and our 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

I converted to a permanent standing desk a few months ago and I really like it. The first week was pretty tough to get through, but after that it has been great. I recommend an anti-fatigue mat to stand on and some decent insoles like PowerSteps. Some co-workers also have a high stool for when they get tired. I do admit that I look forward to sitting during lunch and after work, but I would never go back. I haven't seen a single co-worker go back to sitting, and more are converting to standing.

At my company HQ (different office) all desks are motorized and can raise or lower with a button. These are awesome and are the ideal (albeit expensive) solution. Most of the HQ employees both stand and sit for a few hours per day, as do I when visiting.

The extra calories burned while standing is pretty compelling. Also there are recent studies that advise against sitting all day.

Of course YMMV based on your physical health and body type. FWIW I am 6'4" 185lb software developer in decent shape...work for 8-9 hours / day 90% of the time at my desk.

$5000 to stand up?

I guess it makes sense... check out this NY Times article..

"...University of Massachusetts showing that when volunteers stood all day — nothing else; no walking or jogging; just standing — they burned hundreds more calories than when they sat for the same period of time."

But then again... we're against standing... again from the NY Times..

"At any moment, there were thousands of workers standing on assembly lines or sitting in backless chairs, crouching next to large machinery, or jogging between loading bays..."

Standing = more calories burned
backless chairs = good posture
jogging = exercise

Who knew Foxconn and Apple just wanted to help their workers and were ahead of the curve?!?! ;-)

$5000 to stand up?

I guess it makes sense... check out this NY Times article..

"...University of Massachusetts showing that when volunteers stood all day — nothing else; no walking or jogging; just standing — they burned hundreds more calories than when they sat for the same period of time."

But then again... we're against standing... again from the NY Times..

"At any moment, there were thousands of workers standing on assembly lines or sitting in backless chairs, crouching next to large machinery, or jogging between loading bays..."

Standing = more calories burned
backless chairs = good posture
jogging = exercise

Who knew Foxconn and Apple just wanted to help their workers and were ahead of the curve?!?! ;-)

Did Mitt Romney accept the IRS Tax Amnesty program in 2009? Did he disclose offshore accounts used as tax havens?

Was Romney part of these 14,700 Americans?

because his money was taxed when it was initially earned

Not necessarily. Consider this set of examples from the New York Times

To see the value of this strategy, think about investing with pretax versus after-tax dollars. Suppose Jill works at an investment bank, and her employer pays her a year-end bonus of $500,000. The bonus is taxed at a combined state and federal rate of 50 percent, leaving her with $250,000 to invest. She invests that $250,000 in her friend Jack’s private equity fund, and the investment doubles in value over five years. The $250,000 of new gain is taxed at the 15 percent long-term capital gains rate, leaving her with $212,500 and an overall after-tax amount of $462,500.

Now consider Jack, who works at the private equity fund. To satisfy his co-investment obligation, Jack must invest in the fund. Under a fee waiver program, he waives $500,000 of his portion of the management fee and credits his capital account with that amount. After the $500,000 doubles over five years, and is then taxed on the full amount at capital gains rates on the back end, Jack walks away with $850,000 — roughly 84 percent better off than Jill, who invested with after-tax dollars.

You can also treat your salary as investment income, if you're in private equity

Clinton has said recently that not finishing the super collider was one of his biggest regrets from his entire presidency. ..and it wasn't even his fault. Congress controls the purse.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/us/stating-regret-clinton-signs-bill-that-kills-supercollider.html

I think ... the laws don't really matter in cases like this.

Two words, Pol Pot

Education majors enter college with the worst scores and leave with the highest grades. And we are listening to them? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37245744/heres-the-nations-easiest-college-major/ From personal experience in the an undergrad Math department, the Math education crew were largely though of as do gooders along for the ride. They were conspicuously absent form upper level Math and CS courses, but the History of Math elective I took was filled with them. It is sad so few choose to get into teaching for the right reasons, but understandable. More links ... http://www.campusexplorer.com/college-advice-tips/7DF05979/Easiest-College-Majors/ http://www.thebestcolleges.org/top-10-easiest-and-hardest-college-degree-majors/ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?pagewanted=all

Can't believe you mentioned Russia and Space Mirrors without calling out their program to put orbiting mirrors in space for exactly this purpose...

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/12/science/russians-to-test-space-mirror-as-giant-night-light-for-earth.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(space_mirror)

I remember reading a special about the NYC schools - they have whole classrooms of fully paid teachers that they don't dare allow to teach for various ways. But because they're not allowed to fire them(Union benefits) without some rather extreme 'due cause', they stick them in a spare classroom. Called them rubber rooms.

A recent study indicates that cost isn't really an issue. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/your-money/framing-prevents-needed-stimulus-economic-view.xml

The graph may be pretty, but when it comes to science, any undergrad student could have done the same, and easily better. I've been studying languages for almost my whole life, and the timeline at the bottom of the graph is so off, that they should have just left it away - according to them, old dialects like Breton are younger than French (which of course isn't, French replaced those dialects), and the oldest modern language is English, whereas Polish and other Slavic languages appeared much later (... rright.) It's actually the opposite. Old, early examples of Polish, Russian, Italian, from between the 9th and 12th century are still intelligible, modern French really appeared in the 16th century and is maybe the European language which has had the fewest changes since then (compared to German and English, the difference is striking)...

Are there no other slashdotters in linguistics? Or is everybody giving up on /. already? There always used to be many bad articles posted, but now it jsut seems that everything is getting past the filters now, no matter how much it goes against the most basic knowledge!!!.

Yeah, because slashdot always only carries peer reviewed research from top notch Ivy League universities.

Oh wait a second ... these papers are actually peer-reviewed results from Ivy League research universities.

Peer-review isn't immue to issues...

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated

Also, peer review is not designed to catch fraud, only to catch errors in process or analysis.
In the Ivy League they aren't immune to issues either...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser

Also (okay, these aren't researchers, but perhaps this is more relatable...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/education/harvard-says-125-students-may-have-cheated-on-exam.html

People are just people. Just because they are working at a fancy-schmancy university, or some other folks put another gold star next to their paper (peer review is often blinded by reputation), isn't the standard we should be touting. The only arbitor that matters is nature, as one famous physicist (RPF) put it, "Nature cannot be fooled"...

Jobs on Wall Street are moving out of New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/business/finance-jobs-leave-wall-street-as-firms-cut-costs.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/technology/finspy-software-is-tracking-political-dissidents.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1346426124-tpUipAjgoKkvdqCAOV2KyQ

Thank you !!

No one is in control of your computer

Experience has shown otherwise:

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS

You're at the mercy of the legal terms you agree to. Nothing more, nothing less.

1. That is not how most people use their computers. I am the only person in my social circle (i.e. those people I communicate with IRL and not just online) who actually reads terms of service and software licenses and who actually hits "reject" if I see something I do not like. Most people have no clue what they agree too, and will violate unreasonable agreements -- everyone knows this, including the companies that write these agreements (why do you think so much work goes into license enforcement systems?).
2. Which jurisdiction would the laws you are referring to be in, anyway? The Internet is global, and for the time being, it has no well-defined borders. ITU may want to change that, but right now, you only need to contend with your country's laws, maybe, and that is assuming you can even figure out what the laws are saying (is entering a URL manually the same as unauthorized access to a protected computer system?).

I used to agree with your sentiment, really: I used to blame users for behaving the way the behave. Then I looked at computer security, and saw a pattern of blunders: systems that are designed in a way that ignores human psychology and common behavior. You see that pattern in the law as well, and it is a disaster. You cannot claim that people should be bound by long terms of use agreements that they do not read and which may not even have a legal basis in their locality, just like you cannot blame people for ignoring TLS warnings.

99% disagrees.

FTFY - You don't see the 1% complaining that the poor don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that they pay 38% of federal income taxes, when they only earn 22% of total US income. Interesting that the bottom 50% of the population only pays 2.7% of federal income taxes. THOSE are the people asking for free money.

That's federal *income* taxes, not total federal taxes paid. If anyone in the bottom 50% has a job, they're paying 7.65% of their income (if they have an employer), or 15.3% (if they're self-employed). Payroll taxes are a burden the rich don't have - earned income above $100k is exempt, as is any non-earned income (dividends, interest, capital gains, rent payments, etc.).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/technology/finspy-software-is-tracking-political-dissidents.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1346426124-tpUipAjgoKkvdqCAOV2KyQ

Use this link instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/technology/finspy-software-is-tracking-political-dissidents.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/technology/finspy-software-is-tracking-political-dissidents.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1346426124-tpUipAjgoKkvdqCAOV2KyQ

I think this is the missing link.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/technology/finspy-software-is-tracking-political-dissidents.html?_r=1&ref=technology

Disable Javascript and you should have no trouble accessing this article.

99% disagrees.

FTFY - You don't see the 1% complaining that the poor don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that they pay 38% of federal income taxes, when they only earn 22% of total US income. Interesting that the bottom 50% of the population only pays 2.7% of federal income taxes. THOSE are the people asking for free money.

The (left-leaning, liberal, etc.) nytimes has an interesting article on this. A recent study comparing the Hazda people that follow a hunter-gatherer lifestyle with a lot of exercise, show that they burned similar amounts of calories to many more sedentary people. It's unclear that just increasing exercise will reduce someone's weight. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/debunking-the-hunter-gatherer-workout.html

Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?

In certain countries they do that, and the West refers to it as "female genital mutilation"

FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.

That describes some forms of Female Genital Mutilation, not all of them.

FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure; it's a prophylaxis of sorts against adultery. In actuality, it causes them pain for the rest of their lives.

In these cultures, the men often demand that their bride be cut in this way, otherwise they're undesirable.

I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable. Circumcision came about during a time when hygiene was lax, awareness of causes of infection nonexistent.

Male circumcision is certainly comparable to removing the clitoral hood, which is a type of FGM.

There are a lot of factual problems with your statements. I'm not going to list all the Soviet space accomplishments I learned about in school, because that's likely a function of specific school one went to and how much detail on the space program one had. But let's look at your other claims.

First of all, the US has not (until very recently in some states like Arizona) been a papers-please state, that is a state where the police can just stop you on the street and ask for your ID and other paperwork. The difference with cars is that you need a license to drive a car. Comparing that to what the USSR did is just not accurate.

Second, it is possible to travel to Cuba and has been for over a decade, and in fact it just got easier about a year ago. http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/travel/at-long-last-legal-trips-to-cuba.html. Even in years where it has been difficult, a minimum of around 50,000 Americans traveled there has been around 50,000. Moreover, there's a very large difference between it being difficult to travel to a specific country and making it nearly impossible to travel to most of the planet. Remember the Berlin Wall at all? People were shot trying to flee as a regular occurrence. The US may do nasty things sometimes to keep people out, but they aren't threatening their own citizens to keep them in.

None of this is to say that the US is perfect. There are serious problems with civil liberties. And in many ways they've gotten much worse in the last decade. But that doesn't mean it is at all like how things were in the Soviet Union.

I believe that one of the reasons for the lopsided Apple/Samsung verdict was the RDF surrounding St. Steven Jobs. People think of him as an inspirational figure, and they're likely to believe his company's claims.

I just wanted to state that Cher Wang is just as much an inspiration as Jobs, even though she hasn't sought the limelight or appeared in black turtlenecks at worldwide developer conferences.

"Indeed, she rarely makes headlines at all, although she started her own multibillion-dollar company and made her own fortune.

"Ms. Wang is one of the most powerful female executives in technology whom you have never heard of. The company she founded, the HTC Corporation, makes one out of every six smartphones sold in the United States, most of which are marketed under brands like Palm and Verizon."

more

She also founded VIA in 1987.

Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?

In certain countries they do that, and the West refers to it as "female genital mutilation"

FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.

FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure; it's a prophylaxis of sorts against adultery. In actuality, it causes them pain for the rest of their lives.

In these cultures, the men often demand that their bride be cut in this way, otherwise they're undesirable.

I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable. Circumcision came about during a time when hygiene was lax, awareness of causes of infection nonexistent.

there is the problem of getting tired, where programming ends up being handed off between partners while the other partner zones out, and at each handoff, one has to come back up to speed.

If only one programmer is actually working and the other is zoning out, is that really pair programming? Doesn't sound like it.

The first time I heard of pair programming, it was in this article, which describes combining it with the Pomodoro technique, where nobody works for more than 25 minutes at a stretch. That would seem to address the one-guy-gets-tired issues, and indeed the general problem of people pushing at a job when taking a break would raise their overall efficiency.

I'm a tech writer, and I've often wanted to try pair writing with a development engineer. That would be a nice dovetailing of skills, since each of us would be strong in areas where the other is weak. Opportunity has never come up, alas.

True for the most part but now always true. Not to mention that some eye colors are getting rarer. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html