I don't even notice squiggles anymore. They squiggle on HTML, they squiggle on computer terms (agregator), they squiggle on biology and physics terms (saurichian, Hermetian)... I just can't win.
Your numbers are problematic... I should point out 4.7+6=10.7. Couple this with the 200% increase according to the study linked by jeorgen, and you get an anticipated autism rate of 10.7+2x10.7=32.1/10k. That is to say, a number slightly higher than what you quote.
Impressive, as changing TCP/IP settings takes six clicks, and getting to the advanced status takes three:
Right-click Network icon in taskbar
Click "Network and Sharing Center"
Click "Status" by your connection
Click "Properties" on the resulting status screen
Click "Internet Protocol Version X (TCP/IPvX)" on the resulting list summary of all connection aspects
Click "Properties"
Of course, a single click gives you a basic status, and the second click gives you a good network summary. This is (if I recall) one click more than XP, but the intervening window is generally more relevant to what I want to do than the connection properties window. If it takes me one additional click so I have a more useful dialog in the interim, I'm fine with that. In any case, it doesn't take 1 click to access properties in XP, nor does it take 15 clicks to access TCP/IP settings.
I think that says more about your Windows usage than Vista. Its been a Windows convention to use "Alt" to reveal (even hidden) menu options since about Win95. Otherwise, the way to show file extensions is identical to 98 in Vista.
Also, I don't know what crazy universe you are living in, but in the control panel, "navigate up to the previous menu" is the same as the rest of the operating system — click the parent on the address bar. Very simple.
You, and people like you, just are bashing Vista because you hate change, and not really any other good reason. Its damn painful to go back to XP, because its so much less productive and so much harder to find things. Besides, everyone at/. is supposed to be a nerd, but apparently the addition of more keyboard shortcuts in both Vista and 7 is easily overlooked because RAWR IT'S M$.
A sizeable part of it is that without a collection of defining morphological characteristics, how do you classify extinct organisms with no genetic data available?
A good cladistic uses both genetic and morphological data for the most data points.
Vista will use excess RAM to preload some bits that you might use frequently. This is particularly obvious if you upgrade your RAM from high level to higher level in Vista. My at-boot memory usage was ~30% with 4gigs installed; when I installed 8gigs, the at-boot memory usage was unchanged.
I had more RAM, so it filled more RAM. Straightforward. I've not had any issues with its memory management.
Something is wrong in that calculation... the second link goes to the product's home page, which states:
"The original WaterMill is designed for the residential user. It provides families with a clean, sustainable and cost-effective source of water for drinking and cooking. It produces 12 litres (13 US quarts) of water per day, and mounts to the exterior of your home, drawing water from the air outside into point-of-use systems inside. The WaterMill is self-regulating, maximizing water production, while minimizing energy consumption." [source]
So... the best I can figure is that it might actually be referring to the CFLs. If a 60W equivalent CFL draws something like 10W (somewhere between 7 and 15, I don't recall), this (roughly) factor of six will take your two liter estimate up to twelve liters, or in line with the product page.
The most surprising thing about this is that it would mean journalists are changing their light-bulb benchmarks!
*Sigh*, the Vista FUD is really getting old. As my 750 up-hour (last reboot was by choice) never-a-blue-screen-in-eight-months HD-DVD Blu-Ray playing lagless Vista x64 desktop attests to, a good drivers and no OEM crapware make all the difference.
Vista isn't bad at all, its all anti-hype, OEM crap, and FUD. (runs and hides from the ensuing Karma-bashing)
If you're not an atheist, you really can't say what I believe, can you? As a point of fact, I belive there is no God -- I also believe that I will not suffocate from the air evacuating to a corner of the room, I believe there is no teapot in orbit around Mars, I believe that I will finish typing this sentence without quantum tunneling to the back of a breaching humpback whale [hey, look at that... ].
None of those statements are impossible, they are all just overwhelmingly unlikely. I require no more faith to not believe in god(s) than I do to believe that the all Earth's interatomic bonds will *not* spontaneously disassociate in the next hour.
Though, to be bluntly honest, I think the chances of Earth's "existence faliure" is a damn sight higher than your logic-warping, untestable, and unecesssary uncreated creator.
Frankly, agnosticism is the PC position one takes when they lack the conviction to say "There may be god(s), but I will waste no more thought on it than I would on getting struck by an asteroid." All agnostic really means is "willing to waffle on a mind-bogglingly likely assertion to not offend the theists."
Good to hear it. And you're defniitely spot-on about the Jews, anyway -- I've not met an evangelical Jew to date. Which means that my religious friends are definitely disproportionatly Jewish....
And if it seems you're a "reasonable theist", as I call it, then much applause to you! Statements like this keep me from going bonkers when I'm talking with someone who (I quote) belives "God did not make whales come from tigers any more than people from chimps".
Atheist and proud. You can mock it all you'd like -- I'll smile and nod at you.
There's no offense to be had when you have a lack of faith. Its instead your own personal comedy show when you see logical fallacy after logical fallacy, threats, and all other kinds of oddities from those that want to "save" you.
I'll bite. Mine was running fine for a year on Vista since Beta 2 before I decided to upgrade to 32 bit. I'll admit my card reader hasn't worked in 64 bit (trust the manufacturers to go out of business before releasing an x64 driver), but since May it's been humming along quite swimmingly. Currently its dual booting (without a reinstall, just a repartition) Ubuntu 7.10 / Vista SP1.
Contrary to popular belief, Vista actually runs just fine. Ironically, I had problems on XP -- I decided to stick a desktop processor in the laptop and above 96% CPU or so it overheats. Well, it was bleeding edge three years ago....
Is there a technical reason they can't do this? Because otherwise, screw the lock-in-vendors. They have no way to see if you made the copy!
I suppose they might have it so write-protected tapes can't be copied -- but a peice of tape over the hole does the trick.
It doesn't really change the fact that it is mostly a useless technology, though -- to copy stuff to DVD, it is almost more efficient to do it through a computer and hold on to a digital copy along the way. DVRs with hard drives can just store so much more information, in a single place, that they are the flat-out superior option.
Aside from (poorly) attempting to put words in atheist's mouths, your conception of the "Big Bang" is obviously inadequate and almost certainly antiquated. You probably don't know about the theoretical or observational underpinnings of decoupling times, background temperatures (yes, more than one), inflation, total energy content, matter distributions, quantum mechanics... the list goes on.
You also probably do not know how any of those apply to either cosmology, the greater field of astronomy, or your everyday life.
Finally, when you "zoom in" enough to get to our solar system, you quite evidently do not know about the early solar system, or how simple things like density gradients and angular momentum give you the right concentrations of materials at the right distances.
You also are using an outdated model by which early organic molecules and polymers may have been formed. There are many potential models right now, and we are currently refining our data on early Earth before we start to claim definitive superiority for any number of models. What we have observed in the laboratory, however, is that certain reducing atmospheres with electrical discharges can produce amino acids and other organics. It so happens this was probably rather unlike early Earth's atmosphere, but we admitted that a while ago. Didn't you get the memo? Or were you too busy ignoring what scientists said?
And what is life anyway? You certainly have never given a good definition of it. Probably too busy blindly claiming your 2000 year old book was better than the 3000 year old stories of other cultures. And of course, much better than current-day science.
Your argument, as many others that are based around the claim that scientists live with a "religion of chance" seems to rely on the fact that its debaters have no concept of probability or of how mind-bogglingly big the universe is, or how long 14.7 GYr really is. But you have no problem in believing an invisible perfect being existed before the universe, was uncreated, more complex than the universe, created the universe, and in this one tiny tiny tiny tiny pocket in this completely average star 2/3 out of a more-massive-than-average galaxy a little bit off a main arm on a relativley small planet either imperfectly created human beings, who happen to be the three-dimensional representation of this mystical thing, or, directed some special little fatty chemicals and sugar chains over 3.6 GYrs to get to these amazingly imperfect beings.
Oh man, and I'm not even touching the morality argument.
Whether or not he meant it this way, I'd argue the "better place" argument should be taken as "the world will be a better place when the bulk populace will not try to base decisions on religion when a well-reasoned and demonstrated scientific theory serves the same purpose, or does not find this to be incompatible with their religion and thus try to exclude science from the public sphere". Because, honestly, that's what some of these nutjobs are trying to do.
To quote a friend of mine: "debate about evolution? man.. did we just go back 150 years?"
Actually, they don't ever show full fossils of something that is 1% complete (that would be perhaps two teeth). They will often reconstruct 10-30% complete fossils based on nearest common ancestor or other complete specimens.
Not to mention that there are many nearly complete fossils. A few jump to mind instantly: most of the German limestone impressions (Lagerstaate or some such, the spelling is off) [Archaeopteryx]. Sue the T-Rex anyone? Or the famous "Fighting dinosaurs"? When we don't have full fossils, and we're not sure, we don't try to "fill in" the rest. See Deinochierus.
In short, your analysis is flawed at best, and more likely criminally incompetant. I suggest you read peer-reviewed works, and learn your fossil record. Pretty much anything I mentioned can be Wiki'd.
I am actually curious that this is even a question. It would seem obvious to me that there is a maximum temperature inherent in the universe. Here we have it:
Take the lightest fundamental particle, and select one of them.
Take all other particles, allow them to decay by E=mc^2, then fire all the photons at this fundamental particle (if you prefer, let it sit till all photons are absorbed, the actual mechanics of it doesn't matter, its just the principle).
This fundamental particle now has the maximum energy ascribable to a single particle in the universe. This corresponds to a temperature. Since we cannot increase this value, since there is no sources of positive energy density to do this, we have a maximum temperature.
Thus, we have a maximum temperature.
This has always been my chain of logic, and I don't see any holes in it. I realize the "absorb" bit is not trivial due to QM, but if you wait long enough Heisenberg and statistics should take care of it.
As opposed to us, a bunch of nerdlings. Most people don't even know what Linux is, keep that in mind... and of those that do, even the semi-computer-literate (as opposed to out-and-out computer nerds) don't like Linux at all.
Even though/. is a haven of MS-bashin, some people do try the products first.
I use Vista by choice, and I have used OSX 10.3, 10.4, Solaris, Ubuntu, and openSUSE. If you're competant in the windows environment, you know how to do everything you can in the *nix environment in windows -- including a proper terminal shell (UNIX subsytem anyone? And I swear by EMACS for coding/scripting). Vista is flat-out better than OSX. Sorry to say it. The interface is better (though I wish they had a non-alpha implementation of multiple desktops). Explorer is more powerful than Finder. The searches are essentially equivalent. Widget implementation is poor on both systems.
I used an iPod for four years, and during that time, my family bought and used three generations of iPods. I upgraded to a Zune recently, and my family and friends all agree the interface and device as a whole is better than an iPod. That's real people, folks.
As to ODF vs. OOXML... I don't really care. I htink OOXML files are slightly smaller, and since I rarely use the GUI (keyboard shortcuts for the win), some advanced functionality in MS Office and the ability to minimize the Ribbon and have a super-utilitarian interface makes it a far superior choice to OpenOffice. This is, of course, neglecting the horrible footprint and initial load times for OO
IE is mediocre. FF memory leaks. Opera for the win. I wish FF or Opera had native 64-bit though.
And finally, why do you give a damn if MS is a "good" company or not? Everyone is in it for themselves. Everyone. And so long as I am satisfied with their product, I don't care if its made by MS, Apple, or the Cookie Monster. Heh. Time to see how much karma-dinging I get for this.
You know, I had an iPod for four years, I've used three generations of them, and I bought the new Zune when it came out. It is a better device with a better interface than the iPod, a better form factor in both size-sets, and say what you will about the software (I too lament its lack of power-features), but it at least encodes the data to the file rather than a proprietary database.
And you know what else? Every friend I've showed it to who currently owns an iPod likes it better than their iPod, and either intends to purchase or is purchasing a Zune shortly.
I mean, I know this is/. and asking anyone to judge MSFT fairly for faults or successes is a long shot at best, and Apple and Jobs are worshipped, but seriously. How many of you guys have used a Zune?
I'm a physics to-be grad student, so I share your gripe on the SSC. However, I should note that US has the lead in supercomputing by far. In fact, we hold the first 8 positions on the Top 500 list.
Despite the ITER fiasco, we still have a lot of promising research going on in the fusion department.
We have one of the best astrophysics programs in the world.
It is our lasers that have reached kW and MW range. (Now that's a tough google search... it returns mW instead of MW. Damn case insensitivity).
It is our robots that have made giant strides in their walking procedures. Japan is trying to introduce their classically-modelled robots into the mainstream. We're working on getting them faster and more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the "grace period" idea is somewhat problematic from a security standpoint, but I agree with you for all practical purposes.
See? Never check the squiggles. I've even taught a class on saurischia and am working on a paper involving them. Whoops. Pie on my face?
I don't even notice squiggles anymore. They squiggle on HTML, they squiggle on computer terms (agregator), they squiggle on biology and physics terms (saurichian, Hermetian) ... I just can't win.
Your numbers are problematic ... I should point out 4.7+6=10.7. Couple this with the 200% increase according to the study linked by jeorgen, and you get an anticipated autism rate of 10.7+2x10.7=32.1/10k. That is to say, a number slightly higher than what you quote.
Impressive, as changing TCP/IP settings takes six clicks, and getting to the advanced status takes three:
Of course, a single click gives you a basic status, and the second click gives you a good network summary. This is (if I recall) one click more than XP, but the intervening window is generally more relevant to what I want to do than the connection properties window. If it takes me one additional click so I have a more useful dialog in the interim, I'm fine with that. In any case, it doesn't take 1 click to access properties in XP, nor does it take 15 clicks to access TCP/IP settings.
I think that says more about your Windows usage than Vista. Its been a Windows convention to use "Alt" to reveal (even hidden) menu options since about Win95. Otherwise, the way to show file extensions is identical to 98 in Vista.
Also, I don't know what crazy universe you are living in, but in the control panel, "navigate up to the previous menu" is the same as the rest of the operating system — click the parent on the address bar. Very simple.
You, and people like you, just are bashing Vista because you hate change, and not really any other good reason. Its damn painful to go back to XP, because its so much less productive and so much harder to find things. Besides, everyone at /. is supposed to be a nerd, but apparently the addition of more keyboard shortcuts in both Vista and 7 is easily overlooked because RAWR IT'S M$.
A sizeable part of it is that without a collection of defining morphological characteristics, how do you classify extinct organisms with no genetic data available?
A good cladistic uses both genetic and morphological data for the most data points.
Vista will use excess RAM to preload some bits that you might use frequently. This is particularly obvious if you upgrade your RAM from high level to higher level in Vista. My at-boot memory usage was ~30% with 4gigs installed; when I installed 8gigs, the at-boot memory usage was unchanged.
I had more RAM, so it filled more RAM. Straightforward. I've not had any issues with its memory management.
Something is wrong in that calculation ... the second link goes to the product's home page, which states:
... the best I can figure is that it might actually be referring to the CFLs. If a 60W equivalent CFL draws something like 10W (somewhere between 7 and 15, I don't recall), this (roughly) factor of six will take your two liter estimate up to twelve liters, or in line with the product page.
"The original WaterMill is designed for the residential user. It provides families with a clean, sustainable and cost-effective source of water for drinking and cooking. It produces 12 litres (13 US quarts) of water per day, and mounts to the exterior of your home, drawing water from the air outside into point-of-use systems inside. The WaterMill is self-regulating, maximizing water production, while minimizing energy consumption."
[source]
So
The most surprising thing about this is that it would mean journalists are changing their light-bulb benchmarks!
*Sigh*, the Vista FUD is really getting old. As my 750 up-hour (last reboot was by choice) never-a-blue-screen-in-eight-months HD-DVD Blu-Ray playing lagless Vista x64 desktop attests to, a good drivers and no OEM crapware make all the difference.
Vista isn't bad at all, its all anti-hype, OEM crap, and FUD. (runs and hides from the ensuing Karma-bashing)
If you're not an atheist, you really can't say what I believe, can you? As a point of fact, I belive there is no God -- I also believe that I will not suffocate from the air evacuating to a corner of the room, I believe there is no teapot in orbit around Mars, I believe that I will finish typing this sentence without quantum tunneling to the back of a breaching humpback whale [hey, look at that ... ].
None of those statements are impossible, they are all just overwhelmingly unlikely. I require no more faith to not believe in god(s) than I do to believe that the all Earth's interatomic bonds will *not* spontaneously disassociate in the next hour.
Though, to be bluntly honest, I think the chances of Earth's "existence faliure" is a damn sight higher than your logic-warping, untestable, and unecesssary uncreated creator.
Frankly, agnosticism is the PC position one takes when they lack the conviction to say "There may be god(s), but I will waste no more thought on it than I would on getting struck by an asteroid." All agnostic really means is "willing to waffle on a mind-bogglingly likely assertion to not offend the theists."
Good to hear it. And you're defniitely spot-on about the Jews, anyway -- I've not met an evangelical Jew to date. Which means that my religious friends are definitely disproportionatly Jewish ....
...
And if it seems you're a "reasonable theist", as I call it, then much applause to you! Statements like this keep me from going bonkers when I'm talking with someone who (I quote) belives "God did not make whales come from tigers any more than people from chimps".
Ugh. The pain of the mutilated biology there
Atheist and proud. You can mock it all you'd like -- I'll smile and nod at you.
There's no offense to be had when you have a lack of faith. Its instead your own personal comedy show when you see logical fallacy after logical fallacy, threats, and all other kinds of oddities from those that want to "save" you.
I'll bite. Mine was running fine for a year on Vista since Beta 2 before I decided to upgrade to 32 bit. I'll admit my card reader hasn't worked in 64 bit (trust the manufacturers to go out of business before releasing an x64 driver), but since May it's been humming along quite swimmingly. Currently its dual booting (without a reinstall, just a repartition) Ubuntu 7.10 / Vista SP1.
....
Contrary to popular belief, Vista actually runs just fine. Ironically, I had problems on XP -- I decided to stick a desktop processor in the laptop and above 96% CPU or so it overheats. Well, it was bleeding edge three years ago
Is there a technical reason they can't do this? Because otherwise, screw the lock-in-vendors. They have no way to see if you made the copy!
I suppose they might have it so write-protected tapes can't be copied -- but a peice of tape over the hole does the trick.
It doesn't really change the fact that it is mostly a useless technology, though -- to copy stuff to DVD, it is almost more efficient to do it through a computer and hold on to a digital copy along the way. DVRs with hard drives can just store so much more information, in a single place, that they are the flat-out superior option.
Aside from (poorly) attempting to put words in atheist's mouths, your conception of the "Big Bang" is obviously inadequate and almost certainly antiquated. You probably don't know about the theoretical or observational underpinnings of decoupling times, background temperatures (yes, more than one), inflation, total energy content, matter distributions, quantum mechanics ... the list goes on.
You also probably do not know how any of those apply to either cosmology, the greater field of astronomy, or your everyday life.
Finally, when you "zoom in" enough to get to our solar system, you quite evidently do not know about the early solar system, or how simple things like density gradients and angular momentum give you the right concentrations of materials at the right distances.
You also are using an outdated model by which early organic molecules and polymers may have been formed. There are many potential models right now, and we are currently refining our data on early Earth before we start to claim definitive superiority for any number of models. What we have observed in the laboratory, however, is that certain reducing atmospheres with electrical discharges can produce amino acids and other organics. It so happens this was probably rather unlike early Earth's atmosphere, but we admitted that a while ago. Didn't you get the memo? Or were you too busy ignoring what scientists said?
And what is life anyway? You certainly have never given a good definition of it. Probably too busy blindly claiming your 2000 year old book was better than the 3000 year old stories of other cultures. And of course, much better than current-day science.
Your argument, as many others that are based around the claim that scientists live with a "religion of chance" seems to rely on the fact that its debaters have no concept of probability or of how mind-bogglingly big the universe is, or how long 14.7 GYr really is. But you have no problem in believing an invisible perfect being existed before the universe, was uncreated, more complex than the universe, created the universe, and in this one tiny tiny tiny tiny pocket in this completely average star 2/3 out of a more-massive-than-average galaxy a little bit off a main arm on a relativley small planet either imperfectly created human beings, who happen to be the three-dimensional representation of this mystical thing, or, directed some special little fatty chemicals and sugar chains over 3.6 GYrs to get to these amazingly imperfect beings.
Oh man, and I'm not even touching the morality argument.
Whether or not he meant it this way, I'd argue the "better place" argument should be taken as "the world will be a better place when the bulk populace will not try to base decisions on religion when a well-reasoned and demonstrated scientific theory serves the same purpose, or does not find this to be incompatible with their religion and thus try to exclude science from the public sphere". Because, honestly, that's what some of these nutjobs are trying to do.
To quote a friend of mine: "debate about evolution? man.. did we just go back 150 years?"
Actually, they don't ever show full fossils of something that is 1% complete (that would be perhaps two teeth). They will often reconstruct 10-30% complete fossils based on nearest common ancestor or other complete specimens.
Not to mention that there are many nearly complete fossils. A few jump to mind instantly: most of the German limestone impressions (Lagerstaate or some such, the spelling is off) [Archaeopteryx]. Sue the T-Rex anyone? Or the famous "Fighting dinosaurs"? When we don't have full fossils, and we're not sure, we don't try to "fill in" the rest. See Deinochierus.
In short, your analysis is flawed at best, and more likely criminally incompetant. I suggest you read peer-reviewed works, and learn your fossil record. Pretty much anything I mentioned can be Wiki'd.
Wow, and apparently my grammar goes to hell at 2AM. My bad.
I am actually curious that this is even a question. It would seem obvious to me that there is a maximum temperature inherent in the universe. Here we have it:
Take the lightest fundamental particle, and select one of them.
Take all other particles, allow them to decay by E=mc^2, then fire all the photons at this fundamental particle (if you prefer, let it sit till all photons are absorbed, the actual mechanics of it doesn't matter, its just the principle).
This fundamental particle now has the maximum energy ascribable to a single particle in the universe. This corresponds to a temperature. Since we cannot increase this value, since there is no sources of positive energy density to do this, we have a maximum temperature.
Thus, we have a maximum temperature.
This has always been my chain of logic, and I don't see any holes in it. I realize the "absorb" bit is not trivial due to QM, but if you wait long enough Heisenberg and statistics should take care of it.
As opposed to us, a bunch of nerdlings. Most people don't even know what Linux is, keep that in mind ... and of those that do, even the semi-computer-literate (as opposed to out-and-out computer nerds) don't like Linux at all.
Even though /. is a haven of MS-bashin, some people do try the products first.
... I don't really care. I htink OOXML files are slightly smaller, and since I rarely use the GUI (keyboard shortcuts for the win), some advanced functionality in MS Office and the ability to minimize the Ribbon and have a super-utilitarian interface makes it a far superior choice to OpenOffice. This is, of course, neglecting the horrible footprint and initial load times for OO
I use Vista by choice, and I have used OSX 10.3, 10.4, Solaris, Ubuntu, and openSUSE. If you're competant in the windows environment, you know how to do everything you can in the *nix environment in windows -- including a proper terminal shell (UNIX subsytem anyone? And I swear by EMACS for coding/scripting). Vista is flat-out better than OSX. Sorry to say it. The interface is better (though I wish they had a non-alpha implementation of multiple desktops). Explorer is more powerful than Finder. The searches are essentially equivalent. Widget implementation is poor on both systems.
I used an iPod for four years, and during that time, my family bought and used three generations of iPods. I upgraded to a Zune recently, and my family and friends all agree the interface and device as a whole is better than an iPod. That's real people, folks.
As to ODF vs. OOXML
IE is mediocre. FF memory leaks. Opera for the win. I wish FF or Opera had native 64-bit though.
And finally, why do you give a damn if MS is a "good" company or not? Everyone is in it for themselves. Everyone. And so long as I am satisfied with their product, I don't care if its made by MS, Apple, or the Cookie Monster. Heh. Time to see how much karma-dinging I get for this.
You know, I had an iPod for four years, I've used three generations of them, and I bought the new Zune when it came out. It is a better device with a better interface than the iPod, a better form factor in both size-sets, and say what you will about the software (I too lament its lack of power-features), but it at least encodes the data to the file rather than a proprietary database.
/. and asking anyone to judge MSFT fairly for faults or successes is a long shot at best, and Apple and Jobs are worshipped, but seriously. How many of you guys have used a Zune?
And you know what else? Every friend I've showed it to who currently owns an iPod likes it better than their iPod, and either intends to purchase or is purchasing a Zune shortly.
I mean, I know this is
Taskkill /f is your friend.
... but I am pretty sure its there (at least in XP Pro).
I havn't used XP in about a year and a half, though
Screenshot for you
I'm a physics to-be grad student, so I share your gripe on the SSC. However, I should note that US has the lead in supercomputing by far. In fact, we hold the first 8 positions on the Top 500 list.
... it returns mW instead of MW. Damn case insensitivity).
Despite the ITER fiasco, we still have a lot of promising research going on in the fusion department.
We have one of the best astrophysics programs in the world.
Despite the SSC never getting finished, it is our collider, the Tevatron, that has potentially found the Higgs boson
It is our lasers that have reached kW and MW range. (Now that's a tough google search
It is our robots that have made giant strides in their walking procedures. Japan is trying to introduce their classically-modelled robots into the mainstream. We're working on getting them faster and more efficient.
We're still the primary innovators, by far.