A great example of crappy Slate contrarianism. I love how Manjoo goes from "two spaces are unequivocally wrong," to "I actually think aesthetics are the best argument" within the space of a single page. And of course, the fact that (with modern word processing and type-layout software, even in the browser) that there is a difference between "what is typed" (by the writer) and "what is shown" (on the printed page or screen)-- like the difference between source code and a working application-- is never even *mentioned*. Why is he even having this argument, when all he wants to do is knock down straw men?

"Abstract: A method for computational drug design using an evolutionary algorithm, comprises evaluating virtual molecules according to vector distance (VD) to at least one achievement objective that defines a desired ideal molecule. In one method the invention comprises defining a set of n achievement objectives (OA1-n), where n is at least one; defining a population (PG=0) of at least one molecule; selecting an initial population (Pparent) of at least one molecule (I1-In) from the population (PG=0); and evaluating members (I1-In) of the initial population (Pparent) against at least one of the n achievement objectives (OA1-x), where x is from 1 to n." -- O, rly??

OMG, hilarious that someone would *admit* to having enough "grit" to talk himself out of taking 6.001. What a lost opportunity! "Paul Graham talks constantly about determination," but sometimes you can be determined to do dumb things.

"Guys from NCBI said me that they don't give this documentation anybody. And if you want to use the SRA format then you need to use their API." -- Eeeesh, really?? That's pretty terrible.

Hixie failing to understand an obvious point being made by two former co-workers of mine.

"The legal campaign has the potential to earn real money. Copies of the settlement letters and settlement contracts seen by Ars Technica show that Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver generally asks for $1,500 to $2,500, threatening to sue for $150,000 if no settlement payment is forthcoming. Assuming that 90 percent of the current targets settle for $1,500, this means that the lawyers, studios, and P2P detection company would split $19.7 million." -- Waxy calls it "a horrible new revenue model." This makes me ashamed that I *ever* watched Hurt Locker. Or any other movie.

Yes, yes yes. "owl:differentFrom" and "owl:AllDifferent" were the correct answer.

This, then, is what we've come to -- Dennis Overbye, in the NYT, spurred by a movie adaptation of a Dan Brown book, to muse about the nature of science vs. religion. To call this "warmed over" and "thrice told" would be too kind. WOWCWHAB Science Journalism Corps?

"When a company (Microsoft) has a monopoly over a valuable product (Windows), it appears to have consumers over a barrel, forcing them to buy something they don't want. But why would it? A monopolist does not gain by bundling its valuable good with an undesirable one. The best way for a monopolist to profit is to provide precisely the product that consumers want and then charge the highest price it can get." -- And yet, they did. Totally weird, how things that "should not happen" sometimes do, often on a large scale. Maybe one's politics, or one's economics (or both) should reflect that reality, if only a little bit.

Taxonomy? Also, the headline "only in England" is ridiculously off the mark. "Only in every nation that has ever existed on the face of the planet since the dawn of the printing press" is more like it.

Derbyshire's so smart, he can *intuit* factor loadings in his own brain! No need for your fancy linear models with hidden variables. Also, I note his line "heritability of IQ, a well-established fact..." without additional comment. (It's still funny, that Derbyshire is somehow the "science guy" at The Corner.)

My Twitterboard's about to explode, here.

"Makes your email experience feel like a cross between a videogame and a movie." I'd like to Send Money in Exchange for Your Awesome Software, kthxbye.

"MEGAN: So, I'm supposed to crush on Petraeus?
SPENCER: yes
all the male journalists do"

Truly we, as a culture, have reached a new place. We should send postcards.

How the hell does "The Edge" magazine get such smart people to say things like this? Do they ask them to contribute to their "kind of informal think-tank?" Gah. You might as well title this, "More In Sadness Than In Anger."