newt

Non-sequitur. Most .Net DI frameworks (as opposed to DI in Java, or DI without a framework) use configuration in code. This is generally much more readable and flexible than config in XML. Only some of them use functions for some things.

In fact, the data that it takes from Google engineers for carefully engineered corner-case searches is the exception.

The google engineers intentionally sent this click data to Bing, so is Bing really stealing? It's odd to act surprised when Bing uses the data that was intentionally sent to it. Bing could specifically ignore Google search results pages when it is tracking clicks, but is that legitimate? Google scrapes everything, why shouldn't Bing?

I came here to check that, but you seem to be right - see the wikipedia article on Opel (note correct spelling)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel The company ... has been a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Company since 1929.

Makes one wonder about the ways we are helping our enemies today

You don't have to wonder - google "US arms sales" or "us arms sales to dictators".

Are you perhaps missing that it's a deliberate inversion of the more obvious statement "needing more RAM is for people who don't know how to use Algorithms" in order to make the point that RAM is cheaper than an engineer's time?

"Things always fall down" doesn't add much. It says that the observation can be repeated.

Newton's law says more than "There exists gravitational force between bodies" which isn't much of an improvement over "things always fall down".

Newton provided a mathematical formula to measure it, which, as best as could be seen in Newton's time, fit exactly with reality, applying from apples up to planets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gra...

This makes testable, measurable predictions about "why things fall down", i.e. "things fall down because all things obey the law of universal gravitation as given in the formula...". But it doesn't even begin to explain why there is gravity all rather than no gravity. Science is largely silent about this category of question of meaning not measurement - it observes reality and predicts based on extrapolating from existing observations. Other explanations of "why" are hardly much better - "gravity exists because God said so" aren't very satisfying since you can't test it or infer anything from it.

For instance, it's plausible that the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was made well in advance by a small group. Is that what is meant by "run the US"? The outcome and consequences of the Iraq war don't seem to have gone to anyone's plan. What part of the US is being "run" and what part isn't?

Which is why it's sometimes stated as "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" - i.e pick the explanation with the fewest moving parts. That's less subjective, assuming you can agree on how to count the entities.

1. Things always fall down

This is not actually an explanation at all, it just restates the observation.

2. There exists gravitational force between bodies

Newton's inverse square law of gravitation is simpler than relativity, and it's good enough for a lot of uses. But it is not a viable explanation either, since it does not fit exactly with observed reality - it does not handle the edge cases of very fast or very heavy stuff.

Bear in mind Hanlon's Razor : Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Also, as others said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

If it bothers you and is senseless, choose other people to hang around with.

When a phone causes someone's spouse to find out they they're cheatin' .. comedy gold.

If you miss a flight due to the phone, you can.

well, I read it as "your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of year"

I read it that way because that's what it says.

Do you know of a reliable way to get rich?

Now you're just changing the subject.

Come on. Startups are long shots, a gamble, definitely not a reliable bet. Most startups fail ( http://hubpages.com/hub/why-startups-fail ) and very few are massive successes. It's the rock-star model of getting rich - many try, few succeed.

Was a "venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages" a "reliable way to get rich" ? There were pirates, the danger of sinking the ship in storms or on rocks, scurvy, unpredictable conditions at the other end of the voyage etc... basically it's high risk, high reward.

Of course it does. In other news, shooting people in the streets is generally considered bad, yet if you read a few thrillers and watch a few action movies, there will be gun battles. Fiction and real life: not the same.

because Swiss banks are so rigorous about closing the accounts of third-world tinpot dictators?

The probability that it has already started to inflate is supposed to be a lot less, but in the last decade and a half, it seems there have been a lot of bubbles in various parts of the economy.