I've worked rather extensively with a Xerox DocuColor 252 over the last four years. Those yellow dots are anything but microscopic. I could plainly see the dots on most printouts under standard office-style fluorescent lighting. They always bugged the crap out of me.

Why test EVERY combination of plane and gadget?

It is impractical for pharmaceutical companies to test compounds on every combination of person and condition. Instead they perform tests on representative samples of people.

Fixed that for you. The whole idea of appointing a judge for life is to help ensure impartiality. They don't have to fear losing their job for making an unpopular decision.

Retracted. I must learn to read more carefully.

TFA doesn't mention a source, and that bothers me. Is this information about Lion derived from the early developer test versions, or has someone at Apple stated that this is the way it is?

Yes, I was noticing that. Very obviously a loop.

Why does it have to be implemented before it can become a finalized specification?

I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is. Do you mean "working out" as in exercising or as in working out the details?

By what you're saying, I should infer that the writers of the HTML5 recommendation are creating the documentation to fit the existing browser implementations of HTML5? What does time to implement have to do with the writing of the recommendation? W3C writes the recommendation, and browser developers implement the recommendation in their software--that's how it (should) works.

What we need is "a day in the life of a W3C draft" article to figure out why these standards and recommendations take so long to mature.

The "WebP" versions may look murkier because whoever made those images forgot to add a colorspace profile to the PNG images (or, alternatively, remove the colorspace profile from the JPEG images).

With tools like that, do we really need math classes?

Terrorists will simply train themselves to remain calm and lower their heartrate.

From your link:

From the Chicago Sun Times: "Inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers, Fleming said. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said."

The story must have changed slightly because, ABC News leaves out the definitive "seals were not broken statement": "The nuclear agency has no concrete evidence to suggest the seals were broken, Fleming said."

From the Boston Globe: "The explosives that were looted from the Al Qaqaa nuclear facility, apparently in April and May of 2003, had been sealed and monitored by international nuclear inspectors before the invasion." That certainly seems to imply that they went missing in April of May of 2003, before or during the invasion.

The Washington Post writes, "US officials suggested that the munitions may have disappeared before the US-led forces established full control over the country."

The Washington Times cites a Pentagon statement as saying the explosives could have been moved before US troops arrived. "Although some believe the Al Qaqaa facility may have been looted, there is no way to verify this." ... "Another explanation is that regime loyalists or others emptied the facility prior to coalition forces arriving in Baghdad in April."

From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "And the US State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, told us the ordnance went missing before US-led forces had a chance to secure the area."

So, are you clear on it yet? Every single source, except the New York Times, at least mentions that a very real possibility is that they went missing BEFORE the invasion.