I disagree with OP. I think the phrase "rocket science" is still valid as a stand-in for the performance of a complicated task with high accuracy. In terms of the effort required to create a useful prediction, I agree that many things are more complicated than rocket science (often by virtue of being intractable). However, in almost all of these things success is not as highly correlated with the performance of some mental/engineering feat. If a rocket correctly performs a non-trivial task (i.e. gets to a specific orbit/planet/location), we know with certainty that the rocket scientist created a valid physical model and performed difficult calculations on it with high accuracy (ditto for other parts of the engineering). Testing rockets is expensive and the likelihood of making one that works by trial-and-error is zero (I'm referring to rockets on the scale that put satellites into orbit, launch probes thorough the solar system, etc). In comparison, common wisdom holds that startups usually launch with poor product/market fit and pivot until they find something that works. Eventual success doesn't correspond nearly as well to the performance of mental acrobatics.
Don't get me wrong, both tasks are difficult, require "guts", and so on. But I think a direct comparison of the difficulty is disingenuous. To me, "This isn't rocket science" doesn't mean "this is easy", it means "we should be able to eventually succeed by trial&error".
@pja: your observation that "not rocket science" only became popular in the 90s jibes well with associating "rocket science" with "low margin for error", as challenger exploded in 1986.
I don't think your conclusion follows. An analogous proposition would be "Steve Jobs was a careless slob with no sense of style because he wore jeans to his presentations". It's possible that Einstein chose to look exactly the way he did. Or he just didn't care. Not knowing more about Einstein, I couldn't say.
Did you read the article? He explains very precisely what he means and what his conclusion is. "Rational" in the context of the title means "one integer divided by another to which the first is relatively prime", and the word "useless" indicates that there is no gain in accuracy/complexity in comparison to the decimal notation for a rational number (where you express a rational number as an integer divided by an implicit power of ten).
"No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable."
You realize Mitt Romney is campaigning for the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? Don't get me wrong, I generally think law enforcement should have privileged access to private data, but you disrespect your philosophical position by pretending to apply it in a manner where the outcome is predetermined through uneven application.
the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right?
The president of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution. Sure, some do it better than others, but I can think of a dozen worse violators of getting personal information that people have decided not to share.
Sorry, I should have been more precise. The general public does not have rights to personal information an individual has declined to share. Now, this obviously excludes public information which the individual wishes wasn't available (arrest records, political contributions).
I agree with you that the presidential office has made executive orders and signed bills recently (Obama and Bush both) that have substantially increased governmental reach and reduced privacy. But this doesn't give the public to take what they want willy-nilly. It does give the public the right not to vote for someone they feel has a double standard on privacy issues.
You can always take enough classes (or hard enough classes) to take up any given amount of time. Or if you're into extracurricular activities, same thing. Consider the quote in bold at the top of this Harvard prof's personal page:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hgeorgi/
Even if a student takes a more moderate approach, workloads can be highly unpredictable (even to the professor), which creates the same problem.
Just because desktop always wins in theory doesn't mean that you can't exceed the performance of existing native clients. I'm sure Illustrator leaves a ton of performance on the table simply by virtue of having a large legacy codebase. For instance, if it becomes practical to assume that all of your clients support GPGPU then Illustrator's existing CPU optimized code instantly goes from being a critical advantage to a heavy burden: they have to maintain that code and write new GPU code that somehow fits with the old code whereas you just have to write the GPGPU code. Witness pixelmator curb-stomping Photoshop in the performance department. Of course, that example is Desktop App vs Desktop App but the principle is the same.
Don't get me wrong, both tasks are difficult, require "guts", and so on. But I think a direct comparison of the difficulty is disingenuous. To me, "This isn't rocket science" doesn't mean "this is easy", it means "we should be able to eventually succeed by trial&error".
@pja: your observation that "not rocket science" only became popular in the 90s jibes well with associating "rocket science" with "low margin for error", as challenger exploded in 1986.