In reality, it wasn't spare time tinkering at all, it was serious academics doing full time paid research funded by the government. ARPANET, while funded by the defense department, was designed by and connected college researchers, the first transmissions were between UCLA and Stanford in 69, not the military. This was the first networking, the infant internet.
The military system in the 60's was a point to point tonal encryption system that ran on proprietary bell telephone systems with dedicated direct phone lines until the FCC forced Bell to give up it's capitalistic monopoly in 68, allowing for advancements in both the public and eventually private sector that led to the infant internet instead of just individual "computers" (and I use the term lightly here) directly communicating. Remember, back then, almost into the 90's, you needed to know the direct phone number of the other computer to connect (think "War Games"), there was no publicly accessible network.
The first retail internet transaction wasn't until 94.

Also imo, it was weird individuals tinkering in their spare time that made home computing anything more than very expensive word processors/calculators. We've had PCs since the 70's in my home, I remember what they could do then....I'm one of those weird individuals.

Long and short, your 5 different capitalistic ways ALL stem from a purely socialist base and a socialist denial of private for profit monopolies, and most if not all of them were developed and implemented using at least some public funding. Without that, we would still be using bell telephone phone modems to direct dial each other. Without public/private cooperation, neither sector could advance like they have together.
Imo, it's not an either/or situation, it's both.

Congratulations! Your video, UCLA Gymnast gets perfect 10, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 121 Badge!

Your video, UCLA Gymnast gets perfect 10, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/UCLA-Gymnast-gets-perfect-10

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by blacklotus90.

Congratulations! Your video, Best Football Catch Ever - UCLA vs Stanford . 10/15/15, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 36 Badge!

Your video, Best Football Catch Ever - UCLA vs Stanford . 10/15/15, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

See: http://demoweb.physics.ucla.edu/node/29

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

aka the UCLA SUCKS song.

More sources (this story is in fact from March 2012):
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-researchers-develop-new-graphene-230478.aspx

Which points to an article in Science (sub needed):
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1326.full

Using graphene to store energy is, I believe, not a new idea in itself. But finding an actual marketable, affordable solution is pretty interesting.

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

^Thanks, @ChaosEngine, for having an open and inquiring mind. I do appreciate it.

Now the question is -- does language shape our thinking? "What if" women were always called women in circumstances similar to when men are always called men? (Context, context, yes?)

I remember where I was the first time I called myself a "woman." It was forty years ago, and I remember everything about that moment. It felt weird as heck. A responsibility was being assumed by me, it felt like. It was my nineteenth birthday, and I was lounging poolside at a UCLA frat house in the middle of the day.

In traditional societies, there were rites of passage, weren't there? Often brutal, but still. A marking of the transition from childhood to adulthood. The closest thing I have to that in my conscious life is that moment I chose to call myself a woman for the first time.

Do you remember the first time you called yourself a man, assuming that mantle of responsibility?

I suspect it is different for men, because the word is used so much sooner for you guys. "Look at the little man!" when you are three years old. I never heard "look at the little woman." Still, that moment of truly being called a man -- or choosing that word for yourself -- does it resonate?

Thanks for taking this seriously, chaos.

And I still would be interested in your wife's take on this. She married well, I can tell. You rock.

Now that is just a logical fallacy, girl. I am 58 years old, Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude graduate of UCLA with a major in economics. Passed the CPA exam the first time (4% do that, most with the minimum passing grade -- I did much better than minimum passing.)

Granted, I'm not as smart as I used to be -- getting older SUCKS -- but still. I get by.

In any case, don't you think that just maybe, just once, I might have been right? Sometime in 58 years?

But then, you aren't talking logic, are you? Unlike me, with my pearlescent gem that I have thought about and polished and honed over all these long years.

I'm baaaaaaaad.

>> ^Yogi:


You're never right Boy.