This confuses me. I find it highly unlikely the average human shares more genes with a chimpanzee than another human and even more unlikely that siblings only share 50% of their genes.

probability estimates (statement is true):

• 99% genetic similarity to a chimpanzee = 75%
• 95% genetic similarity to a random human = a low nonzero number
• 50% genetic similarity to a sibling = 0%
• 95% genetic similarity to a random human given 99% genetic similarity to a chimp = 0%

I am going to research this.

EDIT: findings:

1. Researching an an actual number is exceeding difficult. About 50% of the pages are non-secular websites (this may be my non-optimized google searching). The rest are a mix between technical articles and articles formatted for the average human (average being living in a English speaking and developed nations).

2. 99% genetic similarity to a chimpanzee

Mostly correct. Estimates range between 95%^[1] and 98.8%^[2]

• 95% genetic similarity to a random human

Incorrect. Estimates are at 0.1%^[1]. I did not notice other numbers.

• 50% genetic similarity to a sibling

Incorrect as you stated it (comparing total gene dissimilarity). You might want to reword it since you were probably comparing what percentage of gene can be attributed to a parent.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129726/ [2] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Regarding networks; is there a colloquially accepted term for when one has a ton of descriptive words (furry, bread sized, purrs when you pet them, claws, domesticated, hunts mice, etc) but you do not have the colloquially accepted term (cat) for the network? I have searched high and low and the most I have found is reverse defintion search, but no actual term.

Trackball is an excellent keyword to search for on Google, Logitech makes several.

Though I have not used one extensively enough to have an input on how ergonomic it is, I have found that they are excellent for surfaces which regular mice have trouble tracking on.

There is probably an upper bound on the number of monitors that one can comfortably and actively use, though I do not know how high it is. I've noticed that with more monitors that one is more likely to place static informational windows (social media, system monitoring, email/instant messaging) that aren't really necessary as an immediate concern. I'm not sure if it can be exploited to put valuable information there, or if one can train themselves to actively use it for work.

Managing windows and workflows with more monitors is also quite a bit more difficult than it is with a single screen. I've had some success at reducing wasted space by using a tiling WM, but having to learn key combinations to navigate is tedious.