GeorgeOrr

This article, and the details behind what is driving the changes for Sesame Street, are a good illustration of the tectonic changes coming to the industry.

Combined with HBO Now available without Cable, availability of services like Sling, and the recent financial troubles in the cable industry it is an interesting time. Cord-cutting is no long an if, it's a how quickly.

Or am I reading too much into this? Wishful thinking?

Many drones are flown by using the first person point of view. I wonder if you could hire a person to fly the drone and then stream to you the first person view?

Of course I'd want to have the glasses on to get the real effect, but with the VR goggles coming out that may work.

As an increasingly older and older person I always try to warn myself against becomeing one of those "Kids these days" complainers.

Isn't the Vanity Fair article just a version of that? Mixed in with the usual bias journalists have towards negative spins on things? An article Title "most Tinder users have positive experiences" wouldn't get any where near the views.

When I was a kid, we had to trudge through snow uphill, both ways, just to date the person our parents picked out for us. Kids these days don't know.

Pretty much yes.

The only thing they had to find for the judge to accept their verdict was that she hadn't proven discrimination to 51% certainty. Proving the opposite wasn't required ... but they did anyway.

Based on the jury interviews afterwards, they came to the conclusion that she hadn't supported her case because the evidence was positive that she had been fired for performance.

They had gone over her claims and reviews of her performance and found that they would have fired her too (my summary, to be clear).

She's now expressing concern over the message having to pay costs would send. I'd suggest it sends exactly the right message, she just doesn't like hearing that message.

She referred to being sick of sending these notes to those who are reporting bugs.

How many bugs do they have that there were that many notes coming in. I mean aside from the stupid attitude that they've retracted, what does this incident tell us about their quality?

Or maybe that's not news for their customers?

"Pao argued she should pay nothing because it would send the wrong message to employees trying to fight bias at the workplace."

Considering the jury found she wasn't in fact fighting bias, wouldn't paying costs send exactly the right message to people who cry wolf about bias?

The "Socrates" of this article believes he's safer if his entire life is monitored rather than just part. So much wrong with this.

1 - What about no surveillance until there is a reasonable suspicion confirmed by an impartial Judge (see 4th Amendment to the Constitution for details)?

2 - Ok, he feels safer with Big Brother looking after him ... but apparently that justifies in his mind that everyone should be watched since he prefers it for himself. Is that narcissism or just sloppy thinking?

3 - One of the many dangers of this sort of surveillance is the bizarre notion that we are the data collected. There is NO level of surveillance that equates to the actual knowledge of the self (sorry Google, NSA, etc.). Think about it for yourself - is there any data set large enough that it would capture without misunderstanding who you are? Now remember that the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet have just as rich lives (inner and outer) as you.

On that last point, keep in mind the so called "targeted" ads that Google uses. Or the movie/book suggestions from sites that use them. Now imagine such bizarre misunderstandings leading our NSA big brothers to act. Not a pretty picture.

Larger and more haystacks aren't the solution. Realizing that humans aren't stacks of data is.

I don't see anything about why the beta, but I did see the following in the FAQ. Maybe this will help:

"There will also be special unbranded versions of Release and Beta that will have this setting, so that add-on developers can work on their add-ons without having to sign every build."

It's important to note that the Developers Editions (and the Nightlys) will have a setting for disabling the requirement.

The assumption being that developers need to test as they develop. And are a more informed user.

For a long time Taxi's have had a monopoly on their market. Like any monopoly they under-serve.

Nice that Uber is shaking that up.

This article makes the claim that the tech industry's culture excludes those who don't fit a particular mold.

But he starts off showing his own prejudices, in summarizing what comes to mind when thinking about different professions, he states:

"How about "engineer"? Here's my best guess: Socially awkward, poorly dressed, self-regarding nincompoop."

Funny that the author starts off with insulting stereotypes to complain that the people he is stereotyping are exluding people that don't fit their own prejudices.

That is an interesting video to watch. I immediately imagine a self driving car, on its way to pick me up, swinging by this robot arm to charge up.

I wonder if it would be possible for something like this to provide a charge while moving? Like airplanes that can be fueled in the air.

I suspect the energy to keep the charger itself moving would make that a pretty inefficient way of doing things, but it's fun to imagine.

The idea of a "Right to be Forgotten" in practice always seems to me like claiming a right to make other people loose their memory (even if electronic). That is at best problematic.

However, as this infographic shows, kids now are affecting their futures in ways they can't possibly understand.

Any thoughts on a solution?

One quote from the article:

"People die because of this stuff,” said John Burton, a California lawyer who specializes in police misconduct cases. “When they give these cops a pass, it just ripples through the system.”

I'm curious what people think of this ... does defending the police even under pretty damning situations really equate to being responsible for future death?

From the article you link to:

"Overall, blacks were killed at three times the rate of whites or other minorities when adjusting by the population of the census tracts where the shootings occurred."

How many black lives are lost yearly? And those that aren't by chance caught on video tape get zero press.

Just knowing the stuff that happens must make people edgy.

But you are ok with the "Freedom" to die on needless waiting lists, while willing donors would be available if payment was possible?

Judges, prosecutors and most of the media will always assume the cops side unless there is overwhelming video/audio evidence.

Add to that the fact that they have a gun and the right to use it with almost no consequences (some extra paperwork, maybe a paid vacation).

It has nothing to do with "lawful" it's about force, and force is completely on their side.

“New York must stand up to the hostile takeover being attempted by a Mafia-like Silicon Valley"

That is so rich, the people who want to force competitors out are calling their competition Mafia like. This article is so bizarrely worded ... Uber is "invading" "stealing" customers. Nope, no bias there. (/sarcasm)

I wounder if anyone has given thought to how this will affect the poor girl. She knows she's been the cause of this poor guys life being messed up. Well, the idiots in the prosecutors office and the judge are the actual cause, but she must feel some guilt.

What a shame, her first sexual experience at a young age gets mixed up with feelings of guilt and shame.

More people have to become aware of the fact that being on the "sex offender" registry most likely means you urinated in public or some such other small offense. How are we safer from actual predators by doing that?

There's been a lot recently about the explosion of tuition burdens. And the ways in which the student loan system is mostly setup to benefit the banks (and to the Feds it's also a positive revenue source).

Is this a sort of step towards civil disobedience? If enough people took this step, would the system change? For the better?

Although I do wonder if the system would change quicker if people refused the costs, refused the loans and made it without higher education until things are reformed.

Neither path is very smooth for the person doing it. Not sure if either will help change things.

I don't suppose this guy has ever heard of the Streisand effect.

He's about to find out.

How many times do we have to see prosecutors using laws in ways never intended when passed before we stop passing these broad laws?

After Enron anyone fighting against Sarbanes-Oxley passage was laughed at for claiming it was over-broad. No prosecutor would misuse it, of course it's just meant to reign in other evil doers like Enron.

Why is it that anyone even considers the idea that we can rely on proprietorial discretion to keep laws in check? Shouldn't that concept be laughable by now?

The prosecutors also want to prevent the discussion of the existence of the NSA, and a speech by Diane Feinstein.

It's best not to confuse juries with anything not favorable to the prosecution.

I'm curious how many people think he understands the technology and just doesn't care if he's undermining security, or is he just clueless.

I've always wondered if it would make sense to sunset all laws. I know there are laws that are uncontroversial, but if so then there wouldn't be a problem with getting them renewed.

On the other hand, many laws get passed and are uncontroversial when they are enacted but become controversial later. They ought to be up for re-discussion.

Very scary. Here's an equally scary TED talk on the same subject by an Epidemiologist:

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_brilliant_wants_to_stop_pande...

One point he made, is that he did a meta-study amongst his fellow epidemiologists. He found that 90% of them believed there would be a pandemic within their children's or at latest grandchildren's lifetime.

At least Soylent Green is a renewable resource.

Thanks for posting that, it's a relief to know it's not a shut but a shuffle to minimize the attackers harm.

Unfortunately, apparently Troll isn't the right word after all, attacker is more accurate. From the statement:

"The term "troll" gets thrown around a lot. We get it: it's the Internet, and trolls, snarkiness, and differing opinions come with the territory. But it seriously crosses a line when it becomes targeted harassment, cyberstalking, and there are threats of violence--especially when your children are in the crosshairs. "Trolling" you can ignore, "stalking" is a different matter. "