They're referring to "Predictive Profiling", which is basically a system in which you start from the aggressor's general method of attack and work backwards to determine specific behaviors that might be indicative of their attempt to commit such an attack. Proponents actually disapprove of racial profiling as a methodology, because it introduces a weak spot in the security system. (i.e. recruit a white european woman if they're looking for dark-skinned arabic men with beards)
One of the big things that makes it relevant here is the concept of end-to-end security: The idea that people should be interacting with security personnel repeatedly but casually throughout their time in the airport, not just at one high-intensity checkpoint. If they have to talk to a security guy at the parking lot, entrance, baggage check, security point, boarding area, and cinnabon then there's a good chance they'll eventually let something slip, get noticed, or crack under pressure. The important part of that is that the security guys should not be threatening everyone, just making pleasant conversation and keeping their eyes open.
Under such a system, there would be no single checkpoint with lots of people bottled up as waiting targets. It might also have allowed earlier personnel (in the parking lot or by the entrance) to spot the threat before he reached his destination.
Or maybe add a dimmer switch? For £30mil they should be able to swing for something that's been standard on every display screen ever since the invention of screens...
Because unless you spend 8 billion on it the first time it never gets to be a children's toy. That 8 billion is the initial investment in these things being commonplace enough to use as cat toys. (If you for some reason want to irradiate kitty's bones, I guess....)
The alternative seems like it goes down a road where anyone could refuse to testify at any time if they don't want to see someone convicted of something, which (at the risk of going slippery-slope) raises a lot of other questions in terms of what would be permissible in terms of refusing to testify.
How about in a hate crime murder trial where all the witnesses agree with the guy who did it? Can they then refuse to answer basic questions about the day in question that might allow the prosecution to find hard evidence? If they all just stay silent, does the whole mob get away and avoid any charges at all, since they can't be held liable for refusing to testify against the murderer?
In the reverse situation, what about in a case where someone has been falsely accused of a capital crime, and all the witnesses are friends with the actual culprit? Can they all just stay quiet when the defender tries to ask them questions about what happened and let the innocent man hang? If their deception is later uncovered, are they legally in the clear for letting an innocent man die rather than tell the truth about their buddy?
Unless I'm mistaken, the witness does in fact enjoy the same privilege to avoid answering when the answer would be self-incriminatory? The american bar association has a whole article detailing under what circumstances it's appropriate, and how to handle it when examining a witness that suddenly takes the fifth. http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html
In fact, the very article you linked mentions that not only can a witness take the 5th, they are also allowed to do so selectively without giving up their right to testify on other matters. In that way they have more privileges than the accused while still posessing the same protections.
A witness can't just refuse to answer for just any reason, including fear of getting someone else in trouble, but that's how our justice system works for all people. Otherwise anyone could simply refuse to testify in someone's defense because of prior history, personal gain, or outside compulsion. Those types of things are an "obstruction of justice" as the term was really intended. (Meaning the person is willfully trying to avoid justice being served to another person through malicious action or inaction)
Additionally, without the compulsion to answer except under narrow circumstances, the ability to corrupt or threaten witnesses would become even simpler, since they wouldn't even need to claim duress and raise any alarm bells. In fact, most witnesses' self-interest would be best served by staying quiet, since speaking would put them at risk of retaliation, while simply claiming " I don't want to talk" means you're safe from everyone including, in theory, that dangerous criminal who's on trial.
In your example, Alice could reply with "I'm not sure" since she's only a suspected witness. She could safely claim to have been confused about what was going on, or have an unclear memory of what exactly happened, thus making her unsure whether "Bob did it". If they started to go down a path that might have something to do with her status as an accomplice, such as asking why she was on the scene, she could respond with "I plead the fifth" and refuse to answer that string of questions. She could also refuse to answer if they started asking her about prior drug use or some other unrelated crime.
It's to prevent prosecutors from stacking perjury charges on top of any other charge unless the victim confesses.
Essentially without the 5th amendment you end up with a scenario where the most logical choice for anyone accused of a crime is to confess, unless they're accused of a crime more serious than perjury. In the case of everyone else the scenarios play out like this:
If you are innocent If you confess you will face a small punishment for a crime you did not commit. If you refuse to testify or plead innocent but are then found guilty (possibly due to corruption or a bad trial), you face the ADDITIONAL penalty for perjury or obstruction of justice, and go to jail for that too.
If you are guilty, but there are mitigating circumstances or facts you wish to have revealed during your trial If you confess you lose your chance to make your case in court. If you plead innocent or refuse to testify you might get to make your case, but you'll be hit with a charge for not answering if they do find you guilty.
You are completely guilty Confession gets you a guaranteed sentence for the crime you committed. Refusal to confess risks that crime plus the extra charges, unless you get off on a technicality in which case you are completely free.
It actually isn't very logical or important for a major charge like murder, but it seems fairly important when dealing with a minor charge like say... trespassing. Typically trespassing would not be a serious offense, and it is often one that includes mitigating circumstances or enough nuance to justify a proper investigation before a person is punished for their crime.
If, however, you can stack a 5 year felony sentence for "perjury" or "obstruction of justice" onto minor charges unless the defendant admits to being guilty, then you have yourself a very easily abused power as a prosecutor. It's made even worse because the eventual determination of whether or not they've committed perjury is going to be entirely based on the outcome of the case itself. It's basically a way to add a felony to any minor misdemeanor unless the person is willing to confess outright, and it puts an innocent person in the unenviable position of risking a potentially huge charge for a far lesser crime unless they make a false confession to save themselves.
"Well you either confess and we give you 1 week of community service, or else we put you on trial. If you're found guilty, and we will try our hardest to make this circumstantial evidence stick, you'll not only get community service but you'll also face 5 years in prison and a felony charge for perjury. So I ask again: Did you vandalize that tree in the park or not?"
In a way it reminds me of the old witch trials. "You're guilty of perjury because we insist you're innocent of this other crime and we decided that you aren't."
I'm sure the USPTO has already received a DMCA takedown request from an automated bot, claiming the copyright enforcement suggestions as copyrighted material.
Except, as noted and described in that article I linked, there are already some deployments in place that accomplish exactly this. They successfully allowed illiterate children to not only learn basic written english, but also to learn the tablet technology to a level that they were able to override system-level modifications made by the admins who set them up.
Also as awesome as Archer is, I don't think it exactly qualifies as a reliable source for geopolitical fact. Most warlords would likely have very little interest in equipping their soldiers with outdated solar-powered tablets pre-loaded with alphabet games.
Or they could get laptops that are set to speak aloud and accept speech input. Or they could be be pre-configured with shortcuts to online language learning programs, allowing literacy to spread. Or they could rely more heavily on video, which can be incredibly helpful as a learning tool for people who are barely literate but have rudimentary written language skills. Need I go on with really easy solutions?
But way to go; if your goal was to make me look momentarily stupid for trying to point out the possible benefits of a philanthropic program, mission accomplished.
See, you say that as though it was fact, but I don't see any evidence of that anywhere in their stated goals or intended actions. They want to bring the Internet to people, and I can't see any way to give them Facebook without giving them everything else as well. Though I'm certain he sees the chance to expand Facebook as a welcome bonus, how much revenue do you really think he intends to extract from people who can't even afford internet access? Targeted ads to southern Nigerian farmers aren't going to be worth very much...
You could choose to assume a cynical viewpoint and expect the worst, but its entirely possible that Zuckerberg has realized he's got more money than he can ever spend and decided to put his considerable wealth and internet-clout towards a worthy philanthropic goal. (See: Bill Gates, who was also once considered a selfish jerk interested only in profits.) A middle ground might be to assume that his only way to increase profits is to get a whole new group of people into the wealth levels required to be useful to him. If the side effect of his business goals was the economic prosperity of half the world's population, I'd be okay with that on the whole.
Also, my example directly referenced how facebook could be helpful, in that it would let people in these remote locations connect with nearby people and share common solutions to their problems. My insights about how to solve problems like non-potable water aren't going to be very useful, since I make assumptions about what's available (tools, power, people who can read, etc.) that simply aren't true in the context of a person in different situation.
I think that's his point: Nobody should have to choose between accessing the world's repository of knowledge and buying food. If we can give them both, maybe they can use that big pile of information to improve their lives in more meaningful, long lasting ways.
There have been some studies on this that show how much people can improve their lives by getting access to the knowledge we take for granted. We may not be able to do a lot with Wikipedia's article on crop rotation and fertilization techniques, but I bet a farmer in southern Nigeria could.
Facebook update #248: Location: Ethiopia: Thanks to user NamibiaYOLO33 who sent me to that Instructables article. We're making some carbon filters from our firewood ashes tomorrow to see if they work!
Facebook update #253 Location: Ethiopia: Wow, no cholera for a week! Who knew we were throwing away valuable filtering supplies every day? Next up, I think we can take the alternator from that broken down bus outside down and make a wind generator, so we can work at night.
Just because you think that social media is useless doesn't mean everyone does. There are some parts of the world where a bit of knowledge sharing could go miles.
There actually have been some studied connected to the OLPC project that suggest internet access is incredibly valuable to people in developing nations, but not for the reasons you're thinking.
These people we're talking about might be 150 miles from the nearest library with a full set of encyclopedias; for that matter, they might not even know how to read. How good do you think their agricultural practices are, given that level of background knowledge? When presented with the challenge of cleaning their drinking water, how far do you think they get? How about diagnosing diseases, planning for weather, or being aware of potential politcal danger? Do you think they could do a bit better at those things given access to Wikipedia, WebMD, Instructables, Reuters and YouTube?
On the same route, perhaps they could even begin to improve their own infrastructure given a bit of access to the world of modern industry? Maybe a small village could save up to invest in a solar array, and have lights inside at night? Or a water purifier so they don't die of cholera anymore?
Knowledge is power, the internet is distributed knowledge. It could do a lot more to help people than a bit of financial aid or temporary food supplies might.
Incredibly generic website name had former owner, who at one point posted jokes. More at 11.
I don't even really get why this would be in poor taste? The idea that egyptians used slaves as labor is pretty much accepted as fact, and seems to be in safe territory for a joke to me (despite recent studies that suggest most of the meaningful labor in ancient Egypt was actually done by paid workers). And shocker, there is pornography on the internet; can we not make jokes about that anymore?
I really don't get what all the fuss is about, even if Zuckerburg were somehow actually connected to the content the site formerly hosted.
It's at least good enough to teach some of us armchair astronauts a bit more about engineering and orbital mechanics!
And yeah, if you want to be reliably successful at it you have to go and learn at least some of the core concepts of the related fields of engineering and physics. There are some crib sheets and whatnot online (like delta-v charts and optimal orbital insertion guide tables) but they still require that you understand things like delta-v and design your ships in a way that puts the center of mass, aerodynamic resistance and control points in the right places.
If you want to do less orbital mechanics calculations you can get the MechJeb autopilot that does a lot of the basic work for you (as seems to be the preferred method lately among real-world satellite launches). It won't figure out things like orbital transfer sequences or slingshots or anything really complex. What it will do is get your orbit perfectly circularized (or properly elliptical), help you rendezvous with another orbital object, hold your orientation along some orbital axis (prograde, retrograde, etc) or help control a descent burn so you hit a given target location.
From TFA referenced in that slashdot post you linked to:
Musk said the Hyperloop "can just be out there as an open source design that people can keep improving. I don't have any time to focus on it as I have to focus on SpaceX and Tesla."
He never said he was cancelling the plans, just that he can't do it himself right now.
...the 42-year-old also said that if no progress on Hyperloop has been made in a few years, he might attempt to "make it happen".
Except that by asking him to do something illegal, the NSA invalidated their own contract. Under U.S. law no contract may require a person to commit an illegal act, nor may it prevent them from reporting a criminal act so long as they have first attempted to report the criminal activity using internal policies. As long as Snowden tried to get his bosses to stop the illegal wiretapping and reported their actions to his supervisor, he should be protected under us whistleblower protection laws.
That said, this is the NSA, and they seem not to care about the law. Running away is smart, to keep them from doing something illegal to punish him for reporting the OTHER illegal things they did.
It probably depends on what their job is. Asking this as an open question is like asking "Which is a better tool, a hammer or a saw?"
If they're your UI designer, Software Architect, or User Experience Designer? It's probably better to err on the side of "talent" (creativity) rather than technical skill. These people don't need to output elegant and functional code, they just need to come up with clever ideas and solutions from a broader more holistic perspective.
If they're your Frontend Developer, UI Developer, or a high level programmer of some kind? They probably need a mix of the two, with an emphasis on technical skill. Their job is output code, but it won't usually need to be perfectly optimized and they will often need to solve new problems in unexpected ways.
If they're your backend dev, production software engineer, or other nitty-gritty code writer? Technical skill will be the more important trait. These guys will usually not be expected to solve the weird UI problems themselves (That's what the UX Designer is for!), but their product needs to be rock-solid from a technical perspective.
This has been brought up on several occasions, and the counterargument is that the chain of information relating to the pickup is much more secure for rideshare operators.
Taxis are scary because people essentially just hop in a passing car without telling anyone, and hand the driver some cash. Fake taxis were a great way to abduct or rob people, which is the origin of a lot of the "safety" based regulations. Erratic or unlicensed drivers were another risk, since they could pose a threat to their fares and everyone around them.
With these rideshares, the passenger is submitting a request over the internet to a public facing company. That company in turn sends out a pickup request to a specific driver, who accepts it and logs their intent to pick up the passenger. With most of the services, the passenger in turn gets a chance to confirm that they have actually been picked up. Since these requests only go to their drivers, the company has the opportunity to do background checks, ensure their drivers are regulated, and keep appropriate records as a chartered ride service. It also creates a chain of responsibility that leads to the driver, if anything were to happen to the passenger.
The rideshare companies in turn have a strong incentive to get rid of unsafe drivers. They might be legally liable for letting a driver continue to operate with a dangerous history, and they have to keep at least basic records of who got picked up when and by whom to avoid getting in trouble for financial violations.
No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service...
Check up on the "medallion" system and how it's been manipulated to get an idea of how your statement (though technically correct) is not practically true. The gist is that there are a limited number of "medallions" or similar tokens given out to allow roaming taxi operators, and new ones are allotted only rarely. Due to this lock on competition there is a lot of bribery and corruption in deciding who gets them during the "random" selection, and a common scam of medallion holders continuing to hold them while not operating a service, then renting them out for exorbitant prices to other operators.
There's a process for changing laws if people think they are outdated.
Historically, what's happening is exactly how most regulatory laws get changed. Someone starts by showing that their service is in-demand and safe. Eventually they are challenged on whether they're breaking some regulatory limit, and either fight it in court or petition the local government to make the needed changes.
Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.," or, "Fuck the rules."
Actually, they're arguing that people are trying to apply the wrong rules to them. Since their drivers don't roam and pick people up at random, instead arriving on request to pick up a specific individual, they have typically been arguing that they are a chartered transportation service. Those services are regulated under different rules, so Lyft, Uber et al are obeying those regulations. They're claiming that the fact that they book their rides minutes in advance instead of days doesn't change the nature of their business, since the only change is the speed at which they deliver the requested service. The taxi operators are trying to get them classed as taxis because those companies have a lock on the limited number of permits for such vehicles, which would allow them to shut down a source of potential competition.
In terms of obeying the spirit of the law, Lyft and Uber actually pass that test fairly well. The most commonly cited reason for the limited number of taxi medallions given out is to keep people from clogging up the roadways with idling taxis waiting for fares. Uber and Lyft drivers park or idle in parking lots and other out of the way places, only entering the roadways to pick up a customer.
Okay, key point: the form of Nitrogen that we're talking about generating here is not the gaseous sort. It's "fixed" nitrogen which I believe is mostly in the form of ammonia. Urea, commonly found in various animal feces, is also a convenient source widely used by the agricultural industry. It is also generated by bacteria but under different circumstances. (In your butt and/or intestines depending on how childish you want to be...)
Nitrogen is also the most abundant component of air, so even if we were talking about the gaseous sort we wouldn't need to worry: worms, ants and other tunneling insects already infiltrate the ground with (~70%) gaseous nitrogen already. If you've ever visited a relatively lush un-farmed field when it was damp and noticed how much the ground sinks under your feet? That's your weight squishing the air (which is mostly nitrogen) out of the ground. It isn't a threat at all in that sense.
...even if their markers are accurate. What do you do with a person that carries known biomarkers for violence? If they later do something wrong, are you legally liable for allowing them to be born if you've done prenatal testing and found the markers? What about doctors who notice them midway through the person's life, should they be legally required to report such people to the police for observation?
I'm getting flavors of both Minority Report and Brave New World from this: You're left in a place where one of the most ethical options is to pre-judge the people, push medication and counseling on someone who's never done anything just to be safe, or encourage them into a societal role where their violent tendencies won't be as risky. Perhaps you put the violent kids in their own special (high security) elementary school, where they're guided towards a profession in the military, police, sports, or other violent profession?
Very scary, despite how potentially useful such a discovery might be.
Slashdot Mirror
They're referring to "Predictive Profiling", which is basically a system in which you start from the aggressor's general method of attack and work backwards to determine specific behaviors that might be indicative of their attempt to commit such an attack. Proponents actually disapprove of racial profiling as a methodology, because it introduces a weak spot in the security system. (i.e. recruit a white european woman if they're looking for dark-skinned arabic men with beards)
One of the big things that makes it relevant here is the concept of end-to-end security: The idea that people should be interacting with security personnel repeatedly but casually throughout their time in the airport, not just at one high-intensity checkpoint. If they have to talk to a security guy at the parking lot, entrance, baggage check, security point, boarding area, and cinnabon then there's a good chance they'll eventually let something slip, get noticed, or crack under pressure. The important part of that is that the security guys should not be threatening everyone, just making pleasant conversation and keeping their eyes open.
Under such a system, there would be no single checkpoint with lots of people bottled up as waiting targets. It might also have allowed earlier personnel (in the parking lot or by the entrance) to spot the threat before he reached his destination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling
Or maybe add a dimmer switch? For £30mil they should be able to swing for something that's been standard on every display screen ever since the invention of screens...
Because unless you spend 8 billion on it the first time it never gets to be a children's toy. That 8 billion is the initial investment in these things being commonplace enough to use as cat toys. (If you for some reason want to irradiate kitty's bones, I guess....)
The alternative seems like it goes down a road where anyone could refuse to testify at any time if they don't want to see someone convicted of something, which (at the risk of going slippery-slope) raises a lot of other questions in terms of what would be permissible in terms of refusing to testify.
How about in a hate crime murder trial where all the witnesses agree with the guy who did it? Can they then refuse to answer basic questions about the day in question that might allow the prosecution to find hard evidence? If they all just stay silent, does the whole mob get away and avoid any charges at all, since they can't be held liable for refusing to testify against the murderer?
In the reverse situation, what about in a case where someone has been falsely accused of a capital crime, and all the witnesses are friends with the actual culprit? Can they all just stay quiet when the defender tries to ask them questions about what happened and let the innocent man hang? If their deception is later uncovered, are they legally in the clear for letting an innocent man die rather than tell the truth about their buddy?
Unless I'm mistaken, the witness does in fact enjoy the same privilege to avoid answering when the answer would be self-incriminatory? The american bar association has a whole article detailing under what circumstances it's appropriate, and how to handle it when examining a witness that suddenly takes the fifth. http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html
In fact, the very article you linked mentions that not only can a witness take the 5th, they are also allowed to do so selectively without giving up their right to testify on other matters. In that way they have more privileges than the accused while still posessing the same protections.
A witness can't just refuse to answer for just any reason, including fear of getting someone else in trouble, but that's how our justice system works for all people. Otherwise anyone could simply refuse to testify in someone's defense because of prior history, personal gain, or outside compulsion. Those types of things are an "obstruction of justice" as the term was really intended. (Meaning the person is willfully trying to avoid justice being served to another person through malicious action or inaction)
Additionally, without the compulsion to answer except under narrow circumstances, the ability to corrupt or threaten witnesses would become even simpler, since they wouldn't even need to claim duress and raise any alarm bells. In fact, most witnesses' self-interest would be best served by staying quiet, since speaking would put them at risk of retaliation, while simply claiming " I don't want to talk" means you're safe from everyone including, in theory, that dangerous criminal who's on trial.
In your example, Alice could reply with "I'm not sure" since she's only a suspected witness. She could safely claim to have been confused about what was going on, or have an unclear memory of what exactly happened, thus making her unsure whether "Bob did it". If they started to go down a path that might have something to do with her status as an accomplice, such as asking why she was on the scene, she could respond with "I plead the fifth" and refuse to answer that string of questions. She could also refuse to answer if they started asking her about prior drug use or some other unrelated crime.
It's to prevent prosecutors from stacking perjury charges on top of any other charge unless the victim confesses.
Essentially without the 5th amendment you end up with a scenario where the most logical choice for anyone accused of a crime is to confess, unless they're accused of a crime more serious than perjury. In the case of everyone else the scenarios play out like this:
If you are innocent
If you confess you will face a small punishment for a crime you did not commit. If you refuse to testify or plead innocent but are then found guilty (possibly due to corruption or a bad trial), you face the ADDITIONAL penalty for perjury or obstruction of justice, and go to jail for that too.
If you are guilty, but there are mitigating circumstances or facts you wish to have revealed during your trial
If you confess you lose your chance to make your case in court. If you plead innocent or refuse to testify you might get to make your case, but you'll be hit with a charge for not answering if they do find you guilty.
You are completely guilty
Confession gets you a guaranteed sentence for the crime you committed. Refusal to confess risks that crime plus the extra charges, unless you get off on a technicality in which case you are completely free.
It actually isn't very logical or important for a major charge like murder, but it seems fairly important when dealing with a minor charge like say... trespassing. Typically trespassing would not be a serious offense, and it is often one that includes mitigating circumstances or enough nuance to justify a proper investigation before a person is punished for their crime.
If, however, you can stack a 5 year felony sentence for "perjury" or "obstruction of justice" onto minor charges unless the defendant admits to being guilty, then you have yourself a very easily abused power as a prosecutor. It's made even worse because the eventual determination of whether or not they've committed perjury is going to be entirely based on the outcome of the case itself. It's basically a way to add a felony to any minor misdemeanor unless the person is willing to confess outright, and it puts an innocent person in the unenviable position of risking a potentially huge charge for a far lesser crime unless they make a false confession to save themselves.
"Well you either confess and we give you 1 week of community service, or else we put you on trial. If you're found guilty, and we will try our hardest to make this circumstantial evidence stick, you'll not only get community service but you'll also face 5 years in prison and a felony charge for perjury. So I ask again: Did you vandalize that tree in the park or not?"
In a way it reminds me of the old witch trials. "You're guilty of perjury because we insist you're innocent of this other crime and we decided that you aren't."
I'm sure the USPTO has already received a DMCA takedown request from an automated bot, claiming the copyright enforcement suggestions as copyrighted material.
They should form a collective bargaining group, so they can get unioninzed.
Sad trombone.
Except, as noted and described in that article I linked, there are already some deployments in place that accomplish exactly this. They successfully allowed illiterate children to not only learn basic written english, but also to learn the tablet technology to a level that they were able to override system-level modifications made by the admins who set them up.
Also as awesome as Archer is, I don't think it exactly qualifies as a reliable source for geopolitical fact. Most warlords would likely have very little interest in equipping their soldiers with outdated solar-powered tablets pre-loaded with alphabet games.
I guess kids are kids no matter where they're from...
Or they could get laptops that are set to speak aloud and accept speech input. Or they could be be pre-configured with shortcuts to online language learning programs, allowing literacy to spread. Or they could rely more heavily on video, which can be incredibly helpful as a learning tool for people who are barely literate but have rudimentary written language skills. Need I go on with really easy solutions?
As a real world example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
But way to go; if your goal was to make me look momentarily stupid for trying to point out the possible benefits of a philanthropic program, mission accomplished.
See, you say that as though it was fact, but I don't see any evidence of that anywhere in their stated goals or intended actions. They want to bring the Internet to people, and I can't see any way to give them Facebook without giving them everything else as well. Though I'm certain he sees the chance to expand Facebook as a welcome bonus, how much revenue do you really think he intends to extract from people who can't even afford internet access? Targeted ads to southern Nigerian farmers aren't going to be worth very much...
You could choose to assume a cynical viewpoint and expect the worst, but its entirely possible that Zuckerberg has realized he's got more money than he can ever spend and decided to put his considerable wealth and internet-clout towards a worthy philanthropic goal. (See: Bill Gates, who was also once considered a selfish jerk interested only in profits.) A middle ground might be to assume that his only way to increase profits is to get a whole new group of people into the wealth levels required to be useful to him. If the side effect of his business goals was the economic prosperity of half the world's population, I'd be okay with that on the whole.
Also, my example directly referenced how facebook could be helpful, in that it would let people in these remote locations connect with nearby people and share common solutions to their problems. My insights about how to solve problems like non-potable water aren't going to be very useful, since I make assumptions about what's available (tools, power, people who can read, etc.) that simply aren't true in the context of a person in different situation.
I think that's his point: Nobody should have to choose between accessing the world's repository of knowledge and buying food. If we can give them both, maybe they can use that big pile of information to improve their lives in more meaningful, long lasting ways.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
There have been some studies on this that show how much people can improve their lives by getting access to the knowledge we take for granted. We may not be able to do a lot with Wikipedia's article on crop rotation and fertilization techniques, but I bet a farmer in southern Nigeria could.
Facebook update #248: Location: Ethiopia: Thanks to user NamibiaYOLO33 who sent me to that Instructables article. We're making some carbon filters from our firewood ashes tomorrow to see if they work!
Facebook update #253 Location: Ethiopia: Wow, no cholera for a week! Who knew we were throwing away valuable filtering supplies every day? Next up, I think we can take the alternator from that broken down bus outside down and make a wind generator, so we can work at night.
Just because you think that social media is useless doesn't mean everyone does. There are some parts of the world where a bit of knowledge sharing could go miles.
There actually have been some studied connected to the OLPC project that suggest internet access is incredibly valuable to people in developing nations, but not for the reasons you're thinking.
These people we're talking about might be 150 miles from the nearest library with a full set of encyclopedias; for that matter, they might not even know how to read. How good do you think their agricultural practices are, given that level of background knowledge? When presented with the challenge of cleaning their drinking water, how far do you think they get? How about diagnosing diseases, planning for weather, or being aware of potential politcal danger? Do you think they could do a bit better at those things given access to Wikipedia, WebMD, Instructables, Reuters and YouTube?
On the same route, perhaps they could even begin to improve their own infrastructure given a bit of access to the world of modern industry? Maybe a small village could save up to invest in a solar array, and have lights inside at night? Or a water purifier so they don't die of cholera anymore?
Knowledge is power, the internet is distributed knowledge. It could do a lot more to help people than a bit of financial aid or temporary food supplies might.
Incredibly generic website name had former owner, who at one point posted jokes. More at 11.
I don't even really get why this would be in poor taste? The idea that egyptians used slaves as labor is pretty much accepted as fact, and seems to be in safe territory for a joke to me (despite recent studies that suggest most of the meaningful labor in ancient Egypt was actually done by paid workers). And shocker, there is pornography on the internet; can we not make jokes about that anymore?
I really don't get what all the fuss is about, even if Zuckerburg were somehow actually connected to the content the site formerly hosted.
It's at least good enough to teach some of us armchair astronauts a bit more about engineering and orbital mechanics!
And yeah, if you want to be reliably successful at it you have to go and learn at least some of the core concepts of the related fields of engineering and physics. There are some crib sheets and whatnot online (like delta-v charts and optimal orbital insertion guide tables) but they still require that you understand things like delta-v and design your ships in a way that puts the center of mass, aerodynamic resistance and control points in the right places.
If you want to do less orbital mechanics calculations you can get the MechJeb autopilot that does a lot of the basic work for you (as seems to be the preferred method lately among real-world satellite launches). It won't figure out things like orbital transfer sequences or slingshots or anything really complex. What it will do is get your orbit perfectly circularized (or properly elliptical), help you rendezvous with another orbital object, hold your orientation along some orbital axis (prograde, retrograde, etc) or help control a descent burn so you hit a given target location.
From TFA referenced in that slashdot post you linked to:
Musk said the Hyperloop "can just be out there as an open source design that people can keep improving. I don't have any time to focus on it as I have to focus on SpaceX and Tesla."
He never said he was cancelling the plans, just that he can't do it himself right now.
...the 42-year-old also said that if no progress on Hyperloop has been made in a few years, he might attempt to "make it happen".
Except that by asking him to do something illegal, the NSA invalidated their own contract. Under U.S. law no contract may require a person to commit an illegal act, nor may it prevent them from reporting a criminal act so long as they have first attempted to report the criminal activity using internal policies. As long as Snowden tried to get his bosses to stop the illegal wiretapping and reported their actions to his supervisor, he should be protected under us whistleblower protection laws.
That said, this is the NSA, and they seem not to care about the law. Running away is smart, to keep them from doing something illegal to punish him for reporting the OTHER illegal things they did.
It probably depends on what their job is. Asking this as an open question is like asking "Which is a better tool, a hammer or a saw?"
If they're your UI designer, Software Architect, or User Experience Designer? It's probably better to err on the side of "talent" (creativity) rather than technical skill. These people don't need to output elegant and functional code, they just need to come up with clever ideas and solutions from a broader more holistic perspective.
If they're your Frontend Developer, UI Developer, or a high level programmer of some kind? They probably need a mix of the two, with an emphasis on technical skill. Their job is output code, but it won't usually need to be perfectly optimized and they will often need to solve new problems in unexpected ways.
If they're your backend dev, production software engineer, or other nitty-gritty code writer? Technical skill will be the more important trait. These guys will usually not be expected to solve the weird UI problems themselves (That's what the UX Designer is for!), but their product needs to be rock-solid from a technical perspective.
This has been brought up on several occasions, and the counterargument is that the chain of information relating to the pickup is much more secure for rideshare operators.
Taxis are scary because people essentially just hop in a passing car without telling anyone, and hand the driver some cash. Fake taxis were a great way to abduct or rob people, which is the origin of a lot of the "safety" based regulations. Erratic or unlicensed drivers were another risk, since they could pose a threat to their fares and everyone around them.
With these rideshares, the passenger is submitting a request over the internet to a public facing company. That company in turn sends out a pickup request to a specific driver, who accepts it and logs their intent to pick up the passenger. With most of the services, the passenger in turn gets a chance to confirm that they have actually been picked up. Since these requests only go to their drivers, the company has the opportunity to do background checks, ensure their drivers are regulated, and keep appropriate records as a chartered ride service. It also creates a chain of responsibility that leads to the driver, if anything were to happen to the passenger.
The rideshare companies in turn have a strong incentive to get rid of unsafe drivers. They might be legally liable for letting a driver continue to operate with a dangerous history, and they have to keep at least basic records of who got picked up when and by whom to avoid getting in trouble for financial violations.
No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service...
Check up on the "medallion" system and how it's been manipulated to get an idea of how your statement (though technically correct) is not practically true. The gist is that there are a limited number of "medallions" or similar tokens given out to allow roaming taxi operators, and new ones are allotted only rarely. Due to this lock on competition there is a lot of bribery and corruption in deciding who gets them during the "random" selection, and a common scam of medallion holders continuing to hold them while not operating a service, then renting them out for exorbitant prices to other operators.
There's a process for changing laws if people think they are outdated.
Historically, what's happening is exactly how most regulatory laws get changed. Someone starts by showing that their service is in-demand and safe. Eventually they are challenged on whether they're breaking some regulatory limit, and either fight it in court or petition the local government to make the needed changes.
Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.," or, "Fuck the rules."
Actually, they're arguing that people are trying to apply the wrong rules to them. Since their drivers don't roam and pick people up at random, instead arriving on request to pick up a specific individual, they have typically been arguing that they are a chartered transportation service. Those services are regulated under different rules, so Lyft, Uber et al are obeying those regulations. They're claiming that the fact that they book their rides minutes in advance instead of days doesn't change the nature of their business, since the only change is the speed at which they deliver the requested service. The taxi operators are trying to get them classed as taxis because those companies have a lock on the limited number of permits for such vehicles, which would allow them to shut down a source of potential competition.
In terms of obeying the spirit of the law, Lyft and Uber actually pass that test fairly well. The most commonly cited reason for the limited number of taxi medallions given out is to keep people from clogging up the roadways with idling taxis waiting for fares. Uber and Lyft drivers park or idle in parking lots and other out of the way places, only entering the roadways to pick up a customer.
What? Is this a troll comment?
Okay, key point: the form of Nitrogen that we're talking about generating here is not the gaseous sort. It's "fixed" nitrogen which I believe is mostly in the form of ammonia. Urea, commonly found in various animal feces, is also a convenient source widely used by the agricultural industry. It is also generated by bacteria but under different circumstances. (In your butt and/or intestines depending on how childish you want to be...)
Nitrogen is also the most abundant component of air, so even if we were talking about the gaseous sort we wouldn't need to worry: worms, ants and other tunneling insects already infiltrate the ground with (~70%) gaseous nitrogen already. If you've ever visited a relatively lush un-farmed field when it was damp and noticed how much the ground sinks under your feet? That's your weight squishing the air (which is mostly nitrogen) out of the ground. It isn't a threat at all in that sense.
...even if their markers are accurate. What do you do with a person that carries known biomarkers for violence? If they later do something wrong, are you legally liable for allowing them to be born if you've done prenatal testing and found the markers? What about doctors who notice them midway through the person's life, should they be legally required to report such people to the police for observation?
I'm getting flavors of both Minority Report and Brave New World from this: You're left in a place where one of the most ethical options is to pre-judge the people, push medication and counseling on someone who's never done anything just to be safe, or encourage them into a societal role where their violent tendencies won't be as risky. Perhaps you put the violent kids in their own special (high security) elementary school, where they're guided towards a profession in the military, police, sports, or other violent profession?
Very scary, despite how potentially useful such a discovery might be.