Or since you're the only person whose writing in barely or totally incomprehensible gibberish, make you super easy to identify. That's a problem with most anonymization methods: unless everyone else is using those same methods, you actually make yourself stand out.
Based on the article and the summary, they're not modifying it to degrade functionality, they're just not offering software upgrades, and saying that without upgrades, the devices might not work properly in the future (the headline makes it seem like they're going to disable devices of people who don't accept the terms, which AFAICT is absolutely not true).
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
First they came for the Nazis, blah blah blah. And before anyone cries out "slippery slope fallacy!", it's not a slippery slope: banning speech because it's socially unacceptable is banning speed because it's socially unacceptable. There's no slope, just a flat level field.
I'm sure someone's also going to point out "free speech only applies to the government!" Legally, yes, Google has the ability to ban whatever it wants. The question is a moral one, not a legal one, although sometime soon there absolutely needs to be a discussion about corporation's ability to banish speech. We're quickly approaching the point where a large corporation like Google can effectively entirely prevent you from speaking, and a right you cannot exercise is a right that's been infringed.
That's not really true, nothing about the "exploit" allows for remote access. If you have *another* exploit that allows remote access (remote access that allows you to directly manipulate CAN frames, to be specific), you can then use it, but the "flaw" has no remote accessibility.
Note that calling it a "flaw" or "exploit" is a bit hyperbolic: that's a bit like calling "rm -rf --no-preserve-root" an exploit because someone with root access can use it to wipe your computer. Yeah, no shit someone with low-level access to the bus protocol on your car can mess things up: once you get to that point the system is already owned by the attacker.
The Nazi's rose to power in large part because the German people were disenfranchised and, yes, oppressed, by the Allied powers following WWI. Suppression doesn't eliminate hatred, it fosters and nurtures it. It's not that I think this ideology should be broadcast to the world, but all these kinds of bans do is fuel the narrative that these Nazi's aren't really evil, and are simply being misrepresented and prevented from speaking their piece. This is outright censorship, government enforced or not (and members of the government did try to enforce it), and censorship never works, and never has, and never will.
Yeah, because when I think of peaceful revolutions, I think of the Nazis.
Well, they did rise to power peacefully, and might even have remained so had they not been so focused on the whole "genocide" thing. That's in sharp contrast to something like Communism, which is openly endorses (and, often, requires) violence, yet strangely is still widely accepted, or at least tolerated... I suspect in large part because it was so strongly suppressed in the US (and many other western countries) that most people never came to understand what it really stands for.
Now try looking for Trans, PoC, etc Queer people - yeah. They barely exist.
That'd be because (aside from "PoC"), they do barely exist, at least in the US. It's well under a percent for trans people, and 1-2 percent queer/lesbian/gay. I haven't seen any studies on the topic, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they're actually overrepresented in the media (I can't find simple numbers with a quick Google search, but Wikipedia gives ~4% for regular broadcast TV characters, which is surprisingly close to the right fraction). And as for "PoC": they're again usually represented at around the expected demographic fraction (13% of movie characters vs. 13.6% of the population, for e.g.), except for IIRC Asians, who tend to be overrepresented, and Mexicans, who tend to be underrepresented.
Mind you, people will still complain because most people have no idea what the demographics in the US actually are (such as for e.g. this, admittedly quite dated, study), and for many special interests groups, that's a feature, not a bug. A news story of "only 3 of the 20 Oscar nominees are black!" gets clicks, "black actors slightly overrepresented at the Oscars" does not.
So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???
Careful, you gotta use the right language here: they didn't just "influence" the election, they "hacked" it! If you don't use the right terms, people might start thinking the Democrats fucked up really, really badly, and we can't let that happen or the people who spent decades getting all that political power might find themselves out in the cold, unable to pay for their third summer home in the Caribbean!
A part of that NSA package was the kill switch that Hutchins discovered and published.
This is utterly, totally, and completely wrong. The kill-switch had nothing to do with the exploit or NSA at all. It was implemented separately by the malware developers, likely as a check if the system was a sandbox.
But he caused a TLA to lose one of it's fun toys. And for that, he will be punished.
No, he didn't. This is also totally and completely wrong. The EternalBlue exploit used by Wannacry was leaked a month before Wannacry came out by a group (presumably) entirely unrelated to Marcus, and even that didn't really effect the NSA, as MS had fixed the big a month before that.
There's plenty of bad things the NSA has done to criticize, you don't need to create outright lies about them.
Why use compiled language of the month when assembly has been around for decades, is well understood and does exactly what you want?
If you need the low-level optimization available with assembly and not compiled languages, sure, go ahead. There are people who can and do exactly that, when even C isn't lean enough. As far as "why C?", well' it's simple. C has been around for 40+ years, supports every kind of system on the planet, has the largest set of libraries in the world, and has compilers so optimized they can spit out assembly that runs nearly as fast as if it was hand-optimized. When Rust can claim, say, half of those qualities, to half the same degree (hell, I'll be generous: a quarter), maybe it'll be something the average programmer should pay attention to. Until then, like dozens of other flavor-of-the-year languages, maybe it's worth using for specialized tasks, but it should barely register for most programmers.
As to cost, back then a PhD was only time. If you were good, you had an RA that paid the tuition and a stipend.I paid zip for my masters, actually I got paid to get it.
That's still true for a PhD in almost any technical field (well, any PhD worth getting: if you're paying for a PhD in STEM, you're being fleeced), and many Masters degrees, though not all. Mind you, the pay isn't very good unless you get a fellowship or go to a handful of private universities, but you should be being paid enough to live on, if only barely.
If they are interested in making money on patents, then they should either make a product using those patents, or sell them to someone who can use them.
It represents a university. Universities don't make products, they conduct research. Some of that research has practical usage, some of it doesn't (that's part of the idea of a university: they can conduct basic research, not just product development). The technology that is potentially useful can be licensed to fund more basic research, which is the idea behind WARF. It's a non-profit that handles the licensing and feeds the money back into funding research. WARF may not make a product, but they certainly don't follow classical patent-troll patterns (not least of which is, you know, being a non-profit, which kinda undermines the entire motivation behind patent trolling).
A branch predictor circuit? Those have been around for decades.
Coincidentally, so has the patent: it was filed 1996. I don't know enough about the technology to say much, but it certainly doesn't sound like a troll patent.
And the study notes that the success rate varies between states.
Here's the problem: the study, as far as I can tell, at no point actually gives the success rate, in any way. It only talks about the percentage of funded companies with women on the executive team. That's all. It then pretends that that percentage is some kind of proxy for a success rate, but it isn't. It could, in fact, be that all companies with women on the executive team that apply for funding get it (which would imply that VCs actually have a strong bias towards women-run companies), and there just aren't a lot of such companies. It could also be that very few such companies receive funding (which would imply the exact opposite, that VCs have strong anti-women biases). In other words: the study tells us exactly nothing about VC bias for or against women. And the study does make this claim: it says women are "shut out" of VC funding, but it in no way shows that.
Is there an available data-set of companies that attempted to gain funding and didn't, let alone their gender breakdown? I tried to start a company briefly and received no funding. It's not a formalized process, there wasn't a department of startups we had to get a license from. The only way you'd know it ever happened is if you talked to one of the four or five people involved in our pitch.
No, there probably isn't such a data set. You know how to fix that? You go out and you make the data set. That's what science is all about. It's not easy, but few things worth doing are.
I have to say it's rather amusing seeing this kind of blatant Puritanical moral self-righteousness coming from (nominally) social liberals. Not surprising, mind you: creating a tight-knit society that requires its members to adhere to strict, often arbitrary, moral and ethical guidelines is "How to Control Others" 101. The trick is, of course, ostracizing anyone who doesn't fall in line so that everyone whose still in the group sees the consequences of disobedience. Most people, after that, will never dare go against the authority for fear of losing friends/family/job, and even better, they'll watch for "deviant" behavior in their "friends" so they can turn on them and show what good, upstanding people they are. It's not new or clever (see: nearly every society in human history), but it works really, really well. Of course, when there isn't a central authority, the moral code usually becomes stricter and stricter as everyone seeks to show how pure and righteous they are until you end up with a moral code that's literally impossible to follow. Depending on your goal, that may actually be desirable: once everyone is a sinner, it becomes possible to wipe out any adversary no matter how pure they may actually be, but it's playing with fire, as you yourself can also become viewed as a sinner, if you're not careful (witness how in modern feminism white women are starting to become viewed as privileged, and you have to be a disabled trans black immigrant bald non-gender-conforming obese femtosexual to actually be considered oppressed, and therefore unable to be an evil privileged eraser of minorities).
Streams are (usually) hosted by a single pirate site, which (presumably) isn't inclined to share their IP logs with the media companies. Torrents, however, are hosted by users, which can (and do) include monitoring companies hired by the media companies, which allows them to track the IP of pretty much everyone torrenting that file.. The only way the media companies can track streams is to either have direct access to the ISPs or hosting sites logs, both of which are possible, but considerably more work than tracking a torrent.
Yeah, this is bullshit. You know how I know? I tested it. I turned off my phone, then turned it back on again and timed how long it took: 42.80 seconds. Then I turned it off, removed the battery, and then reinserted it and turned it back on again. Took 42.66 seconds. That's within the margin of error of the human reaction speed (which is ~100-200ms). So, no, the phone CPU doesn't stay powered on while off, the system really does reinitialize itself from the fully-off state when I turn off my phone. Maybe other phones don't, but I'm going to need to see some sources before I believe it.
You don't need to cut into the tube, all you need to do is have access points every so often, and if there's a failure that requires passengers to be rescued, just re-pressurize that section of the tube (any practical design will certainly have sections with some kind of lock that can be opened and closed for repair or in case of vacuum failure in a section).
Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.
No, it won't hit you, it'll hit the train. Which, like any large aerodynamic object traveling at faster than the speed of sound, will very impressively... slow gradually to a stop with the passengers barely even noticing. And you're still going to be traveling down the tunnel even if the vacuum is compromised, so the only thing you're going to be hitting as a bullet is more air. All that really happens if the vacuum fails is you go from a Hyperloop capable of traveling with minimal energy loss, to a regular train capable of traveling like any other train on the planet.
Not really. The problem is that we didn't take a photon in the lab, and create an identical photon in space. We took a photon in the lab, created a photon in space, then made the photon in space identical to the photon in the lab. That's a bit like taking a block of marble and carving it into *exactly* the same shape as, say, Michelangelo's David, then claiming we "teleported" the statue. Even if the final product is molecule for molecule identical, few people would call it "teleportation". Teleportation would involve taking the particles from one location and transferring them to the other, in some kind of stream or through a wormhole or something. Note that this is probably impossible.
The key to quantum "teleportation" is that particles are indistinguishable except for a couple of quantum numbers, so if we take a particle and force it to have the same numbers as another particle, we've "teleported" it. Except that we can also distinguish particles based on position. Yes, it's true that you can take two electrons in two hydrogen atoms, exchange them, and you'd never know the difference. But we can still say the electron in that hydrogen atom over there is not the same electron as the electron in this hydrogen atom a million miles away. This isn't just a philosophical distinction: the two electrons really are different (i.e. have different quantum wavefunctions), at a physics level.
Of course, the same thing could have (and did) happen under the Obama administration years ago, it's just you didn't hear about it when it did, because there wasn't much political capital to gain by reporting on it. In fact, the summary itself undercuts the "xenophobia" narrative: why would the US let in teams from Syran, Iran, etc. if xenophobia was the driving motivator? Any time you apply for a visa to any country, there's a chance it'll be rejected. The US system in particular can be a bit capricious, which is a problem, but it's more of a bureaucratic problem, not a prejudicial one.
These kinds of studies are almost never peer reviewed. They don't explore scientific questions, all they do is accumulate a series of facts and present them. The important question is whether the data used is true, and peer review doesn't even attempt to answer that, it only looks for methodological errors in experiments, observations, or calculations. Pointing out that it isn't peer reviewed is meaningless, because you wouldn't expect it to be peer reviewed, any more than you'd expect this comment to be peer reviewed.
Ok, sure, but that's a completely different story from TFA, which focused heavily on the "Trump travel ban" angle. If there is actually a story there, what you'd have to do is go through and figure out the fraction of people who are denied entry after submitting valid paperwork and compare it to other countries, maybe with some attempt to determine why entry was denied (which is difficult, I know, but, well, that's why it's a job). That's an article I'd be interested in reading, and which would be worth publishing. An article about a single high-profile person being rejected for who knows what reason, with multiple mentions of completely unrelated (but politically controversial) events? That's not a story, that's clickbait, pure and simple.
Because otherwise there'd be no story (actually, there is no story, but that doesn't stop journalists from writing one). The US, like every other country in the world, has immigration controls, which are handled by individual agents who have the ability to allow or deny just about anyone (aside from US citizens, who cannot be denied entry) for just about any reason, because non-citizens have no right to entry. Of course, they rarely do so as long as you have the right visa/waivers/come from a country with the right treaties, but they always *can*. It might not stick (i.e. you may be able to appeal the decision and enter later), and the agent will likely end up fired if they act arbitrarily against policy, but it can always happen.
I'm not going to give Gizmodo the click to read TFA, but my guess is he probably didn't actually have all his paperwork in order, but that's just a guess.
They're not ordering Google to delete results everywhere in the world; just on systems under their control. Which ends up being on the exact same servers they deleted the results for Canada (since google.ca and google.com are the same systems).
This is precisely what is not happening. Google is in fact being ordered to delete the search results in all their servers, worldwide, not just on the servers that serve Canada (which just about everyone agrees falls within Canada's legal authority). That is, in fact, the entire point of the news story. I can understand not reading the story, but not even reading the headline? Even for slashdot that's impressive.
Anyways, yes, the news story is correct: Canada is claiming the power to order Google to globally de-index web sites in response to a court order.
But if I want to use google search to find out about other map providers, I'd like to see them show up in a fair way, and not have google pretend it's the only map provider there is.
Then do a Google search for "map providers" or "internet mapping tools". But if you search for "nearest CVS to Times Square" on Google, it's hard to see how Google is at fault for providing you exactly the information you searched for.
Slashdot Mirror
Or since you're the only person whose writing in barely or totally incomprehensible gibberish, make you super easy to identify. That's a problem with most anonymization methods: unless everyone else is using those same methods, you actually make yourself stand out.
Relevant XKCD
Based on the article and the summary, they're not modifying it to degrade functionality, they're just not offering software upgrades, and saying that without upgrades, the devices might not work properly in the future (the headline makes it seem like they're going to disable devices of people who don't accept the terms, which AFAICT is absolutely not true).
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
First they came for the Nazis, blah blah blah. And before anyone cries out "slippery slope fallacy!", it's not a slippery slope: banning speech because it's socially unacceptable is banning speed because it's socially unacceptable. There's no slope, just a flat level field.
I'm sure someone's also going to point out "free speech only applies to the government!" Legally, yes, Google has the ability to ban whatever it wants. The question is a moral one, not a legal one, although sometime soon there absolutely needs to be a discussion about corporation's ability to banish speech. We're quickly approaching the point where a large corporation like Google can effectively entirely prevent you from speaking, and a right you cannot exercise is a right that's been infringed.
That's not really true, nothing about the "exploit" allows for remote access. If you have *another* exploit that allows remote access (remote access that allows you to directly manipulate CAN frames, to be specific), you can then use it, but the "flaw" has no remote accessibility.
Note that calling it a "flaw" or "exploit" is a bit hyperbolic: that's a bit like calling "rm -rf --no-preserve-root" an exploit because someone with root access can use it to wipe your computer. Yeah, no shit someone with low-level access to the bus protocol on your car can mess things up: once you get to that point the system is already owned by the attacker.
The Nazi's rose to power in large part because the German people were disenfranchised and, yes, oppressed, by the Allied powers following WWI. Suppression doesn't eliminate hatred, it fosters and nurtures it. It's not that I think this ideology should be broadcast to the world, but all these kinds of bans do is fuel the narrative that these Nazi's aren't really evil, and are simply being misrepresented and prevented from speaking their piece. This is outright censorship, government enforced or not (and members of the government did try to enforce it), and censorship never works, and never has, and never will.
Yeah, because when I think of peaceful revolutions, I think of the Nazis.
Well, they did rise to power peacefully, and might even have remained so had they not been so focused on the whole "genocide" thing. That's in sharp contrast to something like Communism, which is openly endorses (and, often, requires) violence, yet strangely is still widely accepted, or at least tolerated... I suspect in large part because it was so strongly suppressed in the US (and many other western countries) that most people never came to understand what it really stands for.
Now try looking for Trans, PoC, etc Queer people - yeah. They barely exist.
That'd be because (aside from "PoC"), they do barely exist, at least in the US. It's well under a percent for trans people, and 1-2 percent queer/lesbian/gay. I haven't seen any studies on the topic, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they're actually overrepresented in the media (I can't find simple numbers with a quick Google search, but Wikipedia gives ~4% for regular broadcast TV characters, which is surprisingly close to the right fraction). And as for "PoC": they're again usually represented at around the expected demographic fraction (13% of movie characters vs. 13.6% of the population, for e.g.), except for IIRC Asians, who tend to be overrepresented, and Mexicans, who tend to be underrepresented.
Mind you, people will still complain because most people have no idea what the demographics in the US actually are (such as for e.g. this, admittedly quite dated, study), and for many special interests groups, that's a feature, not a bug. A news story of "only 3 of the 20 Oscar nominees are black!" gets clicks, "black actors slightly overrepresented at the Oscars" does not.
So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???
Careful, you gotta use the right language here: they didn't just "influence" the election, they "hacked" it! If you don't use the right terms, people might start thinking the Democrats fucked up really, really badly, and we can't let that happen or the people who spent decades getting all that political power might find themselves out in the cold, unable to pay for their third summer home in the Caribbean!
A part of that NSA package was the kill switch that Hutchins discovered and published.
This is utterly, totally, and completely wrong. The kill-switch had nothing to do with the exploit or NSA at all. It was implemented separately by the malware developers, likely as a check if the system was a sandbox.
But he caused a TLA to lose one of it's fun toys. And for that, he will be punished.
No, he didn't. This is also totally and completely wrong. The EternalBlue exploit used by Wannacry was leaked a month before Wannacry came out by a group (presumably) entirely unrelated to Marcus, and even that didn't really effect the NSA, as MS had fixed the big a month before that.
There's plenty of bad things the NSA has done to criticize, you don't need to create outright lies about them.
Why use compiled language of the month when assembly has been around for decades, is well understood and does exactly what you want?
If you need the low-level optimization available with assembly and not compiled languages, sure, go ahead. There are people who can and do exactly that, when even C isn't lean enough. As far as "why C?", well' it's simple. C has been around for 40+ years, supports every kind of system on the planet, has the largest set of libraries in the world, and has compilers so optimized they can spit out assembly that runs nearly as fast as if it was hand-optimized. When Rust can claim, say, half of those qualities, to half the same degree (hell, I'll be generous: a quarter), maybe it'll be something the average programmer should pay attention to. Until then, like dozens of other flavor-of-the-year languages, maybe it's worth using for specialized tasks, but it should barely register for most programmers.
As to cost, back then a PhD was only time. If you were good, you had an RA that paid the tuition and a stipend.I paid zip for my masters, actually I got paid to get it.
That's still true for a PhD in almost any technical field (well, any PhD worth getting: if you're paying for a PhD in STEM, you're being fleeced), and many Masters degrees, though not all. Mind you, the pay isn't very good unless you get a fellowship or go to a handful of private universities, but you should be being paid enough to live on, if only barely.
If they are interested in making money on patents, then they should either make a product using those patents, or sell them to someone who can use them.
It represents a university. Universities don't make products, they conduct research. Some of that research has practical usage, some of it doesn't (that's part of the idea of a university: they can conduct basic research, not just product development). The technology that is potentially useful can be licensed to fund more basic research, which is the idea behind WARF. It's a non-profit that handles the licensing and feeds the money back into funding research. WARF may not make a product, but they certainly don't follow classical patent-troll patterns (not least of which is, you know, being a non-profit, which kinda undermines the entire motivation behind patent trolling).
A branch predictor circuit? Those have been around for decades.
Coincidentally, so has the patent: it was filed 1996. I don't know enough about the technology to say much, but it certainly doesn't sound like a troll patent.
And the study notes that the success rate varies between states.
Here's the problem: the study, as far as I can tell, at no point actually gives the success rate, in any way. It only talks about the percentage of funded companies with women on the executive team. That's all. It then pretends that that percentage is some kind of proxy for a success rate, but it isn't. It could, in fact, be that all companies with women on the executive team that apply for funding get it (which would imply that VCs actually have a strong bias towards women-run companies), and there just aren't a lot of such companies. It could also be that very few such companies receive funding (which would imply the exact opposite, that VCs have strong anti-women biases). In other words: the study tells us exactly nothing about VC bias for or against women. And the study does make this claim: it says women are "shut out" of VC funding, but it in no way shows that.
Is there an available data-set of companies that attempted to gain funding and didn't, let alone their gender breakdown? I tried to start a company briefly and received no funding. It's not a formalized process, there wasn't a department of startups we had to get a license from. The only way you'd know it ever happened is if you talked to one of the four or five people involved in our pitch.
No, there probably isn't such a data set. You know how to fix that? You go out and you make the data set. That's what science is all about. It's not easy, but few things worth doing are.
I have to say it's rather amusing seeing this kind of blatant Puritanical moral self-righteousness coming from (nominally) social liberals. Not surprising, mind you: creating a tight-knit society that requires its members to adhere to strict, often arbitrary, moral and ethical guidelines is "How to Control Others" 101. The trick is, of course, ostracizing anyone who doesn't fall in line so that everyone whose still in the group sees the consequences of disobedience. Most people, after that, will never dare go against the authority for fear of losing friends/family/job, and even better, they'll watch for "deviant" behavior in their "friends" so they can turn on them and show what good, upstanding people they are. It's not new or clever (see: nearly every society in human history), but it works really, really well. Of course, when there isn't a central authority, the moral code usually becomes stricter and stricter as everyone seeks to show how pure and righteous they are until you end up with a moral code that's literally impossible to follow. Depending on your goal, that may actually be desirable: once everyone is a sinner, it becomes possible to wipe out any adversary no matter how pure they may actually be, but it's playing with fire, as you yourself can also become viewed as a sinner, if you're not careful (witness how in modern feminism white women are starting to become viewed as privileged, and you have to be a disabled trans black immigrant bald non-gender-conforming obese femtosexual to actually be considered oppressed, and therefore unable to be an evil privileged eraser of minorities).
Streams are (usually) hosted by a single pirate site, which (presumably) isn't inclined to share their IP logs with the media companies. Torrents, however, are hosted by users, which can (and do) include monitoring companies hired by the media companies, which allows them to track the IP of pretty much everyone torrenting that file.. The only way the media companies can track streams is to either have direct access to the ISPs or hosting sites logs, both of which are possible, but considerably more work than tracking a torrent.
Yeah, this is bullshit. You know how I know? I tested it. I turned off my phone, then turned it back on again and timed how long it took: 42.80 seconds. Then I turned it off, removed the battery, and then reinserted it and turned it back on again. Took 42.66 seconds. That's within the margin of error of the human reaction speed (which is ~100-200ms). So, no, the phone CPU doesn't stay powered on while off, the system really does reinitialize itself from the fully-off state when I turn off my phone. Maybe other phones don't, but I'm going to need to see some sources before I believe it.
You don't need to cut into the tube, all you need to do is have access points every so often, and if there's a failure that requires passengers to be rescued, just re-pressurize that section of the tube (any practical design will certainly have sections with some kind of lock that can be opened and closed for repair or in case of vacuum failure in a section).
Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.
No, it won't hit you, it'll hit the train. Which, like any large aerodynamic object traveling at faster than the speed of sound, will very impressively... slow gradually to a stop with the passengers barely even noticing. And you're still going to be traveling down the tunnel even if the vacuum is compromised, so the only thing you're going to be hitting as a bullet is more air. All that really happens if the vacuum fails is you go from a Hyperloop capable of traveling with minimal energy loss, to a regular train capable of traveling like any other train on the planet.
Not really. The problem is that we didn't take a photon in the lab, and create an identical photon in space. We took a photon in the lab, created a photon in space, then made the photon in space identical to the photon in the lab. That's a bit like taking a block of marble and carving it into *exactly* the same shape as, say, Michelangelo's David, then claiming we "teleported" the statue. Even if the final product is molecule for molecule identical, few people would call it "teleportation". Teleportation would involve taking the particles from one location and transferring them to the other, in some kind of stream or through a wormhole or something. Note that this is probably impossible.
The key to quantum "teleportation" is that particles are indistinguishable except for a couple of quantum numbers, so if we take a particle and force it to have the same numbers as another particle, we've "teleported" it. Except that we can also distinguish particles based on position. Yes, it's true that you can take two electrons in two hydrogen atoms, exchange them, and you'd never know the difference. But we can still say the electron in that hydrogen atom over there is not the same electron as the electron in this hydrogen atom a million miles away. This isn't just a philosophical distinction: the two electrons really are different (i.e. have different quantum wavefunctions), at a physics level.
Of course, the same thing could have (and did) happen under the Obama administration years ago, it's just you didn't hear about it when it did, because there wasn't much political capital to gain by reporting on it. In fact, the summary itself undercuts the "xenophobia" narrative: why would the US let in teams from Syran, Iran, etc. if xenophobia was the driving motivator? Any time you apply for a visa to any country, there's a chance it'll be rejected. The US system in particular can be a bit capricious, which is a problem, but it's more of a bureaucratic problem, not a prejudicial one.
Notice that weasel word--materials "like" lead. Solar panels don't contain lead. Period.
Actually, uh, yeah, they can. They're called Perovskite solar cells. They can also contain chromium.
These kinds of studies are almost never peer reviewed. They don't explore scientific questions, all they do is accumulate a series of facts and present them. The important question is whether the data used is true, and peer review doesn't even attempt to answer that, it only looks for methodological errors in experiments, observations, or calculations. Pointing out that it isn't peer reviewed is meaningless, because you wouldn't expect it to be peer reviewed, any more than you'd expect this comment to be peer reviewed.
Ok, sure, but that's a completely different story from TFA, which focused heavily on the "Trump travel ban" angle. If there is actually a story there, what you'd have to do is go through and figure out the fraction of people who are denied entry after submitting valid paperwork and compare it to other countries, maybe with some attempt to determine why entry was denied (which is difficult, I know, but, well, that's why it's a job). That's an article I'd be interested in reading, and which would be worth publishing. An article about a single high-profile person being rejected for who knows what reason, with multiple mentions of completely unrelated (but politically controversial) events? That's not a story, that's clickbait, pure and simple.
Because otherwise there'd be no story (actually, there is no story, but that doesn't stop journalists from writing one). The US, like every other country in the world, has immigration controls, which are handled by individual agents who have the ability to allow or deny just about anyone (aside from US citizens, who cannot be denied entry) for just about any reason, because non-citizens have no right to entry. Of course, they rarely do so as long as you have the right visa/waivers/come from a country with the right treaties, but they always *can*. It might not stick (i.e. you may be able to appeal the decision and enter later), and the agent will likely end up fired if they act arbitrarily against policy, but it can always happen.
I'm not going to give Gizmodo the click to read TFA, but my guess is he probably didn't actually have all his paperwork in order, but that's just a guess.
They're not ordering Google to delete results everywhere in the world; just on systems under their control. Which ends up being on the exact same servers they deleted the results for Canada (since google.ca and google.com are the same systems).
This is precisely what is not happening. Google is in fact being ordered to delete the search results in all their servers, worldwide, not just on the servers that serve Canada (which just about everyone agrees falls within Canada's legal authority). That is, in fact, the entire point of the news story. I can understand not reading the story, but not even reading the headline? Even for slashdot that's impressive.
Anyways, yes, the news story is correct: Canada is claiming the power to order Google to globally de-index web sites in response to a court order.
But if I want to use google search to find out about other map providers, I'd like to see them show up in a fair way, and not have google pretend it's the only map provider there is.
Then do a Google search for "map providers" or "internet mapping tools". But if you search for "nearest CVS to Times Square" on Google, it's hard to see how Google is at fault for providing you exactly the information you searched for.