So if law enforcement is able to keep a database of animal DNA, and match that back to an owner... what's to stop them from using that database for other, perhaps more "interesting" crimes? An owner putting their pet into this database (or getting a pet already in it) would be tantamount to putting themselves in the database, considering the amount of pet material that an owner sheds.

They start off by saying that it's "the females that bite and spread illness," and that they'll be releasing only male mosquitoes. Then they take the concession that there's no guarantee that "**only** non-biting males will be released," and spin this into saying that folks will have "millions of flying, biting GMOs in their neighborhoods." Come on, now.

Hide your kids, hide your wives. And hide your husbands, too.

So if search results are free speech, then does that mean that law enforcement can't force them to remove search results via DMCAs? It's still not illegal material, but rather effectively *talking about* (linking to) illegal material that was generated/hosted by someone else. It's always been odd to me that you can write an article about an entire collection of sites (including ones that are illegal), or even archive them, but a search engine can't auto-index a complete set of sites (including the ones that are illegal).

First, it sounds like your tried to replicate a "study" that had already taken place. In doing so, however, you used a different platform, Mechanical Turk, and did not use any exclusion criteria... but you still made the assumption that the two populations were the same. You do note that you made this assumption, but I would argue that the Facebook and Mechanical Turk populations are not identical -- particularly with respect to their socioeconomic status, maturity, and probably even their race -- all of which would be critical confounding factors in this study. Unless you have some form of data to back these assumptions up, they are invalid. Furthermore, as has been pointed out already, your sample size is entirely too small.

I feel like this is the time to recall not-so-old articles such as this one: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/... in which Apple is praised for purposefully leaving NFC out of their phones.

Planning correctly can save you a lot of time and money... not to mention heartache.

But it makes for so much better hype if you DON'T read (or understand) the science!!

And then we get IPv6 and "NAT" really won't matter so much (see previous slashdots on impressive ipv6 penetration stats).

I would have to second this: The ASUS RT-N16 (or even the Asus RT-N66) is the 802.11N successor

If you're looking for the latest tech (802.11AC), I would say the go-to would probably the Asus RT-AC66U or Asus RT-AC68U (or for internal antennae, the Asus RT-AC56U) with the close runner up being the Netgear AC1900

As you can see, Asus has really taken hold of the "open source router" market (you can install Tomato/DD-WRT on these), much as the WRT-54G did back in the day.

Mechanic: Somebody set up us the firewall. Operator: Main firewall turn off. CATS: All your [data]base are belong to us. CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.

Give... you... money?? Why would they do a silly thing like that when they could just.... keep it?

Actually, the paper that this summary is referencing goes the opposite direction and talks about the 1) numerous studies that have already been performed to evaluate safety and 2) outline numerous more that will need to happen.

Go ahead and check out the references (and the rest of the paper) if you're genuinely interested in this topic. This is not mad science, nor is it Pandora's Box.

/// Drone hovers lazily next to the river ///
NYPD: It's coming right for us! *BANG BANG BANG*

Every drone is an imminent threat.