My question is do they take out the Chinese backdoors or do they leave those in with the NSA backdoors?

That doesn't matter. We now know that the NSA has backdoors in them. We highly suspect that the Chinese also have backdoors in them.

The question is how long it will take the other nations to start their own chip fabrication plants and build their own routers / switches / etc.

Since nothing from us can be trusted (even by us) then they should be building their own stuff which they can trust more than our stuff.

I've read before that converting many stop signs to yield signs, even for cars, would save all sorts of energy without significant increases in accidents.

I think that all depends upon the traffic pattern at that time at that stop. One stop light where I used to live would convert to flashing yellow at 10pm and back to a stop light at 5am.

With a bicycle it's all about energy conservation.

I don't agree. And with traffic laws it is all about predictability.

Everyone involved needs to have the same understanding of who has the right of way and why.

As such, I typically have much longer to assess an intersection before I reach it, my stopping distance is extremely short, but if you make me stop it extends the time I'll be in the intersection when I DO cross significantly.

So?

There are only a couple of factors in play:
1. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of who has the right of way and in what order?

2. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of whether the intersection is "clear" for them?

If I'm allowed to use a stop sign as a yield, I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently.

And that is the problem. You are no longer predictable to the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians. You might stop or you might not stop.

Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there.

No it doesn't. The same as it does not make it safer for pedestrians to run across the intersection just because they're on a crosswalk.

Whether it is safer depends upon whether the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians know where you are and have the same understanding of who has the right of way in what order.

The ONLY way that this change should have any positive change is if a driver would NOT have seen you when you were stopped BUT was far enough away that you could cross BEFORE he entered the intersection. In which case YOU need to work on YOUR visibility.

Not only that but from the summary:

How often have you sat at your desk browsing the internet instead of being productive? If your company is such that you can aggregate that lost time across a bunch of workers, you could probably reduce the headcount significantly if everybody just stayed on task all the time.

Even if I was focused 100% for an 8 hour day that still wouldn't account for problems happening AFTER work.

Or to put it another way, why aren't fire fighters putting out fires 8 hours a day and then taking 16 hours off (not accounting for lunch and breaks).

Things do not happen on an orderly schedule. Tasks do not perfectly fit the time available.

And who says that browsing the Internet is not helping me be more productive?

This guy seems to have the assembly line mentality. If only the workers would stay focused we could speed up the assembly line by 15%.

If you give something free will and the ability to comprehend itself then you can expect it to stop following your rules if you do not give it opportunity. The solution is to not build machines that are so complex that they have free will. Make a machine do a specific job as a tool and this won't ever be a problem.

I think that that depends upon the writer. It's easy to construct a story where the "slavery" is bad even if the "slaves" don't have free will. Depending upon what the writer wants to portray. Such as an over reliance on tech making us "less human" (decadent) than if we relied more upon ourselves and our families and neighbours. That was a recurring theme in Magnus, Robot figher.

Sometimes the robots are the slaves.

Sometimes the artificial intelligences are our overlords.

It all depends upon what story the writer wants to tell. Fear technology or fear human impulses.

Maybe read the book? Even the top negative review seems to give weight to his claim:

No. None of them do. Most of them repeat the information about being mugged.

But there isn't a single one of those that specifies HOW he is a "genius" of any kind.

Can he look at a formula and intuitively draw it?
Can he look at a drawing and intuitively give the formula for it?

The simplest question on his "genius" is still unanswered. WHAT does he do that is "genius" level? HOW is it "genius" level?

Seconded.

There are 24 paragraphs in the first link. The ONLY mention of ANYTHING about his mathematical "ability" is in paragraph 9.

He started sketching circles made of overlapping triangles, which helped him understand the concept of pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

That's a "savant"? How many kids in high school understand pi?

After his injury, Padgett was drawing complex geometric shapes, but he didn't have the formal training to understand the equations they represented.Again, how many high school kids have doodled like that?

And "FORMAL training"? Isn't part of being a savant NOT needing formal training? You discover the concepts on your own based upon your ability to intuit the relationships.

Srinivasa Ramanujan was a savant.

"Microsoft gave us a 98% discount in exchange for this article."

Possibly. But there's enough weasel-room to reach his claims without that.

1. Lock-in: If his systems are already running MS software (which they probably are) is the cost of data migration counted against MS or is it counted against any alternative?

2. Hiring/Training: Is his office paying for training and certification OR is his office REQUIRING that anyone applying ALREADY have certification.

3. Discounts: Once you have 1 & 2, is Microsoft offering discounts just big enough to come in under the cost of migration?

If not outright luddism...

My car only has a key interface. It never fails.

I have a friend who has an electronic proximity thing (not push button). It fails occasionally. At which point she has to revert to using a key. And the key never fails.

The issue isn't whether a means of unlocking/starting the car IN ADDITION to the key is "the future".

It's whether any of those systems are as reliable as the physical key is and can 100% replace the key so that keys are never used again for cars.

Seconded.

Where's the money coming from for all these party events?

... weekends in Tahoe, Burning Man, ...

That's not a startup. That's a frat. Startups want you working all weekend, every weekend.

Even a successful, established company would probably not send its programmers away for a week to Burning Man.

Sounds like they're throwing a non-stop party because they have venture capital to burn through.

Yeah, I saw nothing that said big data found her at all.

Seconded. There should have been SOMETHING like "after which I was inundated with baby-related advertisements".

And trying to hide it while buying baby stuff on AMAZON?!?
?!?
one more time
?!?

I lied. One more time.
?!?

Amazon knows what you bought.
Amazon knows who you are.
Amazon knows where you had it shipped.

You're getting a little technical there but that's a great idea.

Particularly if you combine it with IPv6.

The monopolies and oligopolies exist precisely because of this - the municipal powers will gladly sign over near-perpetual rights to the highest bidder, not the ones offering best service.

So don't let them do that.

The city (or whatever) should run fiber (or whatever) to each house. That fiber should terminate in a CITY OWNED site.

The city then rents/leases space at that site for whichever companies want to provide Internet access to the city people. The rent/lease being high enough to pay for the maintenance and equipment that the city needs for that.

So you end up with:
a. ZERO cost for any ISP to connect to your house.
b. Every company pays the same rate per cubic meter at the city site.
c. Switching ISP's should be as easy as moving a patch cord (at worst).

Since the rent/lease is for space instead of rights to a market there is a chance of real competition.

assault grips?

A quick Google search brings up bicycle handle bars and World of Warcraft. What are you talking about?

bombs?

A bomb is not the same as a rifle. Nor a carbine. Nor a pistol. Bombs are covered under different laws.

any military weapon?

That's Claymores to cruise missiles. Looks like you're just flailing around now.

or a military sniper rifle?

Still flailing. Adding words like "military" or "sniper" does not change the functionality.

what is the purpose of an extended clip handgun?

You mean "magazine", not "clip". And "handgun" is redundant.

The purpose is to have more rounds available without reloading.

to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers.

So the basis for your position is Hollywood fantasy. And you can't tell the difference between the real world and a Hollywood fantasy.

So you're going to argue based upon the Hollywood fantasies that you've watched.

I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.

"Reasonable" being defined there as "agree with this statement".

No. You are wrong.

Once you get away from fully automatic/burst (already regulated) there is NOTHING (see below) that differentiates a weapon used for hunting/sport from a weapon (as you claim) "designed for" ... "kill humans".

There are excepts such as an "elephant gun" and such for hunting larger animals. But by that logic a weapon designed to "kill humans" (as you claim) would be less effective.