Agreed, and furthermore, even if he 'merely' spooked the runner to the point where she fell, then he was operating the drone irresponsibly.

This jerk needs to man-up and learn to take responsibility for his own actions. Until then, he shouldn't be operating a drone - or a car, for that matter.

There's a huge difference between identifying a principe behind some low-level aspect of neural activity, and explaining how the brain works. This sort of article (and other pronouncements of Dr. Bak, apparently) gives reductionism a bad name. Only if he could show how consciousness arises directly from neural self-organized criticality would the absurd hyperbole of the first paragraph be justified.

We can just secure our things the same way that the things currently on the internet - power plants, dams, oil refineries - are secured.

'Outing' has a connotation of a) the public identification of an individual, b) the disclosure of private information about that individual, and c) being against the (not necessarily explicitly stated) wishes of the individual. Neither a) nor b) occurred, which also means c) is moot.

Never trust a /. summary. They confirmed the participant's ownership of a firearm through public sources.

Exactly. If he was operating as alleged, he has made things more difficult for responsible operators, because this will expedite regulation.

My comment was two simple sentences, yet you managed to miss the point. It takes no position on people who accept the facts of evolution.

I suppose I have to point out that accepting the facts of evolution means all of those facts, not some bowdlerized version that denies the random aspects of evolution, or claims that evolution is responsible for small changes only, or excludes the descent of Man.

And I guess I also have to point out that my statement does not imply that a version of creationism that accepts the facts of evolution is necessarily compatible with science. It could be incompatible in other ways, which is highly likely when you introduce hypotheses lacking any evidence in support. As I wrote in the first third of my original response, the issue here is evolution, specifically.

With regard to your last paragraph, the route by which someone arrived at a belief is immaterial to the question of whether that belief is consistent with science.

The issue here is evolution. Any version of creationism that denies evolution is incompatible with science.

I thought the evidence previously presented, that Nicholas Szabo was Satoshi, was plausible, albeit circumstantial. I suspect that this Satoshi Nakamato's involvement with Bitcoin was not as the primary innovator or leader, while the the person(s) who did play those roles prefer for Newsweek (and the rest of the world) to think otherwise.
     

If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Michael's got to pay for getting his eponymous company back, and he won't be able to do that just by selling computers.

Are you referring to the so-called 'super injunctions'? They are not so much NDAs as they are gag orders - they are certainly not agreements when they are forced on you.

The first amendment is supposed to stop that sort of nonsense in the USA.

Worse things can and do happen - like someone making off with confidential data.

My concern over these 'minimal knowledge' courses is that their graduates will be unprepared to deal with complex issues like security. On the other hand, given the dismal state of security, they might improve things, in which case I am in favor.

This article does not contain any description of calculus-like activities that five-year-olds are participating in. There's a lot of 'this is cool' commentary without any description of what 'this' actually is.

The NDA is irrelevant to the fact that you made a statement, about the exact wording of the article, that can unarguably be seen to be false, simply by reading the exact words of the article.