...the problem, this is not only totally feasible, it is also absolutely necessary.

I prototyped a video recording device that started recording the second it was popped out of its charging/data cradle and kept going for thirty six hours straight during longevity testing - on a cellphone battery, through a HD (720p) sensor, at 30fps, with audio, onto a 64GB memory card.

Hardware can be had for less than £75 per unit. That includes the memory card.

POLICE LIE. THEY BULLSHIT THEIR WAY THROUGH COURT CASES TO SECURE A CONVICTION, AND THEY FABRICATE EVIDENCE AND FORCE CONFESSIONS. So called "public oversight" is nothing of the sort. IA are POLICE. In England, we now have Police Commissioners, who are themselves serving police officers. We are in the process of winding down the IPCC (the Independent Police Complaints Commission) which is also staffed by serving police officers. They all piss in the same fucking pot!

And get off your privacy high horse, per Judge Munby in the Stafford case: PUBLIC SERVANTS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. If you have a compact camera, keep the battery charged and carry it with you! RECORD every interaction you have or observe with police officers. I guarantee you, you will record evidence particularly when they "order" you to delete the file! (that's called "spoliation" and the mere mention of requiring someone else to do it is a criminal offence).

I'm not sure about that. I mean, they released the footage of Brown robbing a convenience store for cigars and shoving around the clerk, which happened just before the shooting, but a lot of people in Ferguson still regard him as some sort of hero or martyr.

>>For the purposes of the study, science-literate is a new term which means tops in those criteria studied.

Actually I work in education. Scientific literacy is a concept that has been around for a long time, and is generally defined to mean scientific concepts that everyone should understand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literacy

>For the matter of however it correlates to whatever way you define literacy is not the author's problem. They collected the data and Canada is at the top in the data they collected. Science-literacy is not laid out, well defined term so you go

It is, actually.

So now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

GitHub has become a facebook.com alternative for the 1337 haxxor set and alot of people use it for free hosting to put up a personal site

that's my experience anyway...the idea is great, a website that hosts code for coding projects...but the whole abstraction layer of calling it a 'Git' still irks me...it's not a 'git' it's a computer file that contains code...

any frequent uses of GitHub care to comment? what does /. think?

Not all of the code on GitHub is open source, but the majority is -- handy, when that means an account is free as in beer, too.

I'm not privy to any details of GitHub's finances or business model, but most likely it's a good thing that there are non-open-source projects using GitHub, because that's probably what's paying for the free open source use. I've recommended to several clients developing proprietary software the use of GitHub rather than running their own in-house repositories, because the interface is easier for them to use and they don't need as much in-house expertise to manage things. Because Git is distributed, they could of course do both, or easily transition away from GitHub later, and that's a selling point.

"[O]nly 25% of Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith", as opposed to 55% in the U.S. and 38% in the E.U."

Seriously? I was expecting a survey of scientific literacy to be about, you know, scientific literacy, not asking people the relative merits, as it were, between science and religion.

I'm not sure how this proves, quote, "Canada is a nation of science geeks." It's a complete non-sequitor. It doesn't even match the data, in which 58% of Canadians couldn't understand basic science concepts from newspaper stories, and in which Canada ranks 19th out of 29th in science degrees (by percentage).

Contrawise, Americans, sure, value religion probably more highly than other countries, and might even think that we could use more religion, but that is not a question of scientific literacy or attitudes towards science in and of itself. It seems to presuppose the long-discredited Conflict Thesis, which states that religion and science are inherently always in conflict.

The clincher for me - which indisputably shows the authors' bias - is that Canada ranks #1 in people protesting GMOs and nuclear power, and the authors consider this a good sign that their population is scientifically literate!

The authors should get back to ...

euphorically sniffing their own armpits, and stop pretending to be scientists. Or whatever you call the people that work at science museums.

It is sad to see that Mr. Pendleton had an experience similar to my own. I was laid off the year I turned 48. Unlike him, however, I stayed in management despite hating it and still became unemployed. I hope Mr. Pendleton finds success and happiness in whatever he chooses.

I think the reason there's no job security in programming is because basically, nobody's really doing any "programming" these days.

Modern programmers know less about machines and languages than they do APIs and UIs. Everything is so object-oriented and encapsulated, and there are so many square pegs developers are asked to fit into round holes, they're not really designing stuff as much as working on an assembly line sticking various parts-pieces together with no real sense of oversight of the big picture.

If anonymity with a cell phone was important you'd be spending that subscription fee on a new burner every week.

I can teach you: pay people smaller salaries. Compare average income in India and The West to see why cost of building stuff is different. The cost of a potato is the income of the person who grew it.

FTFY. In short, that post says that they'd lose a lot if they made a pdf instead of their magazine app, and thus they only make it for the iPad because... well, just because. Personally, I'm going to assume they chose to use some platform specific toolset(s) and either lack the time or expertise to port to other platforms or do cross platform development... of a magazine.

The interactive features they'd lose is the ability to click on a title and have it go directly to the app store on your device and have you playing with minimal interruption (according to their post). I don't see why that'd be lost. Just have different links in each platform specific version and leave the content the same, so the iPad version links to the app store; the windows version links to the homepage; the android version links to the google play store; etc etc.

Whatever. It's their business decision. No real reason they don't support other platforms.

Not equal, just dependent on other things, like definition of "success" for one. Intelligent but sleazy gets you further than intelligent but honest.

If this is true, why do psychologists continue to focus so much on IQ? Why do they insist there is a strong, undeniable link between IQ and success that must be catered to? Why has funding for students who, as they say, "are merely bright, but not gifted" entirely disappeared in favor of a fully mainstream approach? Why are the hard working students who achieve but who are not obvious savants lumped in with the merely average, and worst, the probably hopeless (whatever the reason)?

Is this real science, or feel good "also-ran" science for the ignorant and unspecial, as one might be led to believe if one actually believed psychology was anything like actual science? We all want to believe articles like this are true, IQ is a bitter pill to swallow and one that seems even murkier the more one reads about it, however it represents our cultures mindset towards success. No company wants a merely bright hard-working person, they want a genius, they worship that genius. Give an academic institution a test, and they will run off with the truly exceptional students (the SATs allegedly correlate to IQ at 0.82, so they actually DO this). Give a corporation that test and they'll probably rather do without than hire anyone with an IQ below 120, which of course, represents the majority of people.

I prefer to believe what is in this article in the same way that I prefer to believe in Free Will, but, however disappointing this may be, this does not reflect the prevailing attitudes of people that matter. Nothing in this article is substantial enough to use as a weapon to change education, and ultimately it's just feel good drivel, much like I think the IQ studies to date are, although sadly they represent the established convention. From a magazine like Scientific American I want something I can USE to make change.