You think that large trees never got lost to Tsunamis? With no humanity around to alter the ecology, forests often went right up to the beach. I bet dozens or even thousands of full trees were lost to tidal waves long ago. They would be ideal methods for species transfer.

I think you misunderstand... people did not see marijuana or smoking as bad at all in the first half of the 20th century. It was normal. It was far more acceptable than drinking for a while (there is a reason the prohibition amendment passed). It's certainly different than copyright now... but give them 50 years, and you can be damn certain that those 'dirty hippie copythieves' will be just as demonized.

"This is your brain on ThePirateBay. Any questions?"

"Where did you get this stuff? Who taught you to torrent?" "You! I learned it by watching you!"

Cost to have it done in India:

(
    (
        (
            (72 hours) / (1 minute) # Content uploaded per minute
        ) * (
            (1 year) / (1 minute) # Minutes per year
        )
    ) # Content uploaded per year
  / (
        50 * 51 * 60 # Minutes per Indian work-year... ie, how much content one person can screen.
    )
) * (
    10 000 (U.S. dollars / year) # Very guesstimated salary for an Indian employee.
) = 148 503 181 U.S. dollars / year

So about $150 million per year to have every piece of content scanned by a human... at current rates. YouTube's rate of content added continues to rise constantly.

Because that worked so well for marijuana. Oh wait, we just rolled over and took it when they demonized and outlawed it in the middle of last century.

This is rather late, so only you will see it. But please beware using sentences. For example, "Stupid bitch" might as well be one word, since bitch often follows Stupid. Same with "never again". So you transform a password from the equivalent of 5 words to 3 by making it meaningful. That is the exact issue that xkcd was specifically seeking to avoid by using random words, not meaningful ones.

The reason to avoid understandable sentences is they have extremely low entropy per character. Or, put another way, they are easier to hack than their length would indicate. An xkcd password has about 1.5 bits per character of entropy; a normal English sentence has as low as 0.6 to 1.3 bits per letter, according to one study. Given the simple and trite short sentences people would use for passwords, it's likely closer to 0.6, or about 20 bits of entropy for your example 'chicken' password, compared to 44 bits for a shorter xkcd password.

This is only true if they have a system to make systemic alterations like this easy. If it takes a man on the control of every traffic light, it won't work... and from TFA, this was a completely manual and centralized to one person task, so it demonstrates no ability to scale up to managing the lights for the whole city.

If we have large networks of self-driving cars communicating with each other, you can damn well bet we'll have large networks of self-driving cars notifying the police when a driver behaves recklessly. When the driverless car is ubiquitous, then speeding cameras will be as well.

> When will journalists learn?
Not so. The journalist didn't say 'people outside the US are better', they said 'US immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs', and this is completely true specifically because of the filter (which is covered in the article). Immigrants are ambitious risk takers; ambitious risk takers are more likely to start their own business.

We need more ambitious risk takers in the US.

Microsoft computer peripherals is still active and strong after 20 years. So no.

I bought a Galaxy Nexus... so I see tons of ads for it.

Not so at all. More accurately, as the believers become marginalized, a vocal minority are getting scared and violent. A higher percentage of the populace is atheist or agnostic every year (when you look at worldwide trends), and because of that the religious incumbents lash out and do their best to legislate religion to retain their power base as long as possible.

But don't mistake this very public attempt as an actual resurgence of belief; it is a smokescreen, a ploy.

The article is a lie. Audi didn't do this for safety... they did it because engine noises produce an emotional response. We are conditioned to tie the power of the vehicle to the sound it makes. Audi has a reputation for fast cars, and a silent car does not provide the same emotional feedback, thus reducing the perceived value of the vehicle to the consumer. This is particularly true of the all-important test drive... even if you can disable the sound later, by default they want you to feel the horsepower in your gut when you hit that pedal for the first time.

I agree. An example of a good video interview? Richard Feynman has some of the best ever. And that's partly because his enthusiasm and animated movements help interest and explain the concepts in addition to the words.

The video in this article? Not so much.

This entire fiasco is stupid. It's already completely illegal to request someone's Facebook login information as a condition of hire, since it divulges restricted information (marital status, age, orientation) that it is already illegal for them to ask of you. You can already tell them "I'm sorry, but that would divulge my marital status, age, and other information that is illegal for you to request."

If you can't ask them to follow one law, what makes you think that you'll be able to ask them to follow a new law? This entire law is redundant, and it is quite right that it was eliminated.