1000 years subject time, all spent strapped to a gurney and looking at the ceiling and you think they're going to come out of it as a productive member of society? Not to mention submitting someone to 1000 years of that torture in less time than it takes for a lawyer to file an appeal, that's just a great idea for justice. I sincerely hope the author of this piece was being satirical... the alternative is that she's a raging sociopath.

It tells me that there are people out there who will openly admit to using their children as metaphorical weapons in a war on other groups of people.

The 50% drop was self reported by the officers. In other words, the officers themselves self reported using force around half as often as before. Reports of abusive cops drops 90% though, so your point still stands, just not in the context of this particular thread.

Your explanation is a possible one, but it is not the only one.

A) The general public would know about the initiative. Being recorded works both ways, it makes everyone think about their actions more, cops and civilians alike.
B) It's possible that the video encourages cops to be more polite and less aggressive because they know the video has their back if something gets out of hand.
C) It's possible that the video encourages cops to be more polite and less aggressive because they are more likely to get in trouble for it if they step out of line.

Personally, if I had to guess, I'd bet that most of the change comes from B, though indirectly. I'd be willing to pay money that the first few days with the camera officers were extremely self conscious about their actions, less aggressive and more polite in their interactions. I'm guessing the cops saw how much easier and safer their jobs can be by being less aggressive and confrontational.

Did you actually click the link? If anything the paid results are more obvious in my opinion. There's a bright yellow icon marking them out explicitly as "ADS" versus a light grey border labeled euphemistically "sponsored results". This is, at most, a step to the side, not a step backwards.

Google has an easy way of verifying that the account holder or someone authorized by them is using the phone: require the password. If you don't want to require the password every purchase and want to have a 30 minute grace period after each password entry, put an active notification in the notification bar with a countdown and a way to manually leave the grace period.

Yes, and that would be fraud: deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

You don't need to if you're truly a man in the middle, what you need is two setups just like the people you are eavesdropping on. During negotiation, you receive a photon from Alice, you send a different photon on to Bob. When information comes down, you decrypt it with the first photon, read what you want, then re-encrypt it with the second.

I've not heard any explanation for how such systems prevent a man in the middle attack, I suspect the answer is simply that they don't. Of course, if you were to combine quantum cryptography with more pedestrian forms you might be able to make the claim, but if you're going to do that aren't there easier methods of unbreakable communication?

Our healthcare system has many problems, vaccines are not one of them. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater to use an old phrase.

At the moment no one is dying in the streets in fact. Whatever the legality of Russia's actions there have not been any shots fired between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Well, ok, I think I read one story about warning shots being fired, but no one is being shot at this time. The cyber antics are part of a larger picture, on the one hand Russia bunkering up on the Crimean peninsula, consolidating their hold on infrastructure and communications. On the other, a disorganized (and presumably grass roots) hacking effort that looks more like the actions of Anonymous than the Ukrainian government (and probably is).

This is perhaps a stupid question but one worth asking. For what it's worth I originally agreed with your stated concern and I'd much prefer the ability to disable this functionality on any device I own but I digress.

What would this hypothetical ability to brick your phone give the government that they don't already have? The government having this ability in the event of a revolution presupposes cooperation with the carriers. The very carriers that can already block your phone by number or location. For that matter, the army could send a small force to each and every cell tower in the area and shut them down manually (violently) if necessary. For that matter it would probably be more useful for them to just listen in on anyone they are worried about, which again they can already do.

So I just can't buy that this is some kind of government power grab. It's still a terrible idea IMO, but that particular argument just doesn't ring true to me.

By the time a company the size of Ouya designs, prototypes, tests, tweaks, retests, produces, and ships a product, there will be another generation or two beyond that available and they'll be behind again. Mobile CPU/GPU advancements are simply happening too quickly right now for them to be leveraged by anyone except the heaviest of heavy hitters.

Actually, mitochondria DNA does have effects on athletic performance, so there is that.

And you can leave them whenever you want. In fact, the basic expectation when renting an apartment like that is that you won't be spending any significant amounts of time in it beyond sleeping (which is actually an incredibly expensive way to live).

Trapping someone in an environment that confined with no outside contact is torture, plain and simple. The human mind isn't evolved to look at a flat grey wall for 23 hours a day.