Would you mind expanding on what humans use for face recognition that isn't yet present in software algorithms? I'm sure you know what you're talking about but it seems counterintuitive to me when I perceive most painted portraits to reproduce faces just as faithfully as a candid, poorly-lit Facebook photo, the latter of which is easily recognised by software.

There are plenty of airlines still around who happily charge you more and are suitably more comfortable to fly with. I suspect the truth is that faced with the cheaper airlines on offer, even you are prepared to put up with the sound of your own voice complaining about it than pay what it actually costs for good service. Also, what airline has ever turned away babies?

Maybe one with employees of asset management firms who expect writing to be consistent with context, and would realise from this that something was wrong with the email? Or at least ones who would spot the subject line of the next email in their inbox which I presume went along the line of "OOPSIES!"

Slow down there, champ. Despite TFA being headlined "[FULL TEXT]", the full contents of the email doesn't appear in the article.

The link to Reuters in the article doesn't either, but contains the following statement from Aviva's spokesman: "An email which was intended for a member of staff who was leaving today was accidentally sent to all Aviva Investors staff worldwide."

In other words, the intended recipient was well aware he/she was leaving, not even necessarily fired, and a form letter is used to lay out information outgoing staff need to be aware of. Worth a giggle at how for a moment it might have looked like all the staff had received a surprise sacking, but not really an excuse to get out your pet grievance about large organisational structures.

No, not really.

If your letter is unexceptional, it may be it actually has a marginally higher probability of getting read if it's written to this President.

I didn't think you had to have a solution to object to making things profoundly worse.

When are nerds going to accept that "hacking" has a perfectly legitimate second meaning? It is really really simple. If the object of the hacking is a technology, you can carry on using the maker-hobbyist-anorak definition. But when the object is an individual or a group using some sort of electronic security, hacking means compromising that security in whatever way you want. If the hacking is being done "into" something, there is no ambiguity at all. This has been the understood meaning ever since people who don't know how to hack in any form have had cause to talk about hacking.

I'm not a physicist, but your argument doesn't sound like any excuse to call RF "ionizing radiation". If you can only throw a ball halfway out of a well, and you throw a ball to someone reaching halfway into it from the top, you don't call that "throwing a ball out of a well".

Were "well-established physical laws" broken the first time man escaped Earth's gravitational field?

Our understanding of science is still largely limited to conditions that we can reproduce, and this continues to put very few absolute bounds on what physical processes absolutely cannot occur, even without some completely immeasurable "magic" force existing.

This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the best arguments for either theism or atheism, but we can do without the tired "breaking the laws of physics" trope.

Neither the ground, nor many other natural obstacles to the wind, are hollow, stiff, slender structures with an apparent wind speed enhanced by its own rotation. Aeroacoustic noise in wind turbines is improving, and outside the regulated exclusion zone maybe it should not be a big deal to residents, but it's not as simple as apparently you think it is.

Or, you know, an electric generator that needs to spin dozens of times faster than the blades, and a gearbox to connect the two. As far as I'm aware, gearbox noise is still as significant an issue as aeroacoustic noise. That is to say, no big deal at all if you keep residents at an appropriate distance and NIMBYs at an even greater distance. But did I mention it's not as simple as apparently you think it is?

Well, we have to use something to cheer ourselves up about the state of our government, and the state of yours is just the ticket!

The BBC's approach to neutrality is generally to take the status quo, incumbent position or majority view, whichever exists in this order, and to present it with counterpoints. This inevitably gives a perception of bias in whichever areas you're most opposed to the prevailing position, but you try coming up with a fairer way than that to discuss things. Of course they don't do a perfect job but it's hard to think of any of their peers that even comes close.

Deem too much effort

If I didn't know better I'd say this is a deliberate caricature of the misappropriated hype around 3D printers.

3D printers are good for making unique parts. As soon as the worldwide demand for a part exceeds more than about 100, the time and energy cost of manufacture per part will exceed the cost of tooling up one of the many mass manufacture processes available to make the part in bulk. That is highly unlikely to change - not least because the better 3D printing gets, the quicker and cheaper it gets to make the unique tools for a bulk operation.

If it wasn't for the total unsuitability of 3D printing for press fit interfaces, this might have had a niche application for circumventing the IP restrictions on establishing a mass manufacture operation. As it is, it's just another chapter in the myth that one day we will download and manufacture most of our own hardware at home. The world is a big place with a lot of people in it, and against the odds we are actually relatively efficient at cooperating with each other when it comes to products that lots of us want.