It's almost as though the FBI is being hamfisted and incompetent again; but that couldn't be right...

Now buying homebrewing gear will join buying hydroponic gardening equipment on the list of 'completely legal things most likely to cause the DEA to batter down your door and shoot your dog.'

That'll be fun.

While I find his preaching about the moral rightness of what he does, and our duty to endure whatever shit he wishes to shove in our faces to be deeply obnoxious; it would not entirely surprise me if this little experiment by the carriers ends up going...badly.

Ad-blocking at the client end('client end' includes routers, filtering appliances, etc. under user control, if the applicable network is large or geeky enough) is simply the right of the individual to run the software of their choice on their hardware, to best serve their interests, in action. Running a public HTTP server doesn't give you some special right to dictate how the output is formatted for display.

Ad-blocking at the carrier level, though, gets risky fast. Whenever an ISP starts deviating from 'dumb pipe' operation, you have to start worrying about whose interests are going to win out, and how dramatically. Especially risky if (as is the case with quite a few cellular companies and ISPs) they also have a side interest in advertising, consumer analytics, a media arm, or other properties that could benefit from a little traffic meddling. We've already seen some of the more obscure WISPs provide 'ad blocking', then inject their own ads over the originals, worst of both worlds.

Ad blocking is well and good(and, frankly, until the advertisers can clean up the ghastly security situation, they have no justification for whining. Ads are easily the most dangerous part of most parts of the web you'd admit to visiting in polite company); but anything that gives ISPs more control over traffic is to be watched with considerable concern. You don't think that a plan to stick it to google is going to stop at blocking google's ads, do you? Not when they could use their privileged position on the wire to achieve the same tracking and advertising that google actually has to offer attractive services to achieve...

My impression is that Apple's industrial design people believe cables, physical buttons, and anything that requires a hole in the shell of the product to be intrinsically filthy and sinful.

The mac mini, which has among the fewest integrated peripherals of any current Apple product, wantonly incites users to plug their filthy cables into the various ports cut into the perfection of the aluminium body. The iMac, by contrast, can be used in relative purity(with bluetooth peripherals) marred only by a power cable that is discretely hidden as such a shame should be.

I strongly suspect that you are right, your reasoning is certainly sound; but I'd assume that if they have a percentage for NSI phones, they should have percentages for other categories, and it's only fair to take action based on actual data, when you can.

That's what I meant about 'barely concealed desire to kill the mac mini'. Time was when Apple considered the mini to be a strategically valuable product, both for replacing the emac as a school computer lab staple and for converting former PC user households. Not coincidentally, that's the time when they were actually pretty aggressively priced, unless you counted best-buy shelf crap that managed to be massively larger and still noisier.

Now, they'd really prefer that schools sling ipads and households either buy imacs(or, in either case, just go with laptops). Their tepid updates, uncompetitive pricing, and frankly painful lower end configurations reflect this. They haven't yet gotten to the point where they can kill them off; but they sure don't care much.

So, for NSI phones, the figures are reportedly 70% fraudulent, 30% legit.

But what am I supposed to compare that to? What are the numbers for wired phones? Cellphones on contracts? Prepaid cell phones?

This seems like pretty important information if one hopes to make a decision. Nobody wants bogus 911 calls cluttering up the system; but is 70% fraud similar? Modestly worse? Terrible?

Also, if we deem 911 access to be a social good(which is why NSI 911 calls work at all, and seems pretty reasonable), why not split the difference and allow someone to 'register' an NSI phone(having their particulars on file with 911 dispatch is likely to discourage spurious use and potentially be useful for locating them in an emergency if they are unable to provide clarification themselves thanks to injury or exigent circumstance) without signing up for a paid calling plan? So long as it is 911 only, it's still no competition for actual calling plans; but it's less draconian than just killing NSI 911 entirely.

Intel is lucky that Apple appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the mac mini, and bootcamp. Otherwise it'd be tricky to imagine many NUCs moving at all.

Given the NFL's more or less uniformly dishonorable record on football related traumatic brain injury (roughly the same honesty, and similar stalling tactics, as tobacco producers); it wouldn't entirely surprise me if they are worried about this guy because he's a football player with an easily demonstrable history of high intellectual capability.

If he ends up a pitiful sad-sack, markedly damaged, the story pretty much writes itself: "From published mathematician with lots of papers you don't even understand the title of, to broken man, thanks to football!". In players without any baseline, or where the baseline is roughly 'normal to sub-normal intelligence, no non-football skills of significant note', there may still end up being a sad story of cognitive effects(it doesn't just knock off IQ points, depression, emotional disregulation, and other quality-of-life ruiners are pretty typical); but the story won't be nice and clear cut in the same way.

There are sociopaths that do overt violence; but most of them don't last so long in the wild. Either somebody kills them, or they kill somebody stupidly and impulsively and the criminal justice system gets them. (Though much of our more rigorous research on sociopathy is built on them; because people doing very long sentences in high security prisons are comparatively easy to sign up for studies, it breaks the tedium if nothing else, while getting high-functioning sociopaths with busy schedules who aren't in prison to cooperate can be tricky).

That aside, mistaking voluntary physical aggression for mutual entertainment for 'violence', because the mechanics look fairly similar, seems to be a mistake similar to mistaking consensual sexual behavior for 'rape', because the mechanics look fairly similar. It is pretty weird what our more atavistic tendencies have led us to think is fun; but so long as everyone involved is an informed and willing participant, so what?

I think that the 'surprise' here is related to the (quite numerous, now that the NFL has pretty much lost the battle to keep CTE under wraps) stories about how the head trauma you experience in football has a nasty habit of wrecking your brain in a variety of unpleasant ways.

The fact that not all math professors are wholly sedentary, feeble, and bookish isn't a huge surprise; but seeing one doing something well known to have a high risk of chewing up his brain and spitting it out, that is somewhat curious. I would have expected him to choose something with more below-the-neck contact. Soft tissue damage and broken bones are something that humans cope with fairly well, and Team Medicine knows a lot about dealing with, if natural recuperation isn't cutting it; but brains are touchier; and there is a lot less we can do for you if yours isn't working so well.

It sounds like somebody is justifying have their head in the sand by commissioning a fancy study on mineralogy.

People fucking hate call centers because they have to traverse some hellish phone tree, wait too long to talk to a representative who is generally underinformed and insufficiently empowered to actually do anything about the problem. In some cases the rep is even required by company policy to be actively unhelpful, attempt upsells, and the like. Plus, of course, nobody calls phone support when things are working properly, so you start out with a somewhat skewed sample of people who are having issues of one kind or another; not so much happy people just looking to transact.

What do they want? The magic fancy AI to tell them how to keep customers from being pissed off because of bad service without actually making service better? The one weird trick to making someone feel calm about being told that the problem cannot be fixed? A deeper understanding of why listening to hold music and inane recordings about how much we care about your call for half an hour is obnoxious?

Haven't 'drugs' been winning the war on drugs by almost unbelievable margins more or less continually since it was declared?

Why, if they were as dangerous as my kindly DARE officer claimed, we'd probably be living under the iron heel of a drugs occupation force right now.

While it'd be fun to take out the atheist triumphalism drum, it's worth noting that the thing being measured is religious affiliation not 'theological position' or 'amount of magical thinking done per day', or 'even the vaguest knowledge of how empiricism works'.

Religious affiliation is quite significant, of course, it's obviously notable that substantially more people both can't be bothered to get their ass out of bed on Sunday morning and are willing to admit that they have no formal affiliation(historically, at least in the US, you might not actually attend all that often, or pay that much attention; but denying association was somewhat transgressive). It's also significant for the hopes of various religious groups to exercise political power through organized bloc voting (the 'moral majority', not that it was ever either, sure isn't going to be done any good by the evangelical protestant numbers, nor is the ability of bishops to bluster during election season going to improve with those catholic numbers.

However, it's by no means the case that religious non-affiliation is necessarily anything other than pure disinterest, or vague belief in supernatural entities(probably shaped by a layman-level understanding of whatever your parents nominally believed, with any overtly objectionable parts left on the cutting room floor). There may also be a story about atheism here; but that isn't really the poll result.

In that sense, the results aren't really too surprising: the liberal protestant and 'cafeteria catholic' congregations have been working their way toward being increasingly irrelevant social activities for years to decades now; some nice people and all that; but pretty light on religion, which meant that they drifted into direct competition with any and all other activities you do with other people, without being obviously more entertaining, conveniently scheduled, or otherwise competitive.

The more conservative groups tended to retain the religiosity a bit more intensely; but they really got burned by their flirtation with state power(let's say roughly Reagan through Bush II in round numbers). They did get some of what they wanted, though not enough to prevent disappointment; but they burned a lot of religious legitimacy in the process. Remember that jewish radical who said that his kingdom was not of this world? Well, it'd be hard to argue that the evangelical power-brokers hanging out at the 'National Prayer Breakfast' and trying to get Washington to do something about homos and abortionists do. Even if your beliefs are fairly strong, and largely 'Christian' in outline, it's hard to avoid seeing the liberal wing of Christianity as increasingly wishy-washy and irrelevant, certainly not worth going to church with; and the conservative wing as dangerously unfocused on the kingdom of god in favor of trying to achieve local political gains.

I don't doubt that there are some exceptions, possibly even some motivated enough to be slightly dangerous; but those people I've met who actively want religion to die out (as opposed to merely being atheists personally, or apathetic toward metaphysics) specifically want it do die out by persuasion rather than persecution.

It is relatively trivial, if you have the resources, to wipe out a belief just by killing everyone who holds it. However, that's an atrocity and an atrocious 'argument', if it can even be called one. You prove nothing but power, and being an awful person, by doing it. It is only a victory of ideas if people voluntarily come to believe differently.

There's also the consideration that religions(in addition to their metaphysics and their moral prescriptions, which do tend to trouble atheists and non-aligned) tend to be a fairly large chunk of cultural practice(either because they developed it or because they co-opted and modified existing traditions. It is not at all uncommon for atheists to actively enjoy these aspects (the big, scary, Richard Dawkins himself is said to participate in christmas related ceremony with his family...), so long as they don't include religious leaders being granted state power and other unpleasant side effects.

Perhaps Rob Kaper is more ardent than usual, I don't speak for him; but my guess is that, while he'd be pleased to have you lose faith, you are in no danger whatsoever and may continue without incident.