Yes, look at the article: "NYPD spokeswoman Kim Royster told The New York Times the department was "creating new ways to communicate effectively with the community" and that Twitter provided "an open forum for an uncensored exchange" that is "good for our city."

Oh, but they didn't mean it! They didn't expect this, we subverted it! It's a backfire, really!

What else could either side possibly say? Anyways, the Police comment is closer to the truth, this is good for the city.

As many as possible. I've said for years the real money lies in being a welder, plumber, or an electrician.

But have you tried backing it up with any facts? People keep repeating it, but the statistics keep insisting otherwise. You can point to an anecdote about a welder who made $150K in a year. The trouble is showing that large numbers of young people could all become welders who make $150K per year. On average, welders make $32,000 per year. And that's among welders who actually hold a job as a welder.

I'll add, most of these controversies purportedly about "science" are really controversies about "the status quo that cherrypicks bits of science to lend itself credibility". Powerful men have defined reality for the proles long before they had any sort of science by which to claim legitimacy. "Scientific data proves it (and only an idiot would question THAT)" can be used (abused by dishonest people) in a manner very similar to "God told me I should rule over you!" The purpose is the same: "don't argue with me, accept it as truth".

If you want to see that in action, look at why aspartame as a food additive was originally not allowed, then why the FDA director was pressured out of the agency, and who replaced him and what his primary goal was (which was of course approving aspartame). That's what money does to what was formerly good science.

How do you read what he wrote and come up with that in response to it? Do you secretly believe everyone other than yourself is a moron?

It's like Slashdotters think it is weakness to try and understand what the other person believes and in what way it could be reasonable. It depends on the part where what the guy wrote must also be interpreted by the reader, and everything except rigorous mathematical formulae has multiple ways that it can be construed.

There actually are lots of problems with vaccines but you will never find this information without sincerely searching for it yourself, because there are too many monied interests who profit from a single view of the situation.

It's not as well known as it deserves to be, but the early Christians were actually a very diverse group. What we now call Gnosticism was representative of many if not most of them.

Sadly it was systematically stamped out, largely in part because there is such great power in organized religion and adherence to its dogmas.

Excluded, "non-canonical" books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Judas are really fascinating to read.

That's both sad and amusing. Having read and learned about the Bible, I can tell you this much: the geneologies in Genesis and elsewhere are not complete and exhuastive. They do not claim to be complete and exhaustive. Nowhere in the Bible is it so much as implied that they are.

The standard ancient Hebrew practice of listing such geneologies is to list only the most famous/notable ancestors. More mediocre and lesser-known ancestors are left out deliberately because they were not considered worthy of mention. Thus there are large gaps of unknown time in the geneologies listed in Genesis and elsewhere. Nothing to the contrary is ever claimed. This fact is not even difficult to find out, except that it does depend on doing your own homework instead of letting the TV and the culture do the thinking for you. The main point of all the geneologies in the Bible is to establish that the line of King David was known (old testament) and is the same line from which Yeshua (new testament) is descended, which is important because various prophecies concerning the Messiah predicted this (e.g. Isaiah).

To infer some kind of final ultimate Age of Humanity or Age of The Earth from this is madness. The Bible never represents it as such, and anyone claiming it does is simply unfamiliar with the very book (and ancient Hebrew culture) they are claiming to understand. The Bible makes no claims whatsoever concerning things like how long ago Adam lived, how long ago Noah lived, how long ago the Flood was, etc.

Most self-described Christians don't know this and that's just plain fucking lazy, to be frank with you. You believe this is the WORD OF GOD and yet you can't be bothered to learn a few easily researched facts about it?? This is what happens when people always have some excuse for why they won't do their own thinking and their own learning.

Whoah, I just googled it and Corning just (in the last week) released a USB3 optical converter/cable that's $109.99 for 10m. Maybe USB 3.1 will get us there - one connection to rule them all (even HDMI and ethernet).

That sounds interesting for piping TV throughout the home, but what about all the USB peripherals you need on a terminal? (Mouse, keyboard, USB connection for syncing your mp3 player, etc). I guess you could just solve the mouse/keyboard situation with a wireless peripherals if the range is sufficient, although bluetooth for one is not meant to work through walls.

Ah well, a thunderbolt dock is like $300 anyways, vs. $30 for a good USB3 hub. I think USB will beat out thunderbolt.

If you are conducting the surveillance of me necessary to make that determination, then your surveillance is faulty. I merely gave an example scenario and I don't share this puerile urge to make everything into a personal matter. So I wrote in such a way that I made no claims about my own programming skill or lack thereof, in order to provide a hypothetical. What I wrote is equally true whether I've never seen a compiler before or whether I am an advanced expert.

The hostility you have makes you appear stupid because it prevents you from thinking of such things. After all, such things might make me seem reasonable and level-headed. That would be like giving aid and comfort to The Enemy, right?

At no point did I say that anyone should or shouldn't work on this project. Re-read it yourself if you doubt I know what I wrote. To paraphrase: what I said is that it's an unusually important project and therefore the work involves higher stakes. No one is really going to care very much if you screw up a free single-player solitaire game. If you screw up SSL, that can impact many other people in negative ways. By saying that I am hardly keeping competent people from their jobs, though it's flattering that you would ascribe to me such power.

This isn't difficult to acknowledge; at least, it certainly shouldn't be. Is there something about saying it that makes you so angry? Were you built up by praise you didn't really earn and are coming to realize how fragile a foundation that really is, or what (by means of my "platitudes")? Beware of hating someone for no good reason, someone who means well by you and wants good things for you. It's one of the more toxic ways you can pollute yourself.

Ever heard of the principle of non-resistance? If he really was trolling then my post will affect him more than it could affect anyone else.

I don't really think he was. I think he made an emotional outburst reflecting his view of an unpleasant (but improving) situation. That can seem like trolling especially when it turns into a big story (among techies anyway) like this did. But I don't claim to know his heart and I could be wrong, in which case the above applies.

I'm just afraid those ridiculous prices won't come down until optical is the norm. $659 for a 30m cable? A 30m fiber network cable is $60.

No, terminal servers and thin clients are pretty useless on today's video-heavy applications.

Hey, it's 2014 and USB 1.0 was standardized 19 years ago, this tech ought to be good by now. That said USB3 is pretty good. The only thing I connect via Thunderbolt on my Macbook is the external display, and I'm not even clear on whether that's actually Thunderbolt, or just a faux Thunderbolt DisplayPort connector.

The article does not list "extended range" among the advantages, so I guess they are not switching over to the optical thunderbolt. Too bad, I think that would be a much bigger advantage than the 2x speedup (my MacBook already has 2 thunderbolt2 connectors). If optical thunderbolt ever catches on you could use it to attach multiple terminals to a computer, such as routing uncompressed low-latency video signals throughout your home. Last I checked, there still is not a good way to do this over gigabit ethernet.

How directly comparable are the megapixel figures anyways? To start with, I don't think Lytro has a bayer filter, and it is less sensitive to lens quality.