Ummm, because I posted the part that was germane? The GP said they didn't want others to see their profile pic. The part I quoted said you cannot restrict things that way. The part you quoted was about limiting availability in search, which is not what they were talking about.

GP wrote: "you can no longer have your Profile Pic show up for friends only". The GP was correct. From the new privacy policy:

Certain categories of information such as your name, profile photo, list of friends and pages you are a fan of, gender, geographic region, and networks you belong to are considered publicly available to everyone, including Facebook-enhanced applications, and therefore do not have privacy settings.

Everyone is basically saying "pretty pictures, but the story sucks"

The New York Times's hoity-toity film reviewer Manohla Dargis (who usually only likes stuff with subtitles) begs to differ.

My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math

I don't think the biggest problem is economists' grasp of math. Rather, it's that (a) the people implementing the economists' mathematical theories don't have a good grasp of the math, and (b) economists don't have a good grasp of the people their math is supposed to model.

FTFA:

Tepper, Duick's attorney, said he discussed the campaign with Toyota's attorneys earlier this year, and they said the "opting in" Harp referred to was done when Duick's friend e-mailed her a "personality test" that contained a link to an "indecipherable" written statement that Toyota used as a form of consent from Duick.

Tepper, said that during those legal negotiations, Toyota's lawyers claimed Duick signed the written legal agreement, which they said amounts to "informed written consent." [emphasis added]

I work in research with human subjects, and there is no way this constitutes informed consent.

If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.

But they're making a much broader claim if they're calling it informed consent. Informed consent means that she comprehended what was going to happen to her as a result of agreeing. In other words, "informed consent" isn't just a statement about the objective content of the opt-in statement -- it's an assertion about the state of mind of the person who gave consent. If she had truly given informed consent, then not only would she have no legal claim, but she'd have no moral claim either (because she'd have known what she was getting into). But it's blindingly obvious that that isn't true here.

Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?

Nope.

It depends what you mean by "how long" -- how long in a given day, or how long between vacation periods? Cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that the spacing of study occasions is highly important for learning and long-term retention. The education literature is full of studies on summer learning loss. So Obama isn't just making this up out of nowhere -- he's basing his proposal on a substantial body of empirical research.

Sounds like you and your American friend were both making the same mistake.

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

Everybody in this thread and below seems to think the monitors are going to be used for medical monitoring. But the summary doesn't say that, and I doubt that's the case.

Heart rate monitors are pretty commonly used in cardio training to help individuals identify an optimal level of exertion to benefit from their workout. Presumably, giving heart rate monitors to different kids with widely varying fitness levels might allow a gym teacher to tailor activities to each kid and help them track their own, individual progress. I'm not sure that the tech is really necessary for 7th and 8th graders, but it's not as harebrained as medical diagnosis.

it is very common in this age range of employees

And there's the key. It isn't about texting or any other technology. It's about the fact that a 17-year-old is still maturing and still learning how to be a responsible adult.

You didn't always know how important it is to show up on time and be fully mentally engaged with your job. At some point along the way you had to learn that. If you don't remember not knowing that when you were a teenager, it's okay. You probably didn't even realize what you didn't know because you were, you know, a teenager.

"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates, 400 BC

Stop trying to turn it on the poster. We can see through your canard.

I think /.ers will realize before turning the first page that even the most ridiculously complex security system can be thwarted by stickies posted to people's monitors.

What I suspect many /.ers do not adequately consider is that the most ridiculously complex security systems are especially likely to be thwarted by user behavior.

The folks who design security systems need to realize that human beings are part of the system (i.e., pay attention to usability and to the peculiarities of human cognition, motivation, and behavior). If they cannot get past blaming users, they will simply continue to design computationally elegant but functionally ineffective security systems.

83% of cancer patients but fewer than 83% of healthy volunteers

Let me introduce you to my friend Reverend Bayes.

Except that if you actually click through the word "Altruism" to the writeup, you'll see that they mention kin selection and reciprocity in the very first paragraph.

Also, the word "altruism" is not outmoded in the scientific literature. Nor is it a synonym for helping behavior. In fact, that seems to be the source of your confusion. Altruism refers to behaviors that benefit others but not the individual doing the behavior -- and in the context of TFA (and many philosophical discussions), evolutionary advantage is not considered "real" altruism. "Altruism" is thus being used here to refer to helping behavior that confers no evolutionary advantage. Which is why it is a mystery from an evolutionary perspective. QED.