Between TOR and Bitcoin, you would think these things were designed by security services like the NSA or GCHQ. TOR is slow, onerous, and never provided reliable anonymity. If anything, the low network throughput was part of the design to slow the dissemination of large files like government documents and child pornography.

Technically, TOR was designed by the US Navy. Not quite the NSA, but still, government designed.

And the DS really are for exit nodes - taking the servers is the last thing I 'd do. I'd rather run a bunch of exit nodes then force the DS to route traffic over them since he who controls exit nodes has the power to spy, modify and do lots of other things with traffic.

Because you know sooner or later someone's going to log into their Google, Amazon, Facebook or other thing like their bank and completely de-anonymize themselves.

But this specific tactic doesn't make sense. Too much incriminating evidence about Sony's own underhanded practices has been released by the hackers. Too many of Sony's own people have been put at risk because of this. Sony might be evil, and they might be stupid, but they are not this spiteful.

Perhaps a marketing manager for Sony decided to exploit the hack as a marketing maneuver? They got hacked, well, why not capitalize on it?

The PR on this turd is incredible - you simply cannot buy this amount of free publicity. With even POTUS calling on its release, it doesn't matter anymore.

Once the hack news dies down, release the movie and make up some excuse saying the FBI let it through or something, starting hype round #2.

Sometimes you just have a situation ripe for the picking.

There is no "national firewall." You may be thinking of China. Or more likely not thinking at all. It's fascinating how people will invent or repeat the most badly-informed (I'm too polite to say stupidest) things about Cuba and think they're intelligent.

Well, a large number of countries have some form of censorship or surveillance system for the internet. A completely free internet is available to few people.

So there may not be any firewall now, but that doesn't prevent them from implementing it later.

And when you do let children use a laser you own, make sure you supervise them closely.

I have a great t-shirt from Meredith Instruments that reads "DANGER! LASER RADIATION! Do not expose beam to remaining eye."

Sadly, most of the arrests have been people in the age of majority - perhaps they had the maturity of children, but they aren't children. Plus, given how expensive they are (several hundred bucks), it generally isn't a children's toy.

As for those claiming that it's not a problem because no one's lost a life yet - really? Aviation already is built upon the blood of many people, some of whom lost their lives over something as stupid as a light bulb.

And no, it may not be a direct cause, but it may be the last link of a chain of events that leads to an accident. Every mishap has been a chain - if any one of those things were different, it wouldn't have happened. Perhaps the pilot is in bad weather already trying hard to find the runway and then a flash comes across the cockpit. He blinks, it goes away, and he continues, but what he thinks is the runway is a after glow spot (similar to how a flashbulb causes temporary spots) and boom, crashes the airplane into a building along the glidepath.

And perhaps someone you know is on that plane.

Since I don't know your specific situation, I could be completely misinterpreting what you mean. But it seems you have 0% "figure out the problem".

Math isn't a subject that has to be learned the way foreign language or geography has to be learned. If you don't have something described to you in a book, then you absolutely need another reference to learn most subjects (such as a TA, Lecture, or Internet).

But with math you never need a reference for anything but definitions, and most definitions should be obvious anyway. There is always a first person to solve a math problem, and he had no references.

Like I said, I could be completely misreading your situation, but from what you wrote, it sounds like if there isn't a template for how to solve every single problem type that you give up. If all you know how to do is follow methods and change numbers around here and there, then you aren't learning math.

The greatest instruction anyone can give a person who pursues math is simply to ask a question that they can solve if they try. Many of us who study math seriously love nothing more than to be given a problem that's just barely out of reach.

That and Physics is the same way.

It's probably why those subjects are "hard" because they require creativity and inspiration to actually do - it's problem solving at its simplest level and it's what those in the engineering fields thrive on.

Anyhow, if you're struck trying to do math problems, you have to realize that they all follow the same pattern. After the subject is introduced, the first few problems will be solved by direct application of the lesson. Then the next few will be ones applying the current lesson and previous lessons. It all accumulates until the final set of problems involves a bunch of skills from the text, from your past math education, and so on.

And if you're struggling, the goal is not do just the required problems, but to start at the beginning of the problem set.and do them all. Yes, it's beyond the assignment, but you have to realize that the assignment is just the tip of the iceberg - a good prof already tells you that the problem set they assign is hard, and to really do it, a good student needs to do the entire set.

Same goes for physics problems. The first few questions directly apply equations and formulas from the chapter. Then the next ones apply several concepts together until you get to the mega one that pulls in multiple methods. And many even have multiple ways of tackling the problem that are correct. (Previous problems will lead y ou down each path thent he final one lets you decide which one you use). On an exam, that's a lifesaver because it lets you try both ways and if you don't get the same answer, you messed up.

The goal is to realize that the text is giving you the tools, the probme is to string those tools together. It's like programming or engineering.

And sometimes the most satisfying problems are the ones that look like they're impossible,but when you start realizing what you have, where you need to go, and little brain power and then AHA!

Hell, one trick I do is you write down everything you know that was given in the problem. Then figure out what you need to answer, and figure out what gets you there. And draw pictures, schematics, whatever to illustrate those factors you know, what you don't, and the pieces you do have. And the pieces that are implied

This malware relies on weakness in wetware rather than software. No general-purpose operating system can save you from PEBKAC issues, at most partially mitigate them. Unix-style execute bit rather than Windows' extensions reduces the number of vulnerable idiots by like 2-3 orders of magnitude, but you can bet that if the webpage kindly provides instructions, a good number of marks will still manage to get infected.

It's really just another form of Dancing Pigs social engineering attack. You give the user a plausible reason for downloading and installing software, and you'll find users go out of t heir way to install it.

Doesn't matter the OS. And it can be anything - be it porn, a "private porn browser" or other such tool and any OS is vulnerable. (Yes, "private porn browser" - download now and browse your porn in privacy and even your wife won't find out...).

There has always been a small percentage of aristocrats in society who do not have to work because of their amassed wealth. Looking at how they spent their time is probably a decent indicator of how most of the population will spend their time 50-100 years from now. My guess is most people will put far more effort into their hobbies, and many of those hobbies will turn into part time jobs. All basic and even most non-basic needs will be covered by social welfare programs paid for by publicly owned mostly-automated industries. People will only work because they want to, and the very few undesirable jobs that can't be automated will pay excessively well.

At least that is the best possible outcome. Their are plenty of dystopian possibilities as well.

AI replacing jobs is fine - as long as they're getting rid of grunt work jobs people hate doing and replacing them with higher quality, higher paying jobs that are more challenging.

Crap work jobs are the kind that offer no form of mental or physical stimulation or physical challenges that generally embody "good work". Physically demanding jobs like oil rig workers, (crab) fisherman, etc., appeal to few folks who really do enjoy the physical punishment and pain for a challenge they can do with their hands, while more creative industries like technology and culture appeal to those who wish to use their mental powers.

Crap jobs AI can probably take over would be stuff like janitorial work, simple assembly line style work where there is no physical challenge other than repetitive-strain injury and barely any mental stimulation.

As for the outcomes, unfortunately, the masses who toil will be the ones out of work and homeless while the rich buy up the land. Money is power, and power is not something that an AI really replaces. (It's actually those in power that will use AI to replace jobs to save on labor costs. The former employee is now jobless and has less money and thus power than when they were employed).

That's not to say it isn't impossible to have a place where humans are able to do work for the betterment of humanity than just toil around, but it needs to be a carefully designed and planned environment.

See Marshall Brain's Manna.

With your current background, you could get a job in technical writing. Every firm that does engineering needs people like you who:

* Understand the subject matter
* Can write about it readably

Exactly. An English major already has a leg up provided they can communicate in writing. And the more engineering classes you can take related to the field your company works in, your writing's only going to improve as you're able to understand the engineers better and write fairly decent documentation.

Heck, get a job in communications with a company that does STEM work you like - sure you'll write PR and all that in the beginning, but that's the point - skills like communications are VERY valuable, and if you can better yourself by understanding more about what the company does by taking classes in the field, you can only go up from writing marketing copy to documentation, both internal and external.

If you can augment it to interfacing with customers, you're instantly a manager - able to take vague notions of what customers want and translating them into nice neat requirements that the engineering team can understand.

Practical arts skills like languages are typically undervalued everywhere, but are extremely useful. Businesses need to communicate, both internally and externally so you've already got positions you can slot yourself into. Just find a company doing the STEM things you like and try to fit yourself in.

Anti-trust concerns usually do benefit the consumer in the short term. And as the article points out, the jury specifically wrote that the features have an immediate benefit to the consumer.

Usually anti-trust problems are not immediately bad for the consumer. In the short term the consumer sees a lower price, easier access, and other conveniences.

In the long term the market ends up with monopolies and oligopolies, a loss of vibrancy, a slowdown in innovation, less desire to follow expensive advances, and worse customer experiences. Think of your local telco and cable companies as prime examples.

Or in this case, rendered utterly irrelevant.

Because iTunes sells unprotected music. Just like Amazon and many other music stores. iTunes is still #1, but their market share is sliding.

The iPods are on life-support - they don't make Apple much money anymore but Apple keeps them around because there's still a tiny demand for them.

And streaming services have basically taken over music sales - sales from iTunes and other stores is far lower nowadays while streaming services like Pandora and others are rising.

Whatever harm iTunes did, seems to have resulted in a far more vibrant marketplace now than it was years ago.

When you say pencil, I'm pretty sure you mean "graphite". A lovely and useful substance, to be sure, but not especially close to graphene.

Actually, graphite is merely disorganized graphene - the layers of graphene in graphite are in general layers (which let you lay down a line fairly easily), but they're not particularly big nor particularly long - it's really a disorganized heap of graphene molded together. When you write with a pencil, the line is composed of a lot of little pieces of graphene.

Heck, one of the first production methods involved regular tape and pencils - the pencil was rubbed onto paper and tape applied to the spot which lifts off the graphene.

Language also embeds within it history. And history is important for many reasons (many of which are related to "if you don't study it, you'll repeat it").

Europe's an interesting study - you have the Barbaric English, the Germanic Germans, the Romantic French/Spanish/Italians, and so forth. All of which reflect the interesting history and empires of Europe. (Romantic - sure we like to think of the French as good at love, and that may be the origins of the word "romantic" in English, yet it refers to the more practical Roman Empire roots which is why they're quite similar today, despite millennia of independent evolution).

Heck, the modern day is shaped by culture too - internet memes manage to worm their way into our language. The rise of smartphones brings about the rise of the use of the word "selfie" (despite cameraphones being popular prior to the smartphone, and many often had mirrors to enable selfie taking, the word itself pretty much arose post-iPhone).

Language is culture. If you want to learn a language without culture, you need to go for an artificial one. Learn Klingon. Or Esperanto.

Even in the Internet age language is evolving to accommodate new aspects of internet culture that crop up. To claim it all as empty and vapid really denies the fact that languages evolve because of the culture of the day.

It takes about 15 years of steady progress to get from "shitty ______ car" to "I'd consider ______ cars these days"

The Korean cars are very acceptable in quality, and the price difference between them and the Japanese of similar models is almost enough to make the switch.

For a manufacturer perhaps. For a consumer who got bitten by buying a "sh*tty car" well, it can take far longer to never.

I know back in the 80s when Hyundai first went into cars and introduced the POS Pony to North America. A car that would only start if you managed to twiddle the radio knob, the phase of the moon was right, it was sunny outside and you blinked the headlights 3 times. And maybe even honked the horn.

Oh and yes, sunny day required. If there was a hint of moisture, it would stall.

These days though, Korean cars aren't too shabby - they took a lot of design cues (and designers) from Europe, a few engineers from Japan and end up producing decent looking and performing cars with quite high quality.

Eminent domain those house and get some more lanes in.

Probably better to put a new highway in off to one side or another, considering it's LA go with both.

Actually, LA is the #1 example of trying to out-build congestion. And traffic engineers have observed and pretty much concluded that traffic expands to fill all lanes. Build another lane and it's full and congested in relatively short order.

So no, trying to build more lanes of traffic just leads to ever worse traffic in the end as it expands to fill the new space up. The goal instead is to try to promote more efficient use of the road - a whole city block of (single occupant) cars can be cleared up by one bus carrying the same number of people.

Very forward looking behavior from apple. You're going to need 64 bit to use more than 2GB of ram without major pain (32 bit addressing is a bitch and workarounds are slow) By the time the rest of the industry is going to be faced with the inevitable transition apple will already have years of experience with 64bit in their mobile platform.

Actually, Apple didn't do it for memory, they did it because AArch64 is a more efficient architecture. I.e., it's a lot faster. ARMv8 over ARMv7 running 32-bit code is only around 10-20% faster. But run the same code in 64-bit mode and it screams.

It's how people got the "2x faster" figures on the A7 SoC - in 64-bit mode things are way faster on the A7 than if you ran it in 32 bit mode.

Android will get similar speedups once it's fully 64-bit...

Samsung is a Korean company and manufacturers ICs in Korea.

Actually, Samsung owns a fab in Texas that makes Apple SoCs - and that's all it does.

And that's been the case for a few years now, even through the Samsung-Apple patent spat.

It's a complex relationship, to the say the least -