This should have been:

So, that fraction of the species will die off, and the goal wasn't reached. What we should do instead is following: produce female mosquitoes who are pre-filled with blood (e.g. by giving them blood from ), and with a genetic switch so that their offsprings are only male, and release them every year into the wild. Now they will lay their eggs into the water, and will compete with the "normal" mosquitoes, reducing the overall number of female mosquitoes, because the mosquitoes in the eggs are only males. Now as the released mosquitoes lay their eggs themselves, they catch every spot the "normal" females would get, removing the need to deploy any poison to all possible locations. By keeping the release rates up every season, the modified fraction won't die off.

People get nutty because media get nutty. Media get nutty about terrorists attacks, because these are things to report about. Basically, they do exactly what the terrorists want them to do: spread the information about the event.

If a plane crashes, media report, because hundreds of people die at the same moment. No news channel will send live 4k helicopter footage from all 300 car accidents that would be needed to create a comparable number of deaths on the road.

If you are researching in the Neuroscience field, you have a simple descision: either you accept that most grant money is inside the "curing Altzheimer" corner, and start constructing a story how your research can heal patients from Altzheimer, Parkinson or HIV, or you are heroic and don't get grant money. Your competition does get the money though, so you end up with them having an advantage.

I mean this is an effect of giving money only to research that has curing these illnesses as goal. If you do the groundwork, you don't get any money, so you have to do some of the higher level stuff too, which perhaps others would do if grants were fairly distributed. You can debate whether this is good or bad, both sides have their points.

Welcome to slashdot!

thats four times LiteOS! Get some Huawei developers work on this, and they'll reduce this patch to 64 bytes.

Yes it doesn't mean, but when it says "google", your data land at their servers. And from a security standpoint, they have control.

No, the sensors are already there. The 'internet of things' hype is about giving control over machines and private information from sensors to large companies.

yes, but once your software becomes open source, your service can be replaced by that oss part and a off the shelf server. Usually, thats cheaper than your price. If its not cheaper, then you don't make money with your service, because your service will use that off the shelf server too. If you open source, you basically give away the additional value of your service for free.

You can do what facebook and google do of course, and only publish parts of the technology you developed: google published protobuf, facebook a php compiler.

Exactly my thought too.

In 100 years, there will be singularity. In 2084, when the singularity takes over the world, your area was scheduled for destruction by nuclear missile, because uploading its control virus onto your brain implant chips (mandatory by international treaties since the 2076 terror attack on google city (new name of mountain view since 2060), pushed by US president Bush junior junior) would have required too long.

The goal is to kill off flash and silverlight plugins for videos, which is long overdue. Fat plugins are far worse than just DRM plugins. My only hope is now that that adobe DRM really costs money, so that it isn't adopted at much websites.

Both false positives and true negatives come with a cost. Calculate the probability with which a system is right, and you only have to do basic math to find out whether the prediction system gives you an economic or humanitarian advantage. As the humanitarian cost for false positives is very low compared to the economic one, it is very possible that there will be an unbalance between "most (economically or humanitarian) profitable strategies". Deciding between those can be I guess cause for some political debate.