I'll just go ahead and blame my poor grammar above on old GI Joe commercials.

I've always been a little astounded at the general acceptance of marketing campaigns that are directed toward children. It's hard to see how the existence of teams of highly educated and extremely well funded adults who's job is to most effectively manipulate the minds of young children for profit is anything other than profoundly unethical and malevolent.

Targeting adults with marketing is pretty sleazy, but targeting little kids seems more than a little fucked up.

I'm in the same boat, heritage-wise. My nick here was supposed to be a jab at my tribe's early assimilation into European culture (it seemed way more clever when I was a kid), but ultimately it was assimilation that led my tribe to be much better off than many others, even if we are much more "white".

Efforts like the one in the article are less about preserving failing tribes and cultures and more about assimilating their individuals into our own. Hopefully, they bring the good aspects of their culture with them and we are all richer from the process. Part of the reason that they're still stuck in a failing culture is because their lack of education limits their mobility and independent growth.

That's the purpose of "two-factor authentication", but not the purpose of any single factor. Yahoo is replacing the single factor "something you know" with "something you have", which is possibly an upgrade in security.

The factors themselves aren't equivalent in terms of security. "Something you have" is much easier for a normal person to secure than "something you know". That's why houses and cars use keys and office buildings use keycards and not codes. People (on average) are pretty decent at holding onto their phone and horrible at keeping their password safe (even if they pick a good password, which they wont).

One of my professors said that he wanted a bracelet with all of his pre-med students' names on it and instructions to never let any of them treat him. After a few semesters of TAing them, I have to agree!

If you're interested in reading papers outside of your area of expertise, this is what I'd recommend. Firstly, don't read the paper from front to back. Contemporary journal articles are way too dry for that and you likely don't care about all of the sections (eg, the experimental methods).

Read the abstract to determine if you are actually interested in what the paper is going to discuss. The abstract will also give you a decent idea of who the writer considers to be their audience; if the abstract is completely and totally over your head, you're not likely to understand most of the paper.

After that, you can skim the introduction to get a grasp of the context (and read any introductory subsections that you aren't familiar with or are fascinated by).

In my field (and many/most others?), the story is generally told through figures of data and their captions. Generally, you can inspect the figures and captions and get a very good idea of what the paper is saying and what they're basing their conclusions on. You can jump to parts of the discussion section if you want more information than the captions are providing.

The conclusions section ties it all together, but too often that section is just a wordier restatement of the abstract. The conclusions are also where you're most likely to find the speculative crap that excites journalists and potential sources of funding.

If you're really into the topic, or it's in your field, you can dive in and read the sections that interest you, but a well crafted scientific paper should be able to tell the whole story through the figures and captions.

How about we all unite to hold our representatives accountable for their actions, regardless of their party affiliation or whether we consider them to be on "our team"? Using party politics to excuse a lack of integrity is completely fucked up thinking. When everybody is happy to let their team off the hook for bad behavior, we (obviously and predictably) get bad behavior across the board.

To be fair, all of the negative comments relate to the the claim that, "Even though it is made up almost entirely of plastic, he says that it could function as a replacement for the real thing."

Had the article writer not said that (he must have misinterpreted the builder, a mechanical engineer who seems to know how transmissions work), and the submitter here not misrepresented it even further, the comments would likely be much different. It's all in the presentation. ErnieKey chose to present it as a drop-in transmission, which is not the way the article portrays it.

Spideroak. Still closed source five years after they said that they would open it. Never independently audited. All expectations of security and privacy are derived solely from marketing claims. Even the "zero knowledge" claim is more marketing speak than truth. Caveat emptor.

Closed source all-in-one crypto and cloud storage is almost never the right answer.

And yet your sig advocates the 3D printing of arms! Make up your mind. ;)

You couldn't have described the fucked up state of American politics and government any more succinctly if you tried.

Or something's gone terribly wrong with the Puppeteers' Fleet of Worlds...

Neutrino beams used for stellar morse code does sound a bit desperate.

No kidding! It's a good thing stuff like that doesn't happen anymore. And even if it does, we can all be completely apathetic about it in forty years.

Property rights do extend to the airspace immediately above the land. For example, hovering a helicopter ten feet above somebody else's house would still constitute trespass. If the GP was complaining about a buzzing drone, this test would also be relevant:

An entry above the surface of the earth, in the air space in the possession of another, by a person who is traveling in an aircraft, is privileged if the flight is conducted... at such a height as not to interfere unreasonably with the possessor’s enjoyment of the surface of the earth and the air space above it

from here. Of course, this is specifically about occupied aircraft.

There are plenty of established cases in the linked article dealing with trespass in the air above the property of others. There is also established case law regarding destruction of non-human trespassers. There's nothing specific to drones, but it's not exactly alien terrain.

Well, if my exposure to people has taught me anything, a huge amount of those visitors would be using flash photography while simultaneously getting annoyed by other people also using flash photography.

"All this flashing is really annoying," the tourist says just before flashing their camera.