Well, the cost of cameras will continue to decrease, and the ease of processing video and integrating it with other data in useful ways will continue to increase, so the number of cameras being used in public is going to increase. That's not going to change, so you're probably going to have to deal with it.

I'm personally against the current policy of drug control. That said, you know you have a rotten argument when you stop talking about policies and start talking about the people who don't agree with you.

They're not endangered and they don't have throats. Also, before you ask, they're not crabs and they're not horseshoes.

That'll teach me to preview.

Sign up for an account at Soylent News and enjoy all the benefits of a low user id.

I'm glad there are a few people here who recognize this. Mathematics requires computation, but since its inception in Greek geometry that has never been the focus of the subject. Writing proofs is almost exactly like writing code, and it's not a coincidence.

That should be prefix, obviously.

The modern usage of the suffix originates with Wiener's book, nearly a decade before CDC was founded.

In 2009, the median age at first marriage was 26 for women and 28 for men. Any job which requires significant education will have a higher average age than the general population, which probably explains the difference in marriage rates. This looks to be a simple average over job categories, which didn't account for that.

It looks like somebody who knows a little bit about a few European languages is over-generalizing. There's no grammatical gender in Japanese or Chinese. IIRC Japanese didn't even have gender-specific pronouns until kanojo was invented as a way to translate "she" from European languages. Mandarin has three pronouns for he, she and it, but they're pronounced the same way and only differ in writing.

It's just stupidity by journalists, so don't be surprised. The official title of the bill is "A bill to require mobile service providers and mobile device manufacturers to give consumers the ability to remotely delete data from mobile devices and render such devices inoperable".

That would be true if its native range included the entirety of Europe.

I'm actually working on a fairly JS intensive algorithm right now. FF's JS engine is, on this test, *slightly* faster and a bit less memory intensive. Subjectively chrome has a faster layout engine (I'm not testing that right now and , honestly, I try not to anger that particular demon since reflow is the slowest thing one can do in JS!) .
Right now it is a bit of a wash. *This is a good thing.* Everyone chasing each other, trying to out-perform, out-do, etc. Remember before the browser speed wars? How slow it was be default? Sub-second laoding-procesing-rendering times wasn't always the norm!
Pick whichever browser you want. IE10+, FF, Chrome, etc etc. They are all relatively compliant, fast, and will serve you well. Choose on features!

Isn't the future awesome?

I really like Wikipedia's opening line on science:
“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”

I also like the opening monologue from “Haloween on Military Street”:
“We measure things by what we are.
To the maggots in the cheese, the cheese is the universe.
To the worms in the corpse, the corpse is the cosmos.
How, then, can we be so cocksure about our our world?
Just because of our telescopes and microscopes and the splitting of the atom?!
Certainly not
Science is but an organized system of ignorance!
There are more things in Heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in any philosophy.
What do we know about the beyond?
Do we know what's behind the beyond?
I'm afraid some of us hardly know what's beyond the behind”

Both, in their own way, do a good job of highlighting that our knowledge is fallible, and that at best we can hope to merely organize our understanding as it stands and find ways forward.

It would seem that claiming that science has a “monopoly on truth” is at odds with the admission that the grand sum of scientific knowledge stands upon the single caveat that it is based on observation, experimentation, and repeatability.

I agree that it would be the height of hubris to believe that we will or can understand everything in the universe, but it is not hubris to attempt the understanding of everything we have power to.
Whomever gave you the impression that humans are in any way infallible, weather following the scientific method or not, was a zealot.

Science is a way to organize knowledge. The scientific method is a way to observe, experiment, and theorize such that we can obtain theories that fit those observations and can be reproduced. Any other claims are either ancillary or false.