Perhaps they're also looking for ways to annoy enough people into quitting so that they don't have the pay out any severance when the next round of layoffs starts. This seems like something that would push a few people over the edge, though I suspect it might be some of their better workers. Then again, the current suit only cares long enough to hit some bonuses based on poorly chosen metrics in order to cash out with a golden parachute while the company collapses.

You can use them for about anything where you need to keep track of some data and a database is overkill. Back in the day, I had a teacher using spreadsheet software for a grade book that could automatically sum the scores and apply a curve instead of having to do it all by hand. My brother would keep track of online auction data in a spreadsheet. I've seen a few people use them to make a quick and easy chore list for their kids. They're also useful for kids who want to make some simple graphs or charts for a school report. There are probably dozens of other ways that people use them on a regular basis that I might never imagine myself.

I don't see how that precludes that average Joe from owning it. It only means that they'll be having it drive for Uber or some similar service while they're at work on not using it. Obviously not everyone will do that or even want to do that, but so long as it makes financial sense to do so, enough people will.

Possibly as soon as you factor in insurance costs. Assuming that autonomous vehicles can live up to some of the hype related to safety, the insurance premiums should be a pittance compared to what many people currently pay. If you have a car that's only likely to be at fault (or better yet, in an accident at all if it can drive defensively well enough) in the event of catastrophic failure, it should cost far less to insure. The initial cost may be higher, but could be amortized over the length of its ownership in lowered insurance premiums.

To some extend that does make it more of a luxury item, but many products start off that way until economics of scale and market competition can drive down the prices. Also it's interesting it that based on insurance costs, the value proposition for an autonomous vehicle improves for people who are the worst drivers. Reducing accidents on their end goes a long way to making the road better for everyone.

For a long time I didn't mind having ads enabled on Slashdot as they tended to behave well, but recently they've been beyond annoying. They make noise and eat inordinate amounts of CPU time for no purpose. When will advertisers realize it's better to make a simple ad that's respectful to the audience than to make one that no one will ever care to look at? I don't doubt that they can get by fine in general when advertising to the unwashed masses, but this is a tech site and the users are no strangers to ad-blocking plug-ins or other means of never viewing their content.

I'd almost immediately consider anyone making a threat on Twitter, Facebook, or other social media site to be among the least credible threats. Anyone stupid enough to blab about those plans in public is too much of an idiot to get anywhere close to successfully accomplishing such a thing.

The more credible threats are the ones posted on message boards or in chat rooms or other small corners of the internet where like-minded folk gather. Most of what you find there will still be people bouncing words and ideas around their little echo chamber, but a few might be crazy enough to try. Even then, I'd be far more concerned with the people who makes threats about shooting up a mall or blowing up a school as that's a far more attainable goal on a much softer target.

Any threat worth devoting resources to stopping is likely to be using encryption or avoiding the internet as much as possible and trying not to draw attention to themselves.

A better system would be to look at the online history and behavior of any individuals who have committed acts of terrorism or engaged is mass shootings or other violence to see if you can identify future cases based on any common behavior. That would be a far better use of resources than keeping tabs on some Jimbo who's always spouting his mouth off about the gov'mint being evil.

I almost believe that Obama wanted them to do so, because it's such a ridiculous complaint that one, immediately lowers the credibility of anyone complaining about it (at least in my eyes), and two, keeps them focused on something ridiculous and harmless rather than find a better avenue of attack.

If I were running for office, I'd probably start some ridiculous rumor about myself that is utterly incredulous in the hopes that my detractors pick up on it and run with it. It's just going to make their side look worse, and the more I ignore or deflect on the matter, the more they'll think they've found something and focus on it, which just makes them seem even more crazy and out of touch.

The most compelling reason to dislike a group often comes from the extreme elements within that group. PETA and Greenpeace didn't become loathed because of attacks from the outside, but rather from the actions of radical members of those groups that are often out of touch with reality. Dump as much fuel on that fire as possible and even the rank-and-file will become alienated with the group.

I'll guess extreme poverty is the reason, but they're not going to be buying the vaccines either, so it seems like we should be spending money on the bed nets as the cost-benefit ratio is going to be better. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't also do vaccination where possible, but it seems like from an economic point of view, the bed nets are what aid money or humanitarian groups should be focusing on.

From the article:

While research into a vaccine is great, why haven't we focused efforts on supplying bed nets for everyone? I'm assuming that they'll cost less than the vaccine per unit and they also have the advantage of being reused.

They might disagree but they would do better to shine the light on the government itself more often. In that regard, they may as well change their motto to "In Justice We Trust".

It sounds like they spend hours every day practicing and refining the skills that are important. Just because they're not utilizing the entire body or required to have ridiculous muscle mass to compete does not make it less of a sport.

Both billiards and baton twirling are considered sports, and they're no more physically demanding than gaming, but do require developing and refining skills in order to be competitive. Golf is another perfect example and it's really apt as for most people it is a leisure activity, much as games are.

Video games certainly do put a lot more emphasis on the mental side of the game and many share more in common with something like chess where strategic thinking and planning are highly important, but several also rely on fast reaction time and good hand-eye coordination. If you spend hours every day working to improve those things so that you can perform better in competitions, it's pretty clearly blurring the lines quite a lot. So what's your classification system for what does and does not constitute a sport?

You sound like one of those people, who had they been born 100 years earlier, would be arguing that film is not art.

You could still fit your hand or arm between the two though. Just because it's not possible for your entire body to touch a stove burner doesn't make it less of a safety issue.

I'll assume this technology is generally safe, but that it could interfere with medical devices or the like, which is another form of safety issue even if it's not a big deal for most people.

This is really ignoring how humans function as well as almost all of our history. We might not be killing each other as much, but many groups still do no like the others in the slightest nor show much sign of changing. The only way colonizing Mars achieves peace in the Middle East is if one of the groups leaves Earth.

I've thought the same thing. There shouldn't be a first grade, second grade, etc. but rather several classes that for each topic that a student can progress through individually. Maybe Johnny can't read so good and needs to repeat the first sequence in reading, but is fine in all other aspects or perhaps little Suzy is a math prodigy and can jump ahead a sequence or two but isn't excelling in her other topics so she should just stay put in those.

Such a system sounds far more preferable as it affords students the opportunity to excel in one area while being behind in another without being drug or forced to sit through material that's not at their level. Such a system is going to be more of a logistical problem for teachers and administrators than the current set up, but I think it's a least worth testing out.

Worse still, it's more work that won't improve outcomes as there's a lack of good evidence to support that individualizing learning styles does any good. There are studies that have found negative results.

This is just like the programs to give students a laptop, a tablet, or something else that's supposed to be great for education but won't result in any significant changes. It's made to sound nice and fancy so that schools will spend millions of dollars on it and who would want to question funding something to improve education?