You realize that the direction AI and human interaction is moving, we're way closer to getting rid of programming as a career than weeding gardens or building houses with machines. We already have sufficient AI to hack together a reasonable program from a flow chart of requirements and operation. I bet Watson can bang out some nice C++ code, probably much better quality than most humans, just not at a rate that compensates for it's electrical cost.

I made a nice post about it a few weeks back... the idea that the ultimate goal of computer science to to reach the so-called singularity at which point we have an AI capable of writing software and similar human tasks, thus putting the computer scientists and programmers out of work (at least all the ones who aren't at an intellectual capacity to move to some novel field of computation).

Programmers make me laugh hysterically sometimes. Seriously, when in the history of man has an entire portion of an industry been dedicated to the following two goals:
1) Obsolescence of all current vocational knowledge in their field on 5-15 year scales.

2) The ultimate goal of their work is the removal of their job position from the market (the singularity which can hack in C).

Computer trespass laws are pretty clear. It is very reasonable to say that any use of computing resources used for purposes other than the stated, defined purposes, is trespass and hacking, otherwise, hacking becomes undefinable.

I'm not advocating for open source even, merely that software developers bear a legal responsibility that their code perform the job for which it was installed or purchased and that those jobs be clearly delineated.

Inefficient is not the same either as long as the goals for which the end-user installed the software are being approached.

The only grey area would be software which used generation of Bitcoin hashes or similar during an encryption handshake or some other silly method.

I advocate the involved parties all be arrested and charged with relevant computer hacking charges. The software development community needs a clear message sent that such activities are federal crimes and will not be allowed. I don't understand why we are still tolerating a Wild Wild West attitude to computer crimes by corporations when the laws are on the books and quite clear.

Also, trying to pass it off as merely an April fools joke is insulting as well. The closest part to a joke was the Office Space grade conversation about skimming from their own customer base.

Even the 1 joule to extract 1 joule argument is fallacious under many circumstances. There are plenty of situations where being able to compactly carry and refill a very large quantities of joules of energy is more favorable to human effort, time, and energy than the original extraction and refining costs.

Efficiency alone is a poor argument if one ignores utility and the opportunity cost of human time.

Also, most providers in the US like to tell you that you have unlimited SMS, unlimited data, and then ding you with per message charges for MMS.

Frankly, I would love to see a provider go with 2 simple tiers: Unlimited Data (including calls, sms, and everything else they are providing via IPv6 networking). Purely Metered data at pennies or less per MB (for people who just keep a phone for emergencies).

For the kind of bandwidth and performance they want, dedicated routers are needed. A pure ad-hoc setup won't work. The network can be self configuring in an ad-hoc like fashion, with routers acting as supernodes and preferably sending some control data for channel / geographic setup and configuration updates.

Being that this is DARPA, they need to talk to their DOD peers who have solved logistics equations and simulations. You don't send 50+ troops into the field all at equal rank together. You have some sergeants and lieutenants to coordinate command and control. Same thing with a mesh building ad-hoc router. Heck, the math side should work out almost exactly the same for number of equipment tiers and number of equipment pieces at each tiers as for troops in the field.

No, there is no negative mass, and no FTL travel as a result. What you have if antimatter falls up is a change in reaction to a potential.

The defining character of mass is not gravity, as that is merely a potential which exists when you have two or more massive objects or a massive object and a photon. The defining character of mass is momentum. As such, in order for antimatter to fall up, it must inherently have mass, but that mass reacts to the potential of gravity by being repelled.

Sure, for many calculations, using a negative mass number will make the vector equations work out correctly for Newtonian dynamics and Galilean translations involving matter / antimatter gravitational interactions.

Relativistic mass adjustments will need to use the E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 equation or simply be redefined as the magnitude of mass (minor notational changes really).

Perhaps not with "old," but "MBA" still will We'll call 50/50 odds on an exception applying to MBAs in IT/IS from major universities, though the community colleges teach that stuff better at the associates level.

A library I used to frequent kept DVDs on the shelves for 3-day checkout. The selection was mostly landmark films, classics, and historic pieces. I wonder what the law would be if they instead loaned out via streaming (DVDs or Blu-Rays). Instead of a 2-3 day checkout window, they were digitally transported for up to 4 hours (automatically "checked in" when you exit the streaming system or finish the work).

About 10 years back, there was a big uproar that libraries wanted to do similar with regular print books, that is, full conversion to a digital, searchable copy capable of being checked out online. With reference, rare, and similar non-loanable books this would be especially useful to them. The added bonus they saw was less wear and tear on the books along with being able to serve more of the public by reducing check-out windows or making it easier to check stuff in sooner. The IP holders killed the idea dead as quick as possible of course.

The cheap shot the libraries should take now is the "thermonuclear green option". Move the conversation to how much greener it would be if people didn't have to drive their Excursions (much less a Prius) as frequently to the library. Add in all of the carbon footprint chatter about a/c and heating for people constantly coming and going. Then there is going back to the wear and tear. (though frankly I have never heard a good justification for why you ever need to pay for a damaged replacement of something bought under copyright if you a) own a copyright type license and b) the copyright content is the valuable portion)

<trollface>IP holders, why you kill more trees???</trollface>

Trying to keep up with fake or illegitimate journals sounds impossible with the potential rate they can expand. Instead create a curated whitelist of known reputable journals. Maybe to add new or obscure journals require a minimum number of votes before a review committee endorses the journal. A nice extra step would be an optional whitelisting committee and public rating of each journal as well as good summaries of focal areas.

As for the genesis of such a committee, start with offers to join to department heads from all tier 1-4 university in the US and Europe (allow them to round-robin responsibility every n years within their department following their first "term"). Allow committee members to decide what subject areas in which they are involved (due mostly to STEM subject area and expertise overlap).

While I would like the cryptanalyst's public key signing strategy, it's highly flawed. We don't know the credentials of the signers, and the potential signer pool is too unlikely to be filled with people we directly know and trust. Sure, with so many department heads, lots of unreliable data will be introduced, but it will only be noise at best (assuming it does not become a California textbook + Feynman type situation).

The thought of needing Channel-Locks or Vice-Grips to have Alaska King crab is making my mouth water just a bit.

Ars has been bringing in new writers, most of whom are turning out to be low grade hacks ever since The Verge started taking chunks of marketshare. Doesn't help that post Apple / Samsung lawsuits, Apple has been getting a much more public backlash for being trendy arrogant bullshit and marketing. Ars' heavy pro-Apple slant is starting to cost them readership there too.

Still, editorially out of touch with both technophiles and the public, they put out articles like this:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/04/i-was-an-ipad-skeptic/

The Pebble article was put out by someone completely new, doesn't even have a writer's bio on the site yet.

Then there is this new hack who is completely incomprehensible:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/inside-science-selling-and-upsizing-the-meal/

Presumably, I would hope regulators at the FCC would like to have a word with the prosecutors as well.

Then again, I have this crazy belief that law enforcement officers who drive their cruisers 25+ over the speed limit with their lights off should be thrown in jail, like any other criminal.

About 5-6 years ago I came up with a nice two step solution to the issue of traffic citations, especially getting rid of the revenue generation angle most police departments have.
1) "Robin Hood" the citation money, similar to how Texas and other states redistribute education taxes to poorer districts. In this case, since most traffic violations are a matter of state law, collect all of the money centrally to the state and redistribute to each municipality based on a straight per capita basis. Automatically every small town trying to use that 2 mile stretch of freeway they think is their local replacement for normal taxation is done with.
2) Require statewide referendums in order to change enforcement methods.

Further, a camera is never a constitutionally permissible accuser, but others have already gone nicely into the constitutional and legal service requirements not met by current attempts at new revenue sources.