It's like saying almost everybody use their computer for something out of the ordinary, but whatever that is it's not the same. For a lot of those people maybe their disability isn't relevant to your site, for the rest well maybe they need many entirely different solutions. I don't see a deaf person having a problem using 99% of the web, for example. Those with poor vision (not blind) maybe just need a font adjustment. What are you aiming for, 95%? 99%? 99.99999%? Designing a website a blind can read is basically a new site, start from scratch with a blindfold and a screen reader.

Wasn't that really the true divide? Catholics claim salvation follows the "chain of command" from God to the Pope to the cardinals to the bishops to the priests of the Catholic church and that under ordinary circumstances they are the only way to get absolution from your sins. What power this gives the priesthood is left as an exercise to the reader. Protestants claim salvation comes directly from God to those who follow the Bible, priests are prayer leaders but neither priests nor churches are strictly speaking necessary. However from the Catholic point of view protestant priests weren't ordained by the Holy See so they were not part of the "chain of command" but rather false priests that pretended to speak on behalf of God. Commence bloodshed.

FTFY ;)

If you don't really trust anything you haven't personally verified yourself, you can't get very far in real life. Have you verified every line of code that runs on your computer or do you trust it enough to run it anyway? What about the compiler? Do you ever use results from your coworkers without digging through every calculation down to every assumption and verify them? Trust is a measure of confidence in your word, which is weighed against how important it is. If you have no confidence in it, you don't want to waste any time on it (assume false, test false). If you have a bit of confidence that it's might be worthwhile you verify it. (assume false, test true). If you think it's probably right, but you want to verify it that's stronger (assume true, test true). And if you trust it implicitly that's of course trust (assume true, test false).

Sounds like this could be a good thing to learn visual concepts, at least combined with Wikipedia. Like for example you have a rhino, but that's just one instance of rhino photographed from one angle under one set of lighting, camera settings and so on. If you can have a computer go through thousands of photos of rhinos you could maybe capture the variability and boundary to non-rhinos in some way. Rhinos standing, rhinos running, rhinos lying down, rhinos bathing, baby rhinos, old rhinos, male rhinos, female rhinos... computer don't natively "get" the concept of a rhino. Like us we might have to program a neural net where the answer is "I'll know it when I see it". If you could have a computer look at a photo and fairly accurately describe what's in it that'd be rather impressive. And it wouldn't mistake a rhino for an antelope, even if they shared a picture.

Everything except the non-criminals paying for it. Most tuition here is free, student loans typically come from cost of living. Granted you might say we're paying room and board, but as long as we intend to keep them prisoner we don't really have a choice about that. The greatest investment is really time and effort, if they're willing to spend their time in prison in a way that'll be productive when they get out that's great. I don't see how staring at the wall or pumping iron all day is going to help anyone, them or us.

But does the claim go through you or past you, that makes a huge difference if your "third party" can't pay or has hidden their assets or they're abroad or whatever. Will they then take your house, car and savings while you're stuck with a valid but useless claim against that third party? Like if your insurance company went bankrupt between the car accident and the payout you're not off the hook, the claim is against you as the driver first and your insurance company second. It's not a big deal with insurance companies, but the average person doesn't have a million dollars and most likely couldn't pay, which makes it very relevant.

Won't happen or it'd be illegal to forget to charge it or forget it at home. Assuming you want or need to be carrying it around most of the time it's more effective as a screening device, if you are going to a clandestine meeting and five others also happen to have their cell phones go dark at the same time that's a pattern, particularly if it repeats itself. If you're normally online it's probably better to leave it turned on at home, in which case they'd need to look for secondary clues you aren't actually there like number plate readers, CCTV, paying with plastic, facebook tagging, missed calls or collaborating data that you are there like power usage, internet traffic or whatever and start building statistics on how often you are where you appear to be.

I'm not in the cloak-and-dagger business but I have worked on risk assessments on whether you can dig out of personal information out of statistical information and you need to be very careful on how you do that, subtracting a baseline often reveals a surprising amount about the rest. Like say you have a small town with 1000 people and you put in lots of safeguards if the numbers drop to <5 individuals. But if you can get numbers for New York + small town - that will all be big, then subtract New York you'll find that 102-100 = 2 people in that small town belong in that category. Imagine you started combining cell phone data with other data, okay there's your tax records on your work so that's you going to and from work. We have birth and marriage certificates on file, so that's you visiting relatives. That's a friend on Facebook, old classmate.

And then there's something "left over", which is where you can start putting in the effort. Of course you can avoid that by meeting in public where there's lots of people, but you probably wouldn't want to hold a very private conversation nobody should hear there either. And if you keep your cell phones on because you are in public anyway, you can do clustering to find that the same people are meeting in the same place despite there being many other random signals there as well. Give people enough seemingly innocent data and they will dig up something you thought wasn't in there, I'm sure of it. At least I've seen people underestimate it time and time again, only to have to demonstrate it.

The only thing I hate about this episode is that Doctor Who is turning into a miracle worker that can fix anything, anywhere, any time. Where's all that anguish between doing something bad and letting something horrible happen going to go? No more the burden of having killed billions of children to save the universe on your conscience. Time paradoxes, crossing your own time stream, going to your own grave, time locked has ceased to mean anything. Now it was just "the time streams are out of sync, we just won't remember". At the end of every episode, he could essentially go back to the beginning and make it null and void, no more you made a decision and you're stuck with it. Hell, they more than hinted in this episode that they're going to rewrite Trenselor, no more of this future:

The doctor needs a setback, some kind of limitations, something he can't fix. But I think you have pretty much thrown that out the window by fixing the Time War.

You sound like one of those doomsayers that always says that if we do anything for the workers, community or the environment like health and safety, working hours, overtime pay, minimum wage, vacation, sick leave, notice periods, regulations, taxes and so on the capitalists will always move to some third world hellhole that has none of these things. The economy would collapse, the jobs would disappear and we'd end up a third world country. So the solution is instead of fighting the race to the bottom or even trying to go uphill and fail, we should just race towards the bottom to get there first. You should probably get rid of the 13th amendment too as long as the slave contracts were entered into willingly.

Once employees are totally free from all protection from abuse they'll be much equipped to negotiate a fair deal with the megacorporations that they seek employment at since it's all voluntary and nobody's going to be forced into anything because they got rent to pay, kids to feed or something like that. Or if they do, it's their own choice/fault so we shouldn't intervene. If the corporations put abusive terms in their employment contracts, people will simply refuse to work for them and another company that hires better people from the full pool will take over, run the other company into bankruptcy and the invisible hand of the market will fix everything. It's almost like Santa Claus, except more adults believe in it.

Maybe it works for you if you're well above average good and it's not a matter of whether you'd be employed or not, it's only a matter of shopping around for the highest bidder. When it's a worker's market and companies are struggling to find enough qualified workers, all is well. It's when it's an employer's market that the thumbscrews come out and people are caught in a game of chicken, accept less favorable work conditions or be out of a job. Oh and almost everyone is now in a hiring freeze, unless you're the CEO's nephew. So would you voluntarily like to sign this revised employee agreement or would you like to voluntarily pick up your two weeks pay check and be on the dole?

Businesses operate on those terms we allow them to operate, sure they can choose not to do business here then but as long as we can find enough jobs that do want to treat their employees decently it's not necessary to bend over and lube up so they'll set up sweatshops here. P.S. Unlike the US, in Switzerland the democracy is not defective. The people actually make the decisions, much to the frustration of both corporations and politicians alike. I consider their model a fantastic democratic achievement that I wish more countries would adopt, but much like the US "two-party" system it'd require the politicians in power to rescind power. That's not going to happen without a revolution.

They could, but it'd be pointless for the same reason nobody wants to gobble up AMD for 2-3 billion. All those cross licensing deals would become invalid (like for example x86-64 that AMD invented) and they'd have a nightmare trying to relicense it.

From Anandtech's article on Crystalwell:

Perhaps simply because people buy what works for them and won't buy what won't work for them? It's silly to extrapolate that because your current users are happy that everybody would be happy with it.

For a one person, single car household you'd either have to keep two cars or go pure EV. The first is very expensive (depreciation, parking spot - very expensive in inner city, insurance, maintenance) and environmentally questionable anyway because of all the resources that go into production even if you drive cleaner. The other alternative is to go pure EV, which means I'd almost certainly push the limits and end up in "Can I get home with 2km of range, I really don't want to wait half an hour at a charging station" situations because the threshold to rent a ICE car would be rather high. And I couldn't go on a weekend cabin trip without buying a Tesla. Which is an excellent car I'm sure, if you're looking to spend that much money on a car but I don't.

For a two person, two car household a mixed pair works better because you have an ICE car for when one or both need it, unless you both happen to need it at the same time going to different things. Here I think it's more about people being possessive, it usually ends up being "his" and "her" car. One gets the big, comfy road trip car and the other the small commute EV and they don't like having to borrow or lending it away. They'd rather get two ICEs, one each and that's that unless one is in for repairs or if they need to swap for other reasons it feels like a more equal trade. Not to mention there's a ton of competition for small, cheap cars for inner city driving.

Hybrids are somewhat interesting but they're often the worst of both worlds as you get far more complexity, much less electric range and a tiny ICE for when you run out. Jack of all trades, king of none. And even my new apartment building (2013) doesn't have chargers for hybrids/EVs, so I'd have to go out of my way to get a charger at home. Meanwhile I pass three gas stations on the way to work, it's simple, it's flexible and it works. But give me a Tesla at half the price and I'd buy that, no problem.

At the time, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer in the world with special purpose chess chips, a regular desktop today would be strong but not that ridiculously much stronger. I read an article recently from the creator where he guessed seven losses and three draws in ten games. But if you really wanted to you could always build a similar supercomputer (168.1 TFlops vs 11.38 GFlops) that'd be 10000 times more powerful just to make really, really sure.

Meh, if you want to apply that logic then the first thing we should do away with is hygiene and medicine. People used to have lots of children, why didn't it turn into a population boom until the 20th century? Because lots of those children died, their mothers died in labor, people in general died from pests and plagues and infections and diseases. Culture changed and currently we're only producing enough children to sustain a small growth in population, in fact if birth rates continue to decline the world population will peak at 9-10 billion. There's a fill-up effect but we're not in a boom anymore, if we don't run into other issues like resource exhaustion, global warming or whatever it looks like we won't have any problems feeding the whole world population. The roughly 0,1% of the world population that will starve to death this year do so because of civil war and chaos, not because we can't increase food production another 0,1%. If it was possible to safely deliver aid nobody would need to starve.