Seriously. The internet is the only medium I can think of where ads are 1) not necessarily delivered from the site publisher and/or 2) able to present a security threat via various vectors.

If you go to a website you are asking to be shown content hosted on that website, you aren't giving every other random site or 3rd, 4th, or 5th party ad farm that site decided to add to their code access to your machine. I remember cleaning up thousands of machines that were compromised by ads or other 3rd party crap sites had linked in them. Not a day went by where I didn't wish for a MASSIVE class action suit against a big site publisher for the damage their ads and other crap had done. If that had ever happened we wouldn't even be having these discussions and site would serve all their ads from themselves.

Speak for yourself. Dead tree media survives abuse that digital does not. And until companies start treating digital media rights exactly the same as dead tree media they can pound sand. I can resell, lend, or give away dead tree media, I don't have to worry about the publisher breaking into my house to take the book back from my bookshelf. Dead tree media works just fine without power, and can survive falls and being bent and crushed. Dead tree media doesn't require anything additional to be useful, no need for the expense of anything computerized, and definitely no need for anything proprietary that needs constant security updates or patches. All I want to do is read, I don't want to have to worry about maintaining yet another stupid digital tool and might not even last a few years. There's a book on the other side of the room from me that was published over 100 years ago, yet I keep hearing about how different digital things keep vanishing for various reasons. Digital is great if its a BETTER replacement than analog, most digital media just simply isn't.

Label it whatever you want but a lot of us HIGHLY resent being forced to commute 2-3 hours round trip to sit in an open office where you barely get a shelf that masquerades as a desk subjected to all the noise and distraction of being packed in so closely to a bunch of chatterboxes on speakerphone meetings, not to mention people constantly walking up to you interrupting what you are trying to do because they think their emergency is somehow your problem, only to be doing a job that is effectively remote anyway since there's exactly nothing that you are doing in your workday that requires you to be in that stupid office. After my job got classed as 100% remote I saved thousands in fuel, vehicle maintenance, and meals, recovered 10+ hours I had been wasting on commuting each week, and have the ability to deal with chores around the house like dishes and laundry while still being more productive. Plus I can take a break to walk my dog or just go outside into the fresh air of the woods behind my house rather than deal with the pollution and human garbage of the inner-city office.

You do you but FFS if someone was able to do their job from anywhere and you FORCE them to commute to an office you are a seriously toxic employer.

When did people, especially people like security researchers, just absolutely forget that things like SFTP even exist? Why in the hell would you want to stick something like that up in the cloud in Sharepoint or whatever where it is effectively out of your hands for someone else to retrieve? If you want to give a file to someone securely and reliably set up your own SFTP server or use theirs, then you won't have any gripes about this nonsense.

I don't trust these statistics in the slightest. Monster.com, a site built around job-hunting, finds that most of the people they contact are looking for new jobs.

Aw, shucks. I'll bite. Who do we have to thank for clean water, breathable air, functioning highways, and safe food and medicine?

Between Elon Musk's description of global thermonuclear destruction (he advocated... more as a joke but it was a semi-serious suggestion... that the polar icecaps of Mars could be nuked to release atmospheric gasses to terraform the planet), building tunnels under cities, having orbital space lasers under his control (with the Skylink satellites), and a forgotten island retreat under his control (Kwajelin Island)..... does that make him into a Bond villain?

It is merely a matter of perspective, but billionaires like him certainly seem like they have the potential to be a supervillain as much as a superhero.

What these dudes making AI with a PhD are doing instead is a new level of bullshitting with fancy words that impresses people with money and of course legislators who are about as clueless regarding computer technology. They think manipulating a URL to look at the image directory of a server is "hacking".

Machine learning isn't all that complex and it sure isn't even new either. I agree with others here that this is just an ignorant journalism major spouting off buzz words.

If you want to see a really nice GUI designed AI interface? Grab Scratch from MIT and then look at some of the AI experiments that have been done in that programming environment. They aren't necessarily all that fast and certainly some other programming environments would make them work more efficiently, but it isn't even all that new.

Also.... the other shoe dropped when they got into the "app store" business model the developers of this "Cortex" programming environment started to explain what they were doing. It is a scam to separate you from money in your wallet where the author bought into the buzz words to make this seem like a cool thing.

SpaceX set a company record for the most flights in a calendar year, but not quite a global record for any company/organization. They are doing some good though and are definitely a competitor in the global launch market and having a significant impact upon launch prices right now.

And I agree with you that any company which can send aloft a piece of equipment which functions at all while in orbit is pretty damn impressive. Getting into space is just barely possible and has almost no room for excuses or lazy engineering. Virgin Galactic is an example of a company who has tried and failed with unfortunately several deaths associated with their efforts too.

What you are describing is what is called a test pilot. The crews have even already been announced and are among some of the most experienced pilots you could ever imagine existing and veterans of several shuttle flights too I might add along with years of experience being test pilots with aircraft and many other accomplishments.

That is how you do a crewed test flight. A test pilot is somebody who is both an engineer and an accomplished pilot and gives detailed engineering analysis both during and after the flight based upon actual experiences.

As a side note, every aircraft ever made commercially has a test pilot which flies that aircraft for the first time before it is handed over to a customer, sometimes it is flown several times. That doesn't happen much with spacecraft other than most pilots and commanders of space missions in the past have traditionally been test pilots anyway including usually a thousand hours+ of experience operating multiple kinds of aircraft and spacecraft.

While space-based factories might be useful a century from now, the infrastructure needed to get one built simply doesn't exist right now.

I'm sure Elon Musk has heard every crazy idea you can think up and more, 99.99% of which he legitimately ignores as a waste of his time and even has hired multiple assistants to filter out the cranks and scam artists who try to give him such suggestions. It is a bit harder to filter out ideas from actual SpaceX employees, but then they tend to be a bit more grounded because they are producing actual spacecraft doing things in space.

There is zero reason for Elon Musk to be reading any of these comments, and little if any reason for any of those assistants who filter the crap like this to bother reading either.

That perfectly describes air traffic at Heathrow or O'Hare. A "collision" in this case is multiple aircraft trying to take off or land at a given airport where there is a priority scheduler which decides what "packet" or aircraft will enter the "airstream".

On rare occasions though, actual collisions do happen. It can be a fatal error too. It is mainly an issue of the proper "software" being "installed" or taught properly to avoid those errors.

The first flight of the Space Shuttle (STS) was incredibly risky. So much so that the astronauts actually sat in ejection seats (which were removed in later flights) and only two astronauts flew in what was arguably a test flight without any cargo at all... other than the two crew members and food for about a day. It didn't spend that much time in space either, but was mostly a flight up, a few orbits to evaluate systems in actual spaceflight, and then an incredibly risky landing.

It should be pointed out also that there were nearly a dozen landing tests prior to STS-1.

The Shuttle flew without major problems and did not blow up on the pad on the first flight (that happened later). The truth be told, the Shuttle was an experimental vehicle on all 135 flights, and on the last flight it was evaluated that the odds of survival (literally.... the odds of the crew living after the flight) was less than 90%. That is less than a Sigma 1 reliability... hardly something of any kind of praise.

I agree. The Falcon Heavy isn't a successor. It is an additional launch vehicle which can put up payloads that the Falcon 9 simply can't do.

The largest advantage of the Falcon Heavy is that it shares a great many components with the Falcon 9, including the engines and the internal tank design. That is also the reason why it has taken so long to get built, as the Falcon 9 design kept shifting and getting rolled onto the Falcon Heavy. As a matter of fact, the Falcon 9 is currently capable of sending the same tonnage that was anticipated for the Falcon Heavy when it was originally unveiled at the National Press Club so many years ago.

That whole thing is moot anyways as both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy are slated to be retired as a design in the next 5-10 years and factory production may even be slowed down or stop altogether in the next couple of years in favor of the BFR. The only thing that will keep them coming out of the factory is due to the fact that the BFR is by necessity going to be built in another factory as the City of Hawthorn has refused to give permits to move the BFR through city streets. And yes, SpaceX asked.

What testing would a Tesla Roadster need to go through that hasn't been already done by the U.S. Department of Transportation, given that the vehicle has already a mountain of test data simply to put the vehicle into serial production?

It would be far more expensive to certify a block of concrete than to take a vehicle which already has the data needed for evaluation available. It isn't like this is the first automobile that the FAA has needed to certify for flight worthiness before.