that said, using advertisement chatbots, if conversation goes uninitiated, will be a surefire way to end my relationship with facebook

insulting facebook users will never get you laid

that anon really has it out for someone's tits

If only they used that system to fight the real evils! like to spot and take away your car keys when you're eating and driving at the same time. or maybe just to take away your food when you're somewhere on your way to heart disease. i hear if your skin's black there's a correlation to you having marijuana in your possession. fucking hedons

I may be buying a smartphone soon. I'm considering getting the nexus 6p because you can root it without voiding the warranty, and because I'll be buying my phone independent of the network contract. Also, I'm most concerned about longevity/durability given the price of these smart phones.

Any reason I should go for samsung instead?

Or maybe cheapness trumps durability? so the nexus vs moto G?

I'm looking for your personal opinion if you had any reason for choosing one phone over the other

For me, things like this come down to the not-so-fine line between personal freedom and involuntary involvement in danger.

My view on this is the same for magnetic buckyballs, extreme sports, recreational drugs and virtually every other case of self-harm. We should focus on idiot-proofing idiots rather idiot-proofing their houses. Let capitalism allow for people to make their own wise decisions.

That said, there's a difference between accidentally eating two buckyballs and shoving them down the throat of someone else.

This is why our government uses the "Tempest" certification on buildings, categorizing whether information can be stolen from electromagnetic emanations within neighboring wall, room, just outside the building, etc.

It's called Van Eck phreaking, and it's one of the many modern day forms of wizardry. Essentially different components of your computer communicate via high frequency electric currents. These currents broadcast corresponding EM waves somewhere in the radio spectrum, and you decode the corresponding frequency components into your own information, which if you know what monitor they're using, for instance, you can catch the signal from their wires and reproduce their monitor image on your screen.

The significance of this article is unclear. I suppose the OP is pointing out the fact that programming languages are becoming more specific and 'tangible' to real-world applications.

I think this quote is sort of the thesis of the article. Even still it's really ambiguous. What opportunities don't live in the 'real world'? Does he mean that information transfer isn't 'physical'? Or is he specifically talking about robotics? User-interfaces? This person needs to work on clarity, and this article should not have been posted on Slashdot.

Wow really? I bet it dwarfs all the other 130-feet long unmanned surface vehicles!!

Great! Maybe they can help me remember my pin

That's why I skip the articles and just look for the information I'm interested in. Like, hmm, how will this ground-based atmosphere-ridden telescope compare to the Hubble Space Telescope?

From the FAQ on http://www.gmto.org/ ... which is linked,

And it goes on to explain that the atmospheric turbulence 200 meters up can be measured with lasers, and the one of the mirrors is physically deformed to compensate for the measured distortions. Pretty neat.

desk: a piece of furniture with a flat or sloped surface and typically with drawers, on which one can place undesirable objects, often used as a dinner place settings.

Obviously this article fails to take into account the tiniest of electrical engineers. If you're an engineer, and your body's aspect ratio is, say, 10 orders of magnitude smaller than the average, you've got job security like a mofo.

The best part about it is that because the regular engineers are so cheap now, you can buy a bunch of tiny ones and be ok with losing them around the office.

Cheaper than scotch tape and pencils??

Ok, so then what's your definition of philosophy? Tell me specifically why you believe they are different.

If you're referring to the 'faith' aspects of some religions vs the 'scientific method' -- or 'rational argument' for philosophy, then you have a very specific definition of the word 'religion'. laxman was right in saying that my definition of religion is very broad, but to me, if you can lump Buddhism and other non-violent, seemingly rational, almost poetic religions into the same category, then both philosophy and science (in their many forms and interpretations) get very close to fitting the more general definition of religion.

Many (but certainly not all) atheists reject 'religion' as outright stupid -- whereas their own life practices are unique and superior. Sure, whatever. They're just making general claims about specific instances, and spouting off the same bullshit words that everybody everywhere at all times says when they don't agree.