According to the TOS, and common sense, this is scanning your emails to serve you ads. Granted, Gmail does the same thing, so maybe no one will care. It is still worth mentioning.

Inequality is already in my DNA, in the form of epigenetic changes caused by my ability to afford a certain lifestyle. I can afford to shop at the organic grocery store. I can afford a gym membership. I can afford time to meditate because I don't have 3 jobs. I can afford to relax when I want. Instead of punishing people who can achieve something, lets plan to help the ones who can't achieve what they need, for whatever reason. I'd rather have a conversation about how to make genetic fixes available to the poor too, instead of screaming that the rich ought to suffer with the rest of us. The rich will have this anyway. Someone, somewhere else, will perfect the technology, and people who can afford to travel will have it.

Here is a map of air pollution in the United States http://www.nws.noaa.gov/airqua... Here is a map of mental illness in the United States http://www.medicaldaily.com/sa... If toxic particles from the air are getting into human brains, could this be related?

It's intentional. Media companies are embedding high-pitched codes that you can't hear into all sorts of things, like music. Your phone tells the advertiser what you're doing in meatspace. It's a whole new way to track you.

Ad networks are totally doing this. I don't have proof so I won't name names because I don't want to be sued for libel. The root of the problem is that the phone's permissions allow an app with microphone access to listen all the time whether or not the user is running the app in the foreground. Be suspicious of anything that needs microphone privileges, especially if it's something that has no reason to need to use the microphone. Looking at you, Twitter.

People can generally guess a lot about you, based on things you say and do. No fancypants machine learning necessary.

Who do we hate more?

I'll just leave this here. http://www.ewg.org/research/te...

I had an internship at a place that did research bringing things like this to market. The problem isn't just marketability. The problem is being able to reproduce something. There is a big gap between what one very smart person can do in their lab, and what a factory can produce. A technique that can't be mass produced can't help the masses. Profit is obviously a motive, and that's an entirely different discussion. That being said, a lot of really interesting research is lost because it can't be made into a product, and it's a big problem. Even if a charity wanted to give this away for free, it's not possible without being able to make this into a mass marketable product.

Something something revolution something.

Post a job ad, with a caveat in the description that developers can't see the code they are supposed to work on. Report back when you don't get any results. Have some conversations with recruiters and candidates, and document the WTF reactions while you're at it. It may also be worth getting different quotes from the team you wanted to hire: one at a rate with reasonable accommodations that allow them to do their jobs, and another where they will have to deal with endless BS because management doesn't trust anyone. The truth of the matter is that someone really, really wants to target your company, they will. An employee could steal something. You could be hacked. A very determined assailant, given enough time and resources, will get to you. There are tradeoffs made to account for this possibility, while allowing enough latitude for people to do their jobs. It's the same with this group of contractors. If they really, really wanted to steal from you, then they could, and no amount of legal procedure would stop them. If they have built up a good reputation, then they probably won't do this. At the end of the day, this gets down to managing the fear level of your superiors, and it may mean letting something go undone until they come around to letting go a little bit.

If a company truly needs expertise that just simply cannot be found in the US, then a six figure salary is probably a bargain. Of course, this will never pass. I can dream, though.

Leave the phone at home. Alternate solution: buy something like this. http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/...

The article says he is irreplacable, and that about 17% of Australian women are at risk for the condition his blood helps to correct. Is there a backup plan for how to handle that many at-risk pregnancies when Mr. Harrison can no longer donate?

The article mentions a $250 cheek swab test for breast cancer risk. These tests are being sold to all sorts of doctors, and interpretation is included. Is this test more or less accurate than blood testing done for a BRCAplus panel done by a geneticist? Are *all* genetic test results prone to this kind of error in interpretation, or just the cheap commodity ones? Which ones are better? Is the test itself inaccurate, the interpretation, or both? Vague article is vague. Scaring people without actionable data is irresponsible and cruel, especially when we're talking about people who are concerned enough about these cancers to have sought out testing for risk.