If your internet service provider throttles your Netflix internet connection just call and downgrade your service from that $49.99 plan to the $29.99 one. When the customer service rep wants to know why you are downgrading, let them know exactly why their service isn't worth the money you are paying. If it continues to happen call and cancel the service all together. At the end of the day they are a business and like all businesses their #1 priority should be to make you the consumer happy, if they don't it's your job as a consumer to remind them why they need to.

Isn't everything affected by social engineering in some way? Just being a realist, whether it be news, social media, TV, Hollywood movies, video games all play some role in social engineering society and there are more aspects to this that probably haven't even been thought of or publicized. Basing your life around everything you see or hear is definitely not wise. At the end of the day people need to be smart enough to make educated decisions by taking all things into account and with a grain of salt.

Electric and self driving cars are definitely a good area to be in. My guess is silicon valley will pave the way and the automobile industry will just buy them out at some point and market into their existing vehicles.

It's tough to compete with companies like Netflix and Amazon. Netflix has a wide range of movies and TV shows while Amazon Prime offers great content as well. Hulu while still a major player I've fallen out of touch with. Cutting the cord with telecom companies is definitely a fast growing trend. I'm a little skeptical of new companies like this because it's a market that has already been tapped into by the major Tech companies. Pluto is great for free content as they profit from commhttps://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/17/11/17/1725231/moviepass-reveals-annual-subscription-for-695-a-month#ercials much in the same way traditional cable used to be before it cost money.

Sometimes the best action is no action at all. This couldn't be applied more appropriately to anyone other than the government. While I agree that there are instances where bad things happen and it is out of everyone's control except for those involved, I largely dispute the idea that the government has to get involved every time something unfortunate happens in the world. In just about every instance where the government has gotten involved whether it be foreign affairs, domestic matters, drugs or policing the net result has almost always been counterproductive to the cause. Whether the driving forces be greed or fear I don't think it dismisses the fact they they are still wrong. To address crime (not just addiction) or terrorism there needs to be a paradigm shift that has to occur. Passing more laws, increasing prison sizes or increasing military budget or going to war while might seem like a quick fix, doesn't really address the underlying problems and in most cases exacerbates them. Law enforcement should really be handed over to the Healthcare Industry. Yes, healthcare, it's a very complicated problem whereas in most instances can be remedied by medication and/or therapy. There are qualified people who go to school for addressing things like this. Only the most heinous crimes where medical treatment has failed should additional measures be taken, not out of necessity for punishment but for public safety. Poverty and the media is another cause but I am not going to get into all the ways to address those as there are many. As for military/war, going to war never solves anything. The bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq will do nothing but radicalize more people and give rise to additional attacks and hate groups. You mention Vietnam... there is nothing good that came out of the US involvement there. There are consequences to all the wars that have taken place and I can imagine that in the decades to follow you will begin to see the result of it, if not already. Any action taken with foreign nations needs to be handled a little more elegantly with a level of humanity, but most importantly not driven by profit, greed or fear.

Of course there are easier, more rational approaches that would nearly eradicate the drug epidemic in the US. No half intelligent person would dispute that fact. Like most issues in the US though, they are intentional, self inflicted and mostly driven by greed. The war on drugs fits into every aspect of the government's agenda so will likely not be replaced anytime soon. The reason it hasn't ended is because nobody in the government or contractors want it to end. Same reason we will stay in a perpetual state of war, it's profitable. Obviously there is no real threat, there hasn't been since invention of atomic weapons. That's why the US has to fly halfway around the world to bomb a bunch of randoms in the desert.

A.) If you aren't a US government employee you should probably have Kaspersky installed on your machine for security reasons. B.) The government has started recruiting foreign nationals to develop cyber espionage software. Not surprising since they have many more options available for silencing recruits that decide they want to go public and since they aren't protected by the US Constitution they can pretty much do whatever they want with them; in secret of course. Yikes!

Consumers really have no need for ISP's in the first place. The internet is merely a network and can be extended fairly easily using a mesh network. If you're not familiar with the term look it up. Of course, government tries to prevent circumventing monopolies through use of FCC regulations, but still possible. A simple mesh network would provide everyone with free internet access and would put the power back into the hands of the consumers. There are several mesh networks already available and new ones being developed right now such as sonnet. Mix this technology with advanced compression and encryption algorithms and voila. It's just a matter of it gaining wider public attention, so eliminating net neutrality will have backfiring consequences even if those consequences involve consumers doing away with ISP's altogether.

My understanding in reading this article is that the SEC will want to identify people who attempt to exchange bitcoin for paper currency. This makes pretty good sense from a government perspective since the real threat of bitcoin is it's ability to transfer money anonymously and avoid regulation. However, in doing so it undermines the foundation in which bitcoin was created which is to allow for anonymous transactions with no regulatory oversight or central authority. I would imagine that people using bitcoin who do want to remain anonymous would probably never use the exchange. However, those who wish to convert the bitcoin back to a fiat currency would allow for government to regulate those individuals. In doing so they would expose all transactions that link to their signature in the block chain which raises the question, would the government seek to identify those on the other end who wish for their identity to remain anonymous? My guess to this question is most undoubtedly, yes they would, especially come tax season. So at this point, how would bitcoin be different than any other currency? The answer is it wouldn't. I can see both sides to the argument because they each have legitimate beliefs and concerns. Seems like the age old argument since 9/11 - Privacy vs. Loss of Civil Liberties. Ultimately, what is really at question here isn't bitcoin. It's how much freedom are people willing to give up for a small number of government employees to feel like they are making a difference in the world? Personally, I try to weigh the pro's and con's. What is more likely, that people I care about will fall victim to a bitcoin user with nefarious intentions (whether directly or indirectly) or people I care about falling victim to their civil liberties being violated, or worse. At this point the answer becomes pretty obvious. If not, do your research and reach your own conclusion.

In order for a company to be deemed a startup they should 1.) Be employed solely by the developers contributing to the startup and any free outside help they are able to recruit. 2.) Be based out of a garage or home dwelling. 3.) Be self funded, no third party funding (Venture Capital) and not generate more in revenue than their overhead. Majority of the unicorn startup boards are a joke. When you have in excess of a billion dollars in funding you are not a startup.

Machine learning algorithms can be powerful when used on a narrowly focused problem or goal, but curing cancer is definitely not a narrowly focused problem. There are aspects of machine learning that might prove to be useful but it's not a catch all solution whereby we simply say, "Hey Watson, cure cancer" and expect it to churn out a cure. What is sounds like they are doing is inputting doctor notes and hoping for Watson to apply treatment plans based on historical success of past similar patients. Firstly, let me say that that approach is flawed due to the simple fact that it's data can be biased or inaccurate. Without unbiased inputs machine learning is useless. Their approach is an attempt to deliver a quick marketing gimmick in order to profit from it. A better approach would be to find measurable unbiased inputs and use the outputs based on those findings to build on top of a larger neural network. Your average computer scientist would be able to write the code but they probably don't have the Medical expertise to make it useful. They would need to work with experts in the Oncology field to solve simple problems with a larger goal in mind. A deeper understanding on the subject might find that mapping genetic sequences and modeling chemical reactions based on a brute force of all possible chemical compounds would be the way to go. However, machine learning wouldn't need to be used in this situation and current computing power wouldn't be able to process usable results within a realistic time frame, unless of course you consider quantum computers which last I checked were still in their infancy.

A buffer overflow exploit is nothing new. The data being DNA in this case is a mute point since input can be derived from any media.

I'm amazed at what kind of technology has existed for so long but has never been made public.I tried searching but was unable to find any resources online about this. Anyone heard of a device that causes deafness? Side note - I agree with previous posts, definitely not the Cuban government. They don't have the motive. CIA does since it would create a distraction from all the chaos and turmoil surrounding president Trump. Russia obviously does not want US and Cuba to be on good terms since Cuba is their foothold to the US.

Google research scientist: We don't really know what a vector is per se but it sounded really smart when someone - don't know who scribbled it on the ping pong table in red sidewalk chalk next to the slide and wacky inflatable tube man. We were all munching down cheetos and drinking grape fanta at the time so everything is pretty blurry. It was at that moment that we realized the word 'hilary' should also be a vector although still unsure what a vector was, what kind of vector we were dealing with or or how deep into this vector one might need to go.

How is that any different than our current banking system. Our current system is all digital and would still be subject to EMP or DDos... At least with a truly digital currency all you have to do is print a digital key of your account and you've got a hard backup to tuck away in your safe or wherever. It would be nearly impossible to destroy the ledger since it would exist everywhere in the world and if need be beyond (think satelites).