?!
how is pointing out factual error on the part of /. and reuters any of that?
typical that /. is yet to correct this, even though reuters corrected this before /. posted this here with wrong info.

"(This story corrects to show Twitter saying suspicious traffic appears to be coming from China and Saudi Arabia, not China and Russia) "

seems reuters (and /.) has too much russia on its mind and sees russia everywhere.

lots of logical fallacies don't count as a valid refutation, nor does down voting of my comment. all that only indicate the degeneration of this site from when i joined. no wonder there is ever less activity here.
-
1st you presume to know what i "imply" without any evidence.
2nd you try to refute my alleged implied argument by pointing out allegedly more wasteful actions. one waste does not excuse another, and i didn't make an argument about waste
3rd you try to explain why scientific space missions and understanding jupiter and universe is important. !!!!

if you are capable of rationality, i suggest you read my comment and try to understand it, and if you disagree use valid arguments to refute its content.

these desperate attempts to justify cost of these missions by hastily claiming non existent new discoveries is counter productive.

"The report notes that "there's no indication" that there was intent to deceive anyone. Instead, it "appears to be a case of a TV presenter getting confused with what he believed to be 'modern robots.'""

let me get this straight, this story is nothing more than a tv presenter getting confused at a kids tech forum?

why is it on slashdot? because the guardian got confused at 2nd hand, thinking it was an actual deception by those evil russian? the guardian do seem to be getting confused a lot about russians.

nothing new here.
trump is merely expressing openly what this arrest was from the start; typical and customary high handed tactic by usa to get other countries to obey its own absurd laws, and give its own substandard crony companies ( like apple) an unfair advantage.
that was how chinese treated it from start.

"... investigation is reminiscent of banking and nuclear regulation. It involves deep cooperation ..."
"... government wants to focus on hate speech for now, so don't expect anyone from the privacy regulator..."

first, we know what happens with banking regulation; nothing at all (except bail outs) after 2008 fiasco, as far as banks are concerned.

that government wants to regulate "hate speech", a nebulous term subjectively defined by political ideology, should concern all who want their freedoms protected against would be political masters bent on controlling and suppressing speech and critics.
that government doesn't want to regulate and protect citizens against violations of their right to privacy, mainly by the tech corp it is cooperating with to regulate "hate speech"(ie control speech), should increase that concern.

nanny state regulation isn't the best option for either cigarettes or social media.

no.
there are other computers, "the size of a ham sandwich", costing much less with much better specifications btw, which can be upgraded.

" discontinued customer service over piracy allegations"

allegations!

a tech/media corporate decides who allegedly committed alleged crimes (alleged "piracy", alleged "hate speech", alleged "election interference", etc are just the beginning) against related or fellow tech/media corporates or supporters, and deal out de-platforming punishment too.
welcome to rule by big corporates, according to their rules and their courts.

too bad zdnet editors, and then /. editors in summery, failed to question the unwarranted assumption in the article that we know how a child learns, instead allowed, and even amplified, the reporter's uncritical parroting of the "researchers" pitch.

simple. cater to those who pay the "cash", ie fans especially, and not to sjws.

this is early stages of big tech corp version of newspeak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
while "ai" doesn't mean artificial intelligence, doing "good" means doing something that is in line with the elitist pseudo leftist ideology dominating in places like google.

this is also virtue signaling by definition.

who needs it? and why?
and if they really need it, why are they not paying full cost?
why should rest of people subsidize them?
if there are benefits to the society at large from such subsidization, what are they?
has such benefits manifested themselves in areas, like urban areas, where they already have this? are there costs and bad results from this? are they perhaps larger than benefits?
or are the real beneficiaries not rural folk but tech corps? why should society at large subsidize them?

does anyone expect out of touch, corp beholden, corrupt elitist bureaucrats to raise, weigh, and answer, these kinds of questions honestly?

there are many forms of hatred; anyone can hate anything else.
hatred is a feeling rising out of some value (usually but not limited to, moral) judgement (irrational, misguided, or not).
not to tolerate hatred of any kind is to create a zombie like slavish society where no kind of free individual judgement is allowed. where only values and judgements allowed are those of the powers that be.
actions against gab indicate, we are heading that way.

personally i think hatreds, of any kind, should be tolerated, and would be tolerated, in a healthy robust society confident of itself and its values. only perpetrators of actions that actually deprive others of same rights everyone enjoys(and are legally guaranteed through democratic means) should not be tolerated. [shooter should be banned after the action, gab should be free to continue as they want.] only weak authoritarian societies cannot tolerate hatred.
again actions against gab indicate, we are becoming such a society,.