_nedR

I don't get it. Is the article exaggerating things? How can you function without feeling emotions? What is your motivation for getting married? Getting a job? Playing a game or watching a movie? Succeeding at any task? What is your reward mechanism?

For example "All week he had been struggling to produce the right sound effects,"

How would you even know you hit the right sound effect? What is your judgement for good or bad on something that is subjective?

This.

I find this is a big trap that nerds tend to fall into. We invest a lot of time and effort into tools and systems that have a steep learning curve (unix, vim, emacs) because it is a source of pride to master something that is so difficult and esoteric. Being influencers, we have a strong network effect, and end up perpetuating these systems without considering whether they really are the best way of doing things or whether they can be improved in any way.

As far as Bloomberg is considered, they have a strong financial incentive to do this as well. It raises the switching cost for their users who have invested so much time into mastering their product.

>There's no reason to believe it wasn't trivial for Skype to wiretap individuals.

You could still glean info from monitoring the network communication (although i personally haven't done anything).

Also if the leaked docs are to be believed, the fact that the agencies boasted a 3-fold increase in intercept-able traffic post-acquisition, then it is reasonable to assume that wiretapping was non-trivial before.

So long as the query is passed over HTTPS, it is encrypted. But the domain/subdomain info is not concealed by HTTPS.

>Intriguing that this renders Tor essentially transparent in some contexts - that could almost seem by design.

I would have commented on your tinfoil hat, except for what Microsoft did to Skype post-acquisition:- Completely rewriting its protocol architecture from one which was P2P with end-to-end encryption and practically impossible to wiretap or monitor, to a centralized architecture (ostensibly for scalability reasons) which made it much more easier to wiretap or obtain metadata.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer-supe...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...

Here's a choice quote from the above article.

"In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism;"

The behaviour might be hygienic for the dog, but not for the humans interacting with it.

I don't know whether there has been a modern reinterpretation. The way i remember being taught in school, Muslims are allowed to keep dogs for hunting and guarding purposes, but we are not allowed to touch them (except perhaps on the head?), or let them into our houses.

Not sure what exactly has changed except perhaps we don't hunt much any more.

While you're at it Microsoft, please also give a way for users to remotely log out all active sessions on other computers and devices.

Hmm..

Didn't mean to read too much into it, but i wonder if your vehicle was stolen for cross-border smuggling (possibly of refugees?)

You probably don't know what you are wishing for.

Just scroll through this list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic...

4 out of the 10 most deadliest human conflicts in human history happened in China. I have a suspicion that the Chinese leadership is acutely aware of this, and their world-view has been moulded by this (favouring stability over everything else including justice, freedom or human rights). When things go wrong there, they tend to go wrong in a big way.

edit: To get some idea of the scale, The An Lushan Rebellion that occurred in the 7th century wiped out 15% of the world population at the time.

>>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013:

That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots)

>>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.

Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them.

>ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9

For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...

The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense.

The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.

"All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS)"

Ah. People (particularly NY Times readers) see the words "muslim" and "extermist" and they automatically assume it must be Saudi funded, even if the conclusion makes no sense in the given context.

ISIS is the biggest challenge to the Saudi's rule of the peninsula in years. If anyone is going to support them it would be anti-saudi religious extremists looking to overthrow them. There are many groups operating in Syria which could be clients of the Saudis. ISIS is not one of them. It makes no sense for them to do so.

edit: rephrasing

Yes as the Nature article says, the commenter who gave Tao the initial idea is Uwe Stroinski, who received a PhD in mathematics from the University of Tübingen.

Just repeating his name here because i think his contribution should not be missed.

I am more reminded about Psycho Pass (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379308/) a terrific anime tv series. It basically explores a future in which a person's criminal intent (called their crime coefficient) along with other mental attributes (collectively referred to as one's psycho pass) is judged by the Sibyl system - A system that works so well that it acts as judge, jury and executioner with little human input. It explores a lot of questions such as the role of free will and potential for change in such a world. Interestingly lot of people find it hard to lower their crime coefficients after it 'stabilizes' to a new high (Like how it becomes easier to commit a crime again after having done it once - the same judgement the police make in this article). Also like in this article, people who are victims of abuse and crime often find their crime coefficients inevitably rise.

Don't let the cartoon characters fool you. IMO The complexity and depth of this series (and a lot of sci-fi anime) far surpasses the likes of minority report and hollywood sci-fi in general. My description really doesn't do it justice.

Maybe in the west where motorcycles are more of a leisure transport than a mode of commute, but in developing countries bikes with small engines in the ball park of 100 cc (the honda cub for example) are definitely some of the most efficient modes of transportation. In India i could get a bike that could comfortably get around 60kmpl in normal driving conditions ( 3 bikes with 6 passengers total would be about the same as a prius at about 1/10th the cost). And in a congested city, no other mode of transport beats it (unless the city has a very well connected metro rail transportation)

We got a commie here!

Wow. No need to go hyperbolic.

First off, SpaceX had little/nothing to do with any of the stuff you mentioned.

Second, I am not devaluing what SpaceX has done or is trying to do. I am a big fan actually of such ventures which strive to find new frontiers.

My reply was in the context of this thread where lot of people are dissing Uber saying they are not a real technology company, and people lamenting the fact that a taxi company raised more money than a space faring company.

I was pointing out the close-mindedness (if you will) of those people. Uber is having tremendous impact in the here and now across the world, and touching the lives of millions of people. What they have done is nothing to dismiss. Also the vision of the future they are working towards could be even more transformative (possibly save hundreds of thousands of lives a year).

What SpaceX is trying is far more riskier and ambitious and its rewards for humanity (if it succeeds) lay further into the future and may end up having greater impact on the future of humanity (or it may not). In the interim its impact is limited (because it is a long-term project).

It makes no sense to compare the two ventures as some competition. The worlds needs both. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Uber has a greater valuation than SpaceX. Uber provides greater value to their customers right now. And they could provide greater returns to their investors sooner (if they chose to ). SpaceX as of now is much more riskier investment and its real returns lay farther in the future.

None of those things has had any affect on my life or the lives of anybody i personally know (yet).

I booked a ride on Uber just the other day.

edit: typo

Curious about what you mean by'a "caste system" mentality'?

But that does not contribute to growth because the supply is steady (unless Apple progressively reduces the life of their products.

What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics. It betrays a propensity for scientists to ignore evidence, or to frame conclusions and experiments to fit their preconceived notions. I would include strong support of religious viewpoints, athiesm and even global warming under this rule.

Once politics or agendas get involved, then science takes a back seat to convincing others that you are right.

Nobody is worried about Apple's survival. Barring doomsday scenarios, Apple looks set to be a very large, very profitable company for the foreseeable future. Just like Microsoft. They are worried about Apple's growth prospects. Once the Chinese markets are saturated, where next? And if Apple does not innovate, they could end up losing market-share to competitors when they inevitably catch up. Once that point is reached, Apple's only option is too undercut them on price (and with huge cash reserves and market clout, Apple is in a much better place to do this). But this means reduced margins, and shrinking profits (although they may stabilise to very respectable level). Apple has so far avoided this by staying ahead of the competition through innovation, entering new markets with sub-par competition like they did with the iPod, iPhone or creating entirely new ones like they did with iPad and iTunes. Before you say that Apple didn't invent the tablet, the digital music marketplace, or the mobile software marketplace - None of that matters - in real money terms, Apple as good as did.

But what new markets are there for Apple to enter? People think the electric car market is a right fit for Apple. The article says that the global premium car market as a whole is currently only worth 220 billion dollars per annum ( don't know whether this includes the premium compact market as well ) which is not much when considering the fact that iPhone's sale for previous 12 months was 100 billion. And the automobile market is highly competitive with plenty of incumbents with over 100 years of experience. Perhaps Apple could transform the business model of the market to make it much bigger, But like with the smartwatch, Apple is possibly late to the game, with Tesla, Google, Uber, all working frantically to do the same (each with their own vision and approach). In my personal opinion, Apple still has plenty of room to enter and exploit the market.

In conclusion, investors are worried whether Apple's party of year-over-year growth in revenue and profits which it has sustained over the last decade is finally over.

You are being downvoted to hell, but you have my thanks for pointing that out. According to http://whenonearth.net/walk-the-3500-narrow-steps-of-chand-b... ( amazing pictures) the Chand Baori was used as a shooting location in The Fall, The Dark Knight Rises and Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.

I don't think any games were specifically inspired by step-wells (would be glad to contradicted with examples) but you point out a great place for game devs to draw inspiration from.

The real way to celebrate a happy birthday is with a 90% off sale (on the remastered version)! Keeps fingers crossed.

Originality and influence are distinct concepts.

The ancient Indians have first claim to many inventions and discoveries covering a wide range of disciplines including math, science, statecraft, philosophy, governance, technology.

But unfortunately India has had remarkably little influence on the outside world considering. Indians may (or may not) have invented the zero but it was the Arabs that took it the world.

There are many possible reasons for this. I could speculate that it might be due to :-

1. These things happened so long ago. India was way ahead in many of these things, and perhaps the rest of the world was not ready to understand them at the time.

2. India was too inward looking. Of course What we call India today never existed under the rule of a single entity until the British came. Until then the various kingdoms were preoccupied with affairs within the subcontinent instead of looking elsewhere. In the concise history of the modern world, William Woodruff says that (until 500 years ago) either India or China could have both conquered the world, except that they never seemed to have the motivation to do so. By comparison, arabs, persians, europeans travelled, traded with and conquered lands far from their origins, and hence they have had much more influence on the modern world.

3. There was also deep stratification of Indian society along caste/race lines. The higher and elite classes of the time were obsessed with protecting their knowledge (which was part of their power) from other sections of society. By contrast, the Arabs, Romans, Europeans, translated, copied and disseminated their literature widely.

>They won over the people at first by force (conquered) and then via other means they and coopted (won over) them and used them to their ends.

If by 'won them over', you mean they threatened anyone who opposed them with terrible consequences, and rewarded those who supported them then you are correct. Of course everyone from ISIL to the USA does varying degrees of the same thing.

The article mentions one Mohammad Salmoni, 21 who travelled from Kabul, Afghanisthan through Iran to Belgrade, possibly on foot most of the way, with little else other than his smartphone ( and probably without any id, let alone a passport).

>"It was Very Dangerous"

Not to trivialize the hell he must have gone through, but that sounds like the adventure of a lifetime. Gives fresh perspective on the word 'adventure'.

Quake (actually Quake III) is still alive today in the form of http://quakelive.com which is free-to-play.

I think the time is ripe for Arena FPS to make a return to the mainstream (with updated graphics). Toxikk which is still Early-access seems very promising in this regard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B28oQvaL7Mg).

Well, there is a lot of crosstalk here, so there might be bit of confusion. Earlier you were contrasting between religious fundamentalists and 'reasonable' actors :

>"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms

Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).