LOL this car doesn't even have windshield wipers because the designers know there isn't even a prayer they'll ever be able to drive in the rain. It's only got daytime running lights because it'll never run at night either. But AI cars are like here, today, man! Yeah, right.

This is one suggestion, a "possible project idea", but the rules Google lays out are clear: increase the proportion of women and minorities or lose funding.

Google set up this program as a competition among colleges to see who can come up with the most effective and least blatant ways to discriminate for women and some minorities, and against men and whites/asians. This is in the rules, in the selection process, and in the evaluation for continued funding. If a college comes up with a program that accidentally also increases white/asian enrollment as well then they lose funding.

Maybe you just believe in "good sexism" and "good racism"? I believe those are oxymorons, but if you do support those ideas you should just say so.

The very fist sentence states the goal to "attract and retain women and underrepresented minorities" and criteria include "enrollment growth and retention of women and diverse students" and funding based on increasing "underrepresented groups in computer science: women, underrepresented ethnic minorities".

The entire purpose of this program is to selectively favor women and some minorities. A poor white or asian boy is actively discriminated against by this program. It's unabashed liberal racism and sexism.

If you were born white or asian into a bad situation, should you be further punished by Google specifically excluding you based on your accident of birth, something that you cannot change? Because that's what this program is, and it's disgusting.

Whether you negatively discriminate against some group or positively discriminate for every other group, it doesn't matter what your motives are it's always an injustice.

Liberals: it's racist to help poor blacks from the city while excluding poor whites from Appalachia -- by definition. There's no such thing as "good racism". It's sexist to help girls get into coding while excluding boys. There's no such thing as "good sexism".

The fair way to help some people over others is when you do it based on need and merit. Help poor kids of all types to get into coding. Help kids who's schools don't offer a programming class. Don't test somebody's genes or say their skin has to be darker than 0xE0A070 to qualify -- that's sexist and racist.

Maybe you're too old and forgot, but back in the 50s and 60s blacks were actively prevented from doing these things, whereas today programs fall over backwards to recruit women into STEM fields but they still don't go into those fields.

Blacks were discriminated against, women are discriminated for.

In fact blacks are still discriminated against. The number of blacks in STEM is as low as women, maybe lower, and there's no reason to think they have less desire to be in those fields than men of other races. If you actually care about fairness instead of knighthood then you would see that getting more black men into STEM is a way more pressing issue.

You're just whining about minor cosmetic changes. The reason why Firefox lost share is because for a long time it was much slower at JavaScript, it had memory leaks, the interface would freeze when doing anything, pages didn't render quickly, and so on. None of that was something that Mozilla could easily fix because it was baked into the DNA of the browser.

They have put in the hard work to fix these things. Regular JavaScript in Firefox is as fast or faster than in Chrome and asm.js is much faster in Firefox. Memory leaks are almost all gone. The interface freezes sometimes, but not nearly as much. Pages render much faster.

The real problem for Firefox is not the interface changes that people like you whine about, it's mobile. Now 30% of traffic is mobile and Firefox doesn't have an app for any Apple mobile devices and is effectively excluded from Android by Google's Microsoft-like illegal anti-competitive licensing deals with manufacturers (you can get the app, but it's not preloaded and only a few geeks ever would). They're also up against a massive advertising campaign, with every Google property having a huge pop-up like ad telling users to use Chrome. Chrome users don't see this, but Google is doing everything they can except adding the words "or else".

Mozilla is doing a great job with Firefox, but they are up against a billions-dollar corporation that has set its sights on owning all the means to access the web that is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year and is willing to break the fair competition laws to do so.

You can only destroy the key if it is outside the police control.

What you do is to put half the key on the internet and store half locally password protected on the encrypted drive (so both parts are needed to decrypt). To decrypt you enter the local password and the DNS or IP address of the second half. The second half could even be in plaintext even since it's purpose is to make the other key half useless not to protect the data.

Because the police don't know about this internet site they can't make a backup, so you can have it self destruct after a certain amount of time. If you can hold out for 7 days or a month or whatever then it won't matter if they have write blockers and clones, they will be undecryptable. Or better yet, since you're entering the internet address of the key you can give them one that does expire (a dummy cloud instance so you can log in and 'prove' the self-destruct mechanism), but you also posted the key to some random forum. Without knowing what forum and account there's no way to find the key, but if you actually get out then eventually and with enough TOR you can retrieve the key and get your data back.

Of course really you'll just spend the rest of your life in jail for contempt even if you can prove a self-destruct mechanism...

If you mod a troll post down to -100 or more like on reddit, that means 100 people read the post and that is a huge boost to trolls that want attention.

On the other hand, if you have no means to downvote like the majority of hacker news, then it rewards cliches that upvote their own content even though it sucks and you get stupid "Hello World... in Go" posts every day.

These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.

This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.

Unlike CDs, Apple only set a *maximum* price. The eBook publishers were free to set any price they wanted, even $1 a book. The reason prices went up to that maximum is because eBooks were more valuable than the wholesale or lower price Amazon was selling them for.

Maybe he didn't feel like writing the required fanboy letter to Elon Musk about how grateful he was that the car spontaneously caught fire after he parked it instead of while he was driving, like we all know gasoline cars are wont to do.

People are different, but we don't know exactly the reasons how they are different or why, so all races and genders and backgrounds being represented according to their percent of the population is the most fair (not even 50-50, for gender it would be 48-52). The problem is the selective approach taken to this to only equal things out for specific non-white male groups.

If we want to solve this society should apply the same approach to everybody, proportional to their apparent disadvantage, so the black and hispanic men would get more help in CS than women since blacks and hispanics are much more underrepresented. In the same way, all men would get help in nursing and teaching. And the white kid that grows up in poor Appalachia wouldn't get the raw deal just for being born in poor rural conditions.

Institutionally helping equally for every disadvantaged person is this is the only fair solution. Anything that is "for women" or "for blacks" or any other specific group is inherently unfair right from the start.

Having solar panels on the car means that the car can generate enough electricity to overcome battery self-discharge. So if you leave it parked somewhere, like say the airport, for a couple weeks or even months you don't come back to an dead car.

Tesla draws about 50w all the time. A car without Tesla's poor standby electronics could even get a tiny bit of charge over time from the roof panels.

A hosed machine has to be replaced... and the replacements are made in China... and the replacements can have other flaws built in. So this would be a total win for China as long as they can do it anonymously and not get the blame for it.

If you are going to use that logic then you must be assuming that 9/11 is the worst that terrorists might do, which is patently false. How many would die if Ebola or even maliciously bred bird flu were released in DC? How many would die if a fission bomb were smuggled into a city? Do you really think breeding a super virus can be done by a couple researchers in a lab with some ferrets, but it's impossible that terrorists could?

Your argument that says that terrorists can only ever do as much damage as they have done in the past is just completely flawed. It's irrational thinking.