Nobody is afraid of it. Almost certainly what this means is that the university knows it is entirely fraudulent but because itâ(TM)s a student, all details of the findings fall under FERPA and it is illegal for the university to disclose. Internal findings of academic dishonesty cannot be disclosed by law.

How is this not also an argument for making everyone use one of those breathalyzer ignition things every time they get in the car? In every drunk driving incident, the car has failed to keep a drunk from driving. But we have an easy to install invention for that. Human driver + alcohol is bad, so the car MUST force that the driver is not drunk. Maybe we should stop thinking of this as an error in the autopilot system and just think of it as a driver error. Headline then is "Drivers treat AI driving assist as driverless autopilot and get killed." -- Obviously I don't think we should do this, but I think 20-odd idiots being killed by misuse of autopilot over the last decade is much lower risk than society is already comfortable with in driving. For example, we let people drive these enormous trucks on the road. In the past two decades the average width of a personal vehicle has increased in by something like 6 inches and there has been a corresponding increase in the number of deaths. We have just decided as a society that a rather astronomical number of vehicle related deaths are acceptable, and 20 or so deaths due to misuse of Teslas seems a drop in the bucket.

Anyways, from everything I've seen I don't think this is what happened. I think they were driving, had a small wreck, ignited a battery with fire in the front, couldn't get the doors open, crawled to the back and tried to get away and burned up in the conflagration. Or something like this. It's like how every cyclist killed by a motorist is reported as "not wearing a helmet" as if that's the problem and not the 2-ton vehicle traveling at 60mph in a 25mph zone that killed them. When a Tesla crashes they almost seem to want the story to be the autopilot. The real worries seem to me to be the fire and the quite dangerous bed of batteries you are driving around on.

Ah I see it, so it does. I was skimming and found the weird out of context wikipedia quote at the end unnecessary and somewhat oddly chosen, as if they were trying to explain but ended up with a pull quote that doesn't really explain. Another commenter noted that it may actually be an automated tool pulling those, which I think is probably right, since that sentence is a bit useless out of context. Oh well.

The slashdot editor added: The Wikipedia entry for homomorphic encryption calls it "an extension of either symmetric-key or public-key cryptography."

to the end of the post as if that somehow explains to people what homomorphic encryption is.

Homomorphic encryption is any encryption scheme that allows you to perform computation on the encrypted data without decrypting it. So, for example, if you had heart rate data that was decrypted and stored on your phone, you could send it safely fully encrypted to a web service that could then calculate the average and send it back to you to compute your average HR. But the web-service itself wouldn't have any idea what your average heart rate is, it would only know an encrypted version of your average heart rate, which it would send back to your device. Your device would decrypt it and show it to you.

This is different than normal encryption schemes where the encrypted version of the data is essentially useless and must be decrypted to compute anything with, so if you want a 3rd party to compute something on your data, you have to trust them to work with the decrypted data.

Clearly, Microsoft wants to take over Pinterest as a hostile takeover of Google's Image Search results page.

Seriously. It isn't even radical to have a made-for-education programming language. This has been done for at least 40 years.

From the article: "Their estimates showed rates much higher than initially reported but closer to those found once states began completing antibody testing."

The 80x thing is only for the initial reporting, but the numbers now are roughly in line with their estimates. So its not that we have 80x as many cases _now_ as have been reported, just that the initial stages were under reported when we were under testing drastically, which is exactly what everyone was saying at the time (we need to ramp up testing!)

If I post a link to this /. summary to facebook will my friends stop posting political posts? Or is that covered too?

Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey, 1916, The right to travel is not the same as driving a car. There is no right to drive a car.
Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1999, There is no "fundamental right to drive".

1999, 9th circuit court of appeals rules there is no "fundamental right to drive" in Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Is that enough, or do you need more proof?

Found a supreme court ruling from 1916: "Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey" which upheld the state's right to charge licensing fees for driver's licenses which in turn implies that driving is a privilege, not a right. Of course, IANAL.

To name one: "or when his or her privilege to drive is suspended" from RCW 46.20.342 in Washington state. The assumption in the law is that it is a privilege and not a right. You of course have the right to drive and text on your own property, just not on the roads which are built, owned and operated by the people.

Besides, an iota of reflection will get you to the fact without looking at any laws. There is a real distinction between basic human rights and rights of a citizen. Basic human rights are those which you have by virtue of the fact that you are human. Things like access to food/water/shelter. Freedom to move around. Freedom to own property. Citizen rights are those rights which you have by virtue of being a citizen of some particular country, like the right to vote in a particular election--so a person living in Washington state has no basic human right to vote in a gubernatorial election in Florida. Obviously driving a car is not a right you get simply by virtue of being human. People need to stop overusing the term "basic human right" to mean "whatever I think I should be allowed to do." There are plenty of things that you have the right to do which are not basic human rights.

You have no "basic human right" to drive a car and therefore have no basic human right to drive a car and hold a phone or even, for that matter, to drive a car and talk to the passenger next to you. You are licensed to drive a car, and that entails tacit approval of whatever road & safety regulations currently stand at the time you get behind the wheel. Currently that license does allow you to talk to the passenger next to you, but even if it didn't it wouldn't be rights infringement, because you HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR. I am all for regulating cell phone use to the point that people cannot hold a phone while driving since a police officer on a parked motorcycle on the side of the road cannot tell the difference between such and texting, and it is far more important to keep people from texting while driving than it is to allow them to idly handle their phones while driving. I think this reasonably extends to Google Glass as well.

Sure but can you invert the Y-Axis on the joystick?

"science is all about probing the truths of nature via experimentation" That is the narrow more recent definition of science. The broad definition has only to do with reliable and reasoned study of an area, which is why mathematics, computer science, library science, political science, etc. are all called sciences. The scientific method based definition is only one type of science.