SoylentNews

takyon writes:

We see smartphones everywhere. In school hallways, at the family dinner table and plugged in at the bedside table.

But how young is too young to be constantly connected to the rest of the world through sleek apps, social media and video messaging?

One Colorado man has decided that age 13 seems like a good cutoff.

Tim Farnum is leading the charge on a proposed ballot initiative in Colorado that would be the first of its kind in the country. Farnum's proposal would ban the sale of smartphones to children younger than 13, or more likely, to parents who intend to give the smartphone to kids in that age bracket.

Farnum, a Denver-area anesthesiologist, is the founder of Parents Against Underage Smartphones, or PAUS, the nonprofit group pushing the proposal.

Source: Coloradoan.com

Also reported by: The Washington Post

Initial Fiscal Impact Statement: Colorado.gov [PDF]

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

After the last of the Dirty Harry films, The Dead Pool, was released in 1988, libertarians began to discuss the potential for crypto-currency prediction markets to become crowdfunded assassination markets. Many schemes were proposed and many were unworkable. The main complication is an assassin using zero-knowledge proof to claim a bounty without implicating any other party. This arrangement ignores betting exchanges where anyone can lay or back bets and no-one on a given exchange may be involved in assassination. Discussion has been sparse regarding secondary markets for fake death followed by new identity.

Whether or not a dead pool is bloodless, ire has been most often directed at government officials and the actual use of lethal force. When a BitCoin dead pool launched in 2013, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, became subject of the biggest bounty. Perhaps it was obvious with hindsight that libertarian capitalists in possession of digital currency would focus on the person directly responsible for managing the world's largest, centralized, debt-based, nation-state, fiat currency.

Anyhow, given that a real assassination market has supposedly been running for four years, where are the high-profile deaths? Or disappearances? Is digital currency too complicated for soldiers of fortune? Too risky? Too ephemeral? Are the rewards too small? Will digital currency's increased value and flight to safety encourage libertarianism not previously seen? Or are people wimps?

Original Submission

kaszz writes:

Venezuelans flock to BTC, the digital currency as inflation has spiraled to the triple digits, debasing the the venezuelan currency, the bolivar (VEF) and depleting savings. Citizens struggle to find everything from food to medicine on store shelves. Ryan Taylor, chief executive officer of crypto currency Dash Core says "If you're going to be in something volatile, you might as well be in something that's volatile and rising than volatile and falling,". Crypto currency Dash Core is the third-largest digital coin by number of transactions. Bitcoin (BTC) trading volume in Venezuela jumped to 1.3 million US$ this week, about double the amount that changed hands two months ago, according to LocalBitcoins.com.

Venezuela's currency has become nearly worthless in the black market, where it takes more than 6000 bolivars (VEF) to buy 1 US$, while bitcoin surged 53% in May-2017 alone. But it's not just about shielding against the falling bolivar, as some Venezuelans are using crypto currencies to buy and sell everyday goods and services, according to Jorge Farias, the CEO of Cryptobuyer.

For those desiring a faster transaction time the crypto currency Ethereum exists with an average block settling time of 14 seconds since April 2016 according to themerkle.com.

Venezuela has 47e9 m³ in proven oil reserves, more than any other nation in the world. So now the only thing missing is to start the sale of oil using crypto currencies so that a military intervention can be justified..

All this happens while since at least 2014, hundreds of thousands of citizens have protested high levels of criminal violence, corruption, hyperinflation, and chronic scarcity of basic goods, arrest of opposition leaders, laws to force citizens to work in agricultural fields and farms for 60 days or longer, 40 inmates dismembered and consumed three fellow inmates, 200 prison riots in Venezuela in 2016 and so on. Tourist hotels probably have an all time low now for that super bargain..

Original Submission

Phoenix666 writes:

First comes the unscratchable itching, and the angry blossoming of hives. Then stomach cramping, and—for the unluckiest few—difficulty breathing, passing out, and even death. In the last decade and a half, thousands of previously protein-loving Americans have developed a dangerous allergy to meat. And they all have one thing in common: the lone star tick.

Red meat, you might be surprised to know, isn't totally sugar-free. It contains a few protein-linked saccharides, including one called galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose, or alpha-gal, for short. More and more people are learning this the hard way, when they suddenly develop a life-threatening allergy to that pesky sugar molecule after a tick bite.

Yep, one bite from the lone star tick—which gets its name from the Texas-shaped splash of white on its back—is enough to reprogram your immune system to forever reject even the smallest nibble of perfectly crisped bacon. For years, physicians and researchers only reported the allergy in places the lone star tick calls home, namely the southeastern United States. But recently it's started to spread. The newest hot spots? Duluth, Minnesota, Hanover, New Hampshire, and the eastern tip of Long Island, where at least 100 cases have been reported in the last year. Scientists are racing to trace its spread, to understand if the lone star tick is expanding into new territories, or if other species of ticks are now causing the allergy.

The vegans did it?

Original Submission

Phoenix666 writes:

YouTube's revealed the secret to making an engaging virtual reality video: put the best parts right in front of the audience so they don't have to move their heads.

Google's video vault offers that advice on the basis of heat maps it's created based on analysis of where VR viewers point their heads while wearing VR goggles. There's just such a heat map at the top of this story (or here for m.reg readers) and a bigger one here.

The many heat maps YouTube has made lead it to suggest that VR video creators "Focus on what's in front of you: The defining feature of a 360-degree video is that it allows you to freely look around in any direction, but surprisingly, people spent 75% of their time within the front 90 degrees of a video. So don't forget to spend significant time on what's in front of the viewer."

YouTube also advises that "for many of the most popular VR videos, people viewed more of the full 360-degree space with almost 20% of views actually being behind them." Which sounds to El Reg like VR viewers are either staring straight ahead, or looking over their shoulders with very little time being devoted to sideways glances.

A video channel wants people to treat VR like video. Hmmm. Perhaps the answer to their question is in the question: people should be considered "participants" instead of an "audience."

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

I think we can use some positive emotions in our lives and this 3:50-minute SF movie created by Erik Wernquist certainly delivers a positive view of our future in this solar system that seems to rather lack in stories coming out of Hollywood recently. Made my day again, same as movie shot by Juno probe at Jupiter. This really is a masterpiece and it must have taken tremendous amount of CGI work. Narration is by Carl Sagan reading the first chapter ("The Wanderers") from his 1994 book "The Pale Blue Dot." I wanted to describe the locations displayed in the movie, but it was too spoilery and you can easily guess most of them anyway.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/108650530

Erik has a website with more films at http://www.erikwernquist.com/

Original Submission

aristarchus writes:

According to Politico, heads of some tech companies will be meeting with the President on Monday. But the lower echelons of techdom are pushing back on engagement with the Trump administration.

The fraught relationship between the country's leading tech executives and President Donald Trump is about to get even more tense.

The latest uncomfortable moment arrives Monday, when top tech CEOs are expected to sit down with Trump at the White House to talk about modernizing government technology. Many of the companies have refused to confirm their attendance publicly, in a sign of how sensitive their dealings with the Trump administration have become in a liberal Silicon Valley that loathes his policies on issues like immigration and climate change.

Despite unease and rumblings from below, many are going to attend anyway.

Even so, executives from Google's parent Alphabet, IBM, Cisco and Oracle will be among those in attendance, as will billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel. Other corporate participants named in media reports include Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and possibly Facebook. Those four companies have all declined to comment on their plans despite repeated requests, and sources close to Alphabet and IBM only confirmed their participation Thursday. Companies declined to comment for this story.

Politico seems to think that tech workers have more clout with regard to the political activities of their bosses, an interesting point of view.

Indeed, as the leaders of multinational corporations, tech executives have a financial obligation to shareholders to engage the federal government, which sets key industry regulations and, in many cases, buys their products. Some, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, have expressed a moral and patriotic responsibility to weigh in on public policy matters where executives have expertise.

But now companies face growing pressure from their liberal employees and chunks of their customer base to resist the White House over its actions on immigration, climate change and transgender rights. And even though the CEOs have become more vocal in their criticism of Trump — over the Paris pullout, for example — their argument for continued engagement is becoming riskier as Trump's political agenda skews further and further away from the progressive worldview.

And that could have workforce implications. Technology workers, particularly engineers, hold special sway over their bosses compared to employees in other industries. They have in-demand technical skills that companies often struggle to find, and often have more leeway to speak their mind with less fear of reprisal.

So is it true that tech workers have more pull than the average corporate cog? Will this affect technology policy of the Untied States of America?

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

AlterNet reports

A federal judge ruled [June 14] that the Trump administration must conduct additional environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, handing a limited victory to Native American tribes fighting the administration's decision to move forward with the project.

In an extensive opinion,[PDF][1] Washington, DC District Court Judge James Boasberg sided with the tribes by agreeing the Army Corps of Engineers "did not consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, human rights, or environmental justice."

[...] Boasberg did not order a shutdown of operations on the pipeline, which began pumping oil early this month. The tribes and pipeline owner Energy Transfer Partners are ordered to appear in court next week to decide next legal steps, and the tribes are expected to argue for a full shutdown of pipeline operations.

[1] Link in article redirects.

Previous coverage:
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Recent News Dispatches From Standing Rock (DAPL)
Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline
Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest
Standing Rock Protestors Gassed and Attacked; Bundy Gang Acquitted [Updated]
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed

Original Submission

stretch611 writes:

Stephen Furst, who played naive fraternity pledge "Flounder" Dorfman in the hit movie Animal House, has died of complications from diabetes, his family said Saturday. Furst was 63.

Furst's long list of credits included the 1980s medical drama St. Elsewhere, on which he played Dr. Elliot Axelrod. He played Vir Coto and was an occasional director on the 1990s sci-fi series Babylon 5.

The Verge notes Steven Furst's role on Babylon 5 was a remarkable example of a sci-fi sidekick:

Vir might have started out as a meek and bumbling character, but over the course of the show, that changed. In many shows, these characters remain static: funny and deferential to their superiors. While he largely remains at Londo's side throughout the show, he becomes a moral figure in the center of a complicated story. Vir became a rare example of a background character who grows in importance over the course of the story, whose seemingly naïve moralistic qualities become the most important guide for the characters around him. He essentially becomes a stand-in for Londo's conscious, calling out his mentor's disastrous decisions, standing up to powerful figures, and often provides the right and just choice during times of moral ambiguity. In doing so, he becomes an indispensable and heroic character in the show, one who actively influences the outcome of the story.

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

OpenIndiana is a free and open source Unix operating system derived from OpenSolaris and based on illumos.

Curmudgeonly software reviewer Dedoimedo AKA Igor Ljubuncic reports:

Conclusion

I find the test today somewhat sad. Sure, I did accomplish what I needed, but it gave me no joy, and no hope that this operating system can even even remotely compare against any Linux. Even CentOS is lightyears ahead. In the server environment, it may have its uses, but it completely misses the mark on the desktop.

Package management, applications, it all just feels raw, alien, unfriendly. What do you do if there are problems with drivers, or hardware? Where do you find the latest apps, and this isn't just an act of mercy by a volunteer? What about compatibility on actual hardware. The fact I was not willing to commit my test laptop also tells something.

You can master and tame OpenIndiana, to a level. But it is mostly a futile exercise in obstinacy. All of the stuff we've done above are more or less a given in Linux, and have been so since about 2007. It's like driving an old car and trying to match its abilities to new, modern technology. Unless you're into antiques, it's not really worth it.

The worst part, I guess, isn't the specifics. That can be sorted. It's the absolute lack of progress since 2011, in the desktop space. Underneath it may be wonders, but if you cannot use the system, then it's worthless. Lots of the stuff from the previous version have been removed [or] made less accessible, but we get nothing new in return. So it is nerdier and harder than before, and that's a grim sign of a future that has no place on the desktop. This seems to be true with other operating systems in this family, too. Just not worth the effort. Stick with Linux. Grade wise, 4/10.

Original Submission

takyon writes with an article from Reuters:

Lockheed Martin Corp is in the final stages of negotiating a deal worth more than $37 billion to sell a record 440 F-35 fighter jets to a group of 11 nations including the United States, two people familiar with the talks said.

This would be the biggest deal yet for the stealthy F-35 jet, which is set to make its Paris Airshow debut this week.

The sale represents a major shift in sales practices from annual purchases to more economic multi-year deals that lower the cost of each jet.

The pricing of the jets was still not final, though the average price of the 440 jets was expected to be $85 million, the people said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

The multi-year deal for the fighters will consist of three tranches over fiscal years 2018-2020.

[...] Last week, representatives from 11 F-35 customer nations met in Baltimore, Maryland to discuss terms and toured a Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) facility in Maryland that provides equipment for the jet. Those nations included Australia, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, South Korea, Britain and the United States.

Original Submission

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Australia has announced national gun amnesty, allowing people to hand in illegal or unregistered firearms to authorities. The move is aimed at curbing growing numbers of illegal weapons and comes amid an increased terrorist threat.

[...] The program starts on July 1 and within three months – until September 30 – anyone who possesses an unwanted or unregistered firearm, or a firearm-related item such as ammunition, can legally dispose of or register their firearm at "approved drop-off points in each State and Territory", without fear of being prosecuted, Justice Minister said.

Outside the amnesty period, however, those who are caught with illegal guns could face a fine of up to AU$280,000 (US$212,000), up to 14 years in prison and a criminal record.

“My expectation is it will probably not be the case that we will have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hold on illegal guns would necessarily hand them in. The purpose is to reduce the number of unregistered and illicit firearms in the community,” Keenan said, as cited by AAP.

[...] Earlier this month, the authorities announced plans to build its first prison solely for militants with extreme views to prevent the radicalization of other inmates.

Source: RT

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Is your skin naturally toned from a UV tanning bed, or are you on salt-inducible kinase inhibitors?

A new compound promises to give human skin a suntan without the sun. The compound hasn't yet been tested in clinical trials—just in mice and on patches of human skin leftover from surgeries. But doctors are hopeful it could one day combat skin cancer by keeping people away from harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays.

"Assuming there are no safety concerns, it is clearly a better option than UV exposure," says Jerod Stapleton, a behavioral scientist at the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick who studies indoor tanning and was not involved in the work. "We are talking about millions of young people potentially not using tanning beds each year. ... It could be a game-changer for skin cancer prevention."

The advance has its origins in a strain of "redhead" mice with rust-colored fur. The rodents harbor a variant of a gene called MC1R that gives rise to red hair and fair skin in humans. A properly functioning MC1R gene encodes a receptor that sits on the surface of skin cells called melanocytes, which transmit a signal to crank out dark melanin pigments; these pigments help protect skin cells from UV radiation. The redhead version of the receptor doesn't respond to the make-more-melanin signal, which explains why redheaded humans tend to burn, not tan.

David Fisher, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, reasoned that he could help people tan by finding a way to stimulate this melaninmaking pathway. He and chemist Nathanael Gray of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston targeted a protein called salt-inducible kinase (SIK), which works like a master off switch in the melanin factory. They bought a molecule known to inhibit SIK from a chemical supplier, and applied the compound as a liquid to the shaven backs of the redhead mice. After 7 days of daily treatment, the mouse skin turned "almost jet black," Fishers says. The tan was reversible though, and the rodents' skin tone returned mostly back to normal in about 2 weeks. Fisher notes that were no apparent safety concerns, but this would need to be tested more rigorously before human application.

A UV-Independent Topical Small-Molecule Approach for Melanin Production in Human Skin (open, DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.05.042) (DX)

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

In news seemingly designed to give me an ulcer, Microsoft is moving Windows Server to Rapid Release.

From the Windows Server blog: "Starting this fall, we plan to deliver two feature updates per year, each spring and fall, aligning to the Windows and Office Semi-annual Channel release cycle."

From this systems administrator's perspective, I do not believe Microsoft has shown that they can deliver the QA on updates necessary for rapid release. Personally, I have been testing Windows 10 since 1507 and I have not seen a trend-line of stable consistency within their updates.

I thought Microsoft would be able to get it together but, anecdotally, Windows 10 updates have been consistently problematic since release. From Office 2016 blocking the installation of cumulative updates on 1607 LTSB, broken and inconsistent removal of AppX packages when following Microsoft's own recommendations, and installation behaviors being documented after the fact like the wholesale reinstallation of AppX packages following build updates, every single month's updates brings me trepidation.

The removal of their QA department 'programmatic testers' seems to be the culprit. From infamous August 2015 update debacle to problems like W10 1703 erroring out on every MDT deployment, this wild inconsistency in monthly update quality has leaked into other Windows branches as well. I have been doing monthly security-only updates with plans to do an annual cumulative update to my templates.

What are other SA's plans about rapid release?

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Diane Ravitch, a top public education advocate, reports via AlterNet:

This month, the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a "documentary" that tells a one-sided story, the story that [Trump's Secretary of Education] Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of "Market Education", Coulson narrates "School, Inc.", a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.

Uninformed viewers who see this slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the "success" of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for after-school tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.

What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all "Communists", as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden's choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60 percent Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8 percent of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.

[...] This program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but "School Inc." does not.

It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?

Original Submission