SoylentNews

The NYT reports that Carnegie Mellon University just emailed 800 applicants to their graduate computer science program that they were accepted, only to email them later in the day to say, in effect: Oops, not really. “It was heart-shattering. The hardest part for me was telling my family and friends that congratulated me on my acceptance that I was not,” said one 26-year-old applicant while another wrote on Facebook that in the hours between her Carnegie Mellon acceptance and rejection, she quit her job and her boyfriend proposed marriage, ending her post, “What do I do now?” Carnegie Mellon declined to comment beyond a prepared statement that acknowledged and apologized for the error. “When you’re a high-tech school like Carnegie Mellon or M.I.T., the egg on your face is that much worse,” said Anna Ivey. Carnegie Mellon’s statement struck some as falling far short of a real explanation. “This error was the result of serious mistakes in our process for generating acceptance letters," wrote Carnegie-Mellon. Or in the words of Gilda Radner playing Emily Litella on “Saturday Night Live” - "Never mind."

The headaches of commercial air travel — security lines, delays, cancellations — are driving high net worth individuals to look for alternative options as Matt Krupnick reports at the NYT that JetSmnarter is one of a host of new ventures that are seeking to upend the private jet market by capitalizing on advancing technology and rising dissatisfaction with commercial airlines. To make travel easier, and to avoid the headache of commercial flying, JetSmarter allows passengers to fly on so-called empty legs, or private jets flying without passengers on their way to pick someone up.

JetSmarter, whose customers booked more than 1,300 flights last year, expects to book 10 times as many passengers in 2015, says its 26-year-old chief executive, Sergey Petrossov adding that while some might consider the $7,000 annual fee steep, it’s far more affordable than a private jet. A recent nonmember search of the JetSmarter app showed empty legs available, for example, between Miami and the Bahamas for $1,750 and from Chicago to Bedford, Mass., for $5,249. “For an LA to Vegas flight, sometimes we have deals for under $1000 for a four-passenger flight,” says Petrossov. But if you were chartering, say, an Airbus corporate jet for 30 hours of flying, it could be “in the millions of dollars.” “Our business model is similar to Uber,” says Petrossov. Like Uber does with its drivers, JetSmarter forges partnerships with independent carriers, and displays their schedules and GPS locations on the app. JetSmarter users can request flights as few as to six hours in advance, and from anywhere in the world. Like any good startup founder, Petrossov says he’s “trying to change the world in our little way” by “democratizing” private air travel. "Although let’s be honest," writes Jordyn Taylor. "JetSmarter’s taking something that was only available to the insanely ultra-rich, and making it more available to the not-QUITE-as-rich-but-still-insanely-rich."

Alan Feuer writes in the NYT that it has been three years since Tinder landed in New York City bringing its addictive right swipes and rabid style of flirting to the city’s inherently frenetic technologized dating culture turning the search for love (or at least a nearby body) into a Ritalin-paced video game. For those who are unfamiliar with it, Tinder is a matchmaking service that enables people to connect with one another through no more than a brief swipe on their smartphones. You look at a photo, tagged only with a name, an age and, with a tap, perhaps a short introduction, and then you vote yes by swiping to the right, or no by swiping left. With about one million Tinder users in New York, the largest market in the country, the app plays off our desire for instant gratification while avoiding the embarrassment of rejection, in what the company calls the “double opt-in”: a match between two users will occur only if they each signal that they like the other’s profile. The matched pair can then chat through Tinder’s messaging service and, perhaps, meet. “When you have a population of young, relatively affluent transients, schooled in technology, uprooted from their networks and hoping to find each other, the chances are they’ll look for a solution on their phones,” says Benjamin Karney.

Social scientists say apps like Tinder are incredibly effective at identifying a local population of potential mates and at helping people contact one another (through instant-message systems), particularly in large, anonymous places like New York, where traditional modes of introduction — family connections or religious institutions — might not be available. Of course, having too many options online can make it more difficult for some to choose and commit to just one person to go out with on a Friday night says Paul Eastwick, "It's called the 'paradox of choice,' " There’s tons of research that suggests "if people know they have lots of options, they feel less dependent on and committed to their current option,” says Karney. “If you want to leave your lover, there aren’t just 50 ways these days, there are 150,000 ways.”

Brian Chen writes in the NYT that two companies, Republic Wireless and FreedomPop, that reduce cellphone costs by relying on strategically placed Wi-Fi routers are at the forefront of a tantalizing communications concept that has proved hard to produce on a big scale, The concept championed by the two little companies in their nationwide services is surprisingly simple. They offer services that rely primarily on Wi-Fi networks, and in areas without Wi-Fi, customers can pull a signal from regular cell towers. “Wi-Fi first is a massive disrupter to the current cost structure of the industry,” says Stephen Stokols. “That’s going to be a big shock to the carriers.” For $5 a month, customers of Republic Wireless can make calls or connect to the Internet solely over Wi-Fi. For $10 a month, they can use both Wi-Fi and a cellular connection from Sprint in Republic’s most popular option. Republic Wireless’s parent company, Bandwidth.com, a telecommunications provider with about 400 employees, developed a technique to move calls seamlessly between different Wi-Fi networks and cell towers. “You can’t pretend these companies are major players by any stretch. But I think their real importance is proof of concept,” says Craig Moffett. “They demonstrate just how disruptive a Wi-Fi-first operator can be, and just how much cost they can take out.”

In major cities, the Wi-Fi-first network makes sense. People use smartphones frequently while sitting around their offices and apartments, and Wi-Fi can handle the job just fine. But once people start moving around, it is not so simple. The benefit of a cell service is that your phone can switch among multiple towers while you are on the go which wi-fi is not designed to handle. Google may be experimenting with a hybrid approach similar to the small companies’. A person briefed on Google’s plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the conversations were private, says the company wants to make use of the fiber network it has installed in various cities to create an enormous network of Wi-Fi connections that phones could use to place calls and use apps over the Internet. In areas out of reach, Google’s network would switch over to cell towers leased by T-Mobile USA and Sprint. Still many wonder if even the biggest companies could make a Wi-Fi-based phone network work. “There are just so many places where Wi-Fi doesn’t reach," says Jan Dawson "and the quality of Wi-Fi that you can find is often subpar."

Reuters reports that managers at US oil refineries are going to the mats, sleeping on recently purchased mattresses inside rental trailers, as refinery workers enter the third week of their strike at nine US oil refineries that experts and some employees say raises concerns over safety and operations. For months, retired refinery worker John Ostberg from BP's Toledo Refinery has been warning his bosses in emails about their plans to run the refineries with replacement workers and supervisors if a strike occurred. He fears that replacement workers are not properly trained, or too far removed from the frontlines, to respond to unit upsets and other problems that can escalate quickly without experienced intervention. “Management says it’s safe. I disagree,” says Ostberg. At least three of the nine US oil refineries targeted by a nationwide strike of USW members have reported upsets and unplanned repairs since their workers walked out on February 1 and one of the refineries has shut down completely. Criff Reyes, who has worked Tesoro's Martinez Refinery alkylation unit for 16 years, says he believes that Tesoro opted to shut down the plant - rather than restart it following maintenance - because managers are not qualified or experienced enough to run it after about 400 USW members walked out. Meanwhile Ostberg, who helped run the refinery operating center, known locally as the ROC, the heart of the plant, warns that if there is a problem with one unit at the refinery, it can quickly grow to other units and often takes more manpower to put under control. “I sit behind a blast-proof wall, so I’m not worried about my safety," says Ostberg. "But I fear for everyone else.”

Justin Gillis reports at the NYT that in the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time with people who reject the findings of climate science dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers" and those who accept the science attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas". The issue has recently taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures asking the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead. The petition began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico who grew increasingly annoyed by the term over several years. The phrase is wrong, says Boslough, because “these people do not embrace the scientific method.”

Last year, Boslough wrote a public letter on the issue, "Deniers are not Skeptics." and dozens of scientists and science advocates associated with the committee quickly signed it. According to Boslough real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” "[Senator] Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed," says Boslough. "He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title skeptic."

Are you, your family, or your community at risk of turning to violent extremism? Now you can find out as The Intercept reports that a rating system devised by the National Counterterrorism Center titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts,” lets police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: “Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,” “Talk of Harming Self or Others,” and “Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity).” The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies. Families are judged on factors such as “Aware[ness] of Each Other’s Activities,” as well as levels of “Parent-Child Bonding,” (PDF) and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to “presence of ideologues or recruiters” as potential risk factors. A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism,” according to the document. Users of the guide are encouraged to plot the scores on a graph to determine what “interventions” could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.

Experts have suggested that intervention by law enforcement or other branches of the government in individuals’ lives, particularly young people, based solely based on the views they express, can potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior. “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face,” says former FBI agent Mike German calling the criteria used for the ratings “subjective and specious.” Arun Kundnani questions the science behind the rating system. “There’s no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being," says Kundnani. "“It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."

The NYT reports that President Obama is meeting today with the nation’s top tech executives and company officials on a host of cybersecurity issues and the threats posed by increasingly sophisticated hackers amid a deepening estrangement between Silicon Valley and the government. “What has struck me is the enormous degree of hostility between Silicon Valley and the government,” says Herb Lin. “The relationship has been poisoned, and it’s not going to recover anytime soon.” American firms are increasingly concerned about international competitiveness, and that means making a very public show of their efforts to defeat American intelligence-gathering by installing newer, harder-to-break encryption systems and demonstrating their distance from the United States government. “In some cases that is driving them to resistance to Washington,” says Obama’s cybersecurity coordinator, Michael Daniel. “But it’s not that simple. In other cases, with what’s going on in China,” where Beijing is insisting that companies turn over the software that is their lifeblood, “they are very interested in getting Washington’s help.” Silicon Valley execs have also been fuming quietly over the government’s use of zero-day flaws. “The government is realizing they can’t just blow into town and let bygones be bygones,” says Eric Grosse, Google’s vice president of security and privacy. “Our business depends on trust. If you lose it, it takes years to regain.”

"Who still smokes?" as Denise Grady reports at the NYT that however bad you thought smoking was, it’s even worse. A new study has found that in addition to the well-known hazards of lung cancer, artery disease, heart attacks, chronic lung disease and stroke, researchers found that smoking was linked to significantly increased risks of infection, kidney disease, intestinal disease caused by inadequate blood flow, and heart and lung ailments not previously attributed to tobacco. “The smoking epidemic is still ongoing, and there is a need to evaluate how smoking is hurting us as a society, to support clinicians and policy making in public health,” says Brian D. Carter, an author of the study. “It’s not a done story.” Carter says he was inspired to dig deeper into the causes of death in smokers after taking an initial look at data from five large health surveys being conducted by other researchers. As expected, death rates were higher among the smokers but diseases known to be caused by tobacco accounted for only 83 percent of the excess deaths in people who smoked. “I thought, ‘Wow, that’s really low,’ ” Mr. Carter said. “We have this huge cohort. Let’s get into the weeds, cast a wide net and see what is killing smokers that we don’t already know.” The researchers found that, compared with people who had never smoked, smokers were about twice as likely to die from infections, kidney disease, respiratory ailments not previously linked to tobacco, and hypertensive heart disease, in which high blood pressure leads to heart failure. "The Surgeon General's report claims 480,000 deaths directly caused by smoking, but we think that is really quite a bit off," concludes Carter adding that the figure may be closer to 540,000.

Andrew Moore-Crispin reports that beginning this week, as result of an agreement major wireless carriers made with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in late 2013, wireless carriers in the US must unlock your phone as soon as a contract term is fulfilled if asked to do so unless a phone is connected in some way to an account that owes the carrier money. Carriers must also post unlocking policies on their websites (here are links for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile), provide notice to customers when their devices are eligible for unlocking, respond to unlock requests within two business days, and unlock devices for deployed military personnel. So why unlock your phone? Unlocking a phone allows it to be used on any compatible network, regardless of carrier which could result in significant savings. Or you could go with an MVNO, stay on the same network, and pay much less for the same cellular service.