We arrange all our 'special' purchases over a secure p>p network and pay in bitcoin.

Ah yes, a romantic tale of courage, determination and pathos. The intrepid blonde adventuress and her stunningly handsome navigator forced down on a desolate island, doomed to a slow death of hunger and thirst. And yet with only hours to live, a romance can bloom among the giant crabs and tropical breezes... Hollywood- are you on this?

"widely discussed over the last century"

I must have missed all that discussion. I didn't miss the death of ZPG (Zero Population Growth) during the time of the right wing christian uprising in the USA. I didn't miss the secret requirement that if a foreign country wanted aid from the US, they had to suppress any information about birth control given to their people. I didn't miss the angry shouting every time someone suggested things like free condoms at universities etc. And the ongoing fuss over abortion...

But I did miss your assertion that everyone knows that population is the problem. Please tell me more.

No discussion of climate management or any other earthly problem is complete without first understanding the effect of 7 billion humans- mostly underfed, sick and unproductive. How many have to die horribly each day before someone notices? How many children are born with a life expectancy of less than one year, to a mother who can't even feed herself? Is family planning ever going to be taught and enabled in the underprivileged corners of earth? Fix these problems and everything else will improve.

I believe I will have another beer.

Florida has long been known as a right wing stronghold. They reversed the election that lead to Bush2 being elected. They routinely fight to eliminate the poor and potentially Democrat voters from elections.

That their Supreme Court chose this path is refreshing. Let's hope that there is a trend among the Florida political elite toward respect for those who are not wealthy, those who deserve justice.

Politicians often discover that when the issue they wish to move forward is resisted by their peers, they can appeal directly to the public. Explain their plan and encourage input from everyone. If they build enough support among the voters, then their peers may be forced to support the plan as well.

Kalil may or may not have support from the White House or anyone, but if he gets a big response to this challenge Obama and others will have to reconsider their reluctance.

Yes, ask the Public, ask schoolchildren in particular. Five million responses from fifth graders is a force to sway elected officials. Furthermore it inspires a new generation to reach for the stars (and distracts them from daily news of terrorists and disease).

[I offer this as a tactic for those who support this sort of thing. I am not convinced that colonizing planets is in our best interest at this time.]

Decades ago there was an experiment with monkeys deprived of maternal support to varying degrees. Some not allowed to touch or see the mother. Autopsies showed that the deprived monkeys had massive (and obvious to any observer) brain deficiencies. These monkeys were never able to adjust to social settings with others of their kind. Their behavior was obviously abnormal. My impression was that every moment of their life was stressful for them. Sorry I can't recall the source of the video I saw.

This result would be the same for dogs, cats and humans. I can't comprehend why it would be news in the year 2014.

wow
I'm still struggling with the first 99 percent, and now you tell me there's more?

This must be the Dark Matter that the rumors are about. Oh, how the elusive tendrils of reality converge on the delicate neurons of the deranged mind.

It's sad that science don't get more respect. Fanatics of various stripes in Congress, in the Middle East, and around the world are more interested in superstitious beliefs than science. And really, when it comes down to it, aren't almost ALL scientists tedious with their caveats and their statistics?

One would think that before embarking upon a ten year educational voyage, they might have investigated the prospects for a reward. Any kind of reward- money, prestige, a mention on Big Bang Theory, girls... But no, they forged ahead blind to the future and their own survival.

PostDocs should be happy that they don't live in times/places of revolution when the educated are the first to be cremated alive. Modern educational standards don't require knowledge of Pol Pot or Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin. For centuries, intellectuals have been the bane of those who want to conserve traditional values and beliefs. Really? Global warming, descended from monkeys, quarks? These people need to get real.

And so let's give them a position somewhere where they can do no harm and quietly fade away. It's really only a tiny minority of them that actually makes waves and disrupts our dearly held beliefs.

Put someone in a driving simulator and have them do something that might distract them. Does that make sense?

Put ME in a driving simulator and I'm already distracted. This isn't my car. The instruments aren't in the right places. It's confusing! And now you hand me a complicated device to use while 'driving'?

I had a bit of distraction the first few times I used the bluetooth system in my car. It could have been dangerous. The microphone was in the ceiling and the incoming via the radio, controls on the steering wheel and the phone was in my pocket. Dialing out was via voice commands. After a while it all seemed quite natural. Were these test subjects given time to adapt to the strange surroundings (like a week or two)?

Often when a study like this is done; to test the safety of distracting devices, or cigarettes or marijuana or alcohol ... there is a moral component. The people paying for the study want it to give certain results. Someone at AAA decided to do this- I wonder how old they are. It often seems to me that it is older people who fuss about such things (hey, I'm old but not fussy). In any case this particular study seems useless and biased.

The significant thing to note here is that height is important. It wouldn't be studied otherwise. If you want to succeed in politics or upper management or any endeavor in which you are judged by others, you should be tall. Man or woman (but especially men), it makes no difference- you must be tall.

You may be a great scientist or programmer or advertising copywriter, but unless you are tall you won't get credit for your work. It will go to your boss who is tall and doesn't even understand what you do.

Exceptions include Hitler, Napoleon many comedians and malcontents and criminals... You have some in your family, you've seen them on TV. And why do short people act out? Because they feel the pressure that short people feel. They are never accepted, never quite good enough due to their stature. They overcompensate.

When we learn to judge others by their merit, rather than their sometimes obvious 'short'comings, we will prevent many overreactions that lead to crime and worse. Randy Newman was wrong- short people can be just as beneficial to society, just as worthy as tall people.

We already have screens too wide, unable to present a readable document which is taller than it is wide. Great for widescreen movies and certain spreadsheets, not so good for letters, legal papers, business documents, books or magazines.

We may have to stack these monitors somehow.

from TFA:
"In fiscal year (FY) 2014, its budget is $7.2 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 50,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes about 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards about $593 million in professional and service contracts yearly."

and: "awards support research in 22 states"

This particular investment is a tiny fraction of the budget. A low priority.

Note that each congressperson attempts to get government funding for his/her state as part of the obligatory re-election process. Often this funding is for nonsense activity that may provide jobs or incentive for corporate supporters.

Not saying that any of this is pork, but I'd like to know.

The magician tricks the audience by directing their attention over there, while over here he is pulling something from his sleeve.

Guns are simply a distraction. A place to focus attention when the real problems are elsewhere. On one hand, you have the question of why do people want to kill people. OTOH there is the vast array of killing methods.

When every person is blessed by these principles:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
  - and when everyone has a fair chance at a good life including medical care, economic opportunity and freedom from oppression, there will be less incentive to kill. Millions of Americans, not to mention those in other countries, have no hope of a good life. They look around at others who have it all, but there is not a pittance for them nor anyone to care for their physical or mental health.

For those who want to kill, guns are not the only resource. Knives might be the obvious alternative, or clubs. But my friend who lived in a rough part of the city used to carry a squeeze bottle of acid as a defense. These are still small potatoes when any interested party can make powerful explosives and chemical/biological poisons that can be widely distributed in air or water, or simply added to Halloween candy.

Are guns such a threat, or are we being manipulated to distract us from the real threats?