I'm American and I lived in London for 2 years on a work visa, and travelled quite a bit. Never had any issues whatsoever at Heathrow or Gatwick. I found the border guard polite and professional. And going through security leaving from Heathrow was also much better than in the US, the main difference being the attitude and professionalism of the staff rather than policy differences (though it's nice not to have to take off your shoes). Maybe I've been lucky in the UK and unlucky in the US.

I think his argument is that it will be possible in the future for a few people to cause a lot more damage than they can today, therefore we must gradually transform ourselves into a police state so that we will be able protect ourselves, because we won't be able to turn on a dime from a free society to a totalitarian one once those threats become real. This is perhaps the most reasonable argument that can be made in favor of gathering this sort of data because, as others have pointed out, the current danger of terrorism is very slight relative to taking a shower or driving a car. I'm in favor of taking our chances and resuming the experiment of a free society.

According to Betteridge's Law, any news headline in the form of a question can be answered "No." Therefore we know it's not Nick Szabo.

Gore was never any kind of scientist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

"Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[22] he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.[21] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class." --Wikipedia

He actually studied government.

I think the tone of his statements is basically, "Sure we dabbled in that, and we might again at some point." Not reassuring at all, and not meant to be. And the only issue was "operational value", no moral or legal impediments. I can't imagine anyone reading that article would feel relieved.

Well, and the aqueducts. But apart from that...

I'm sure you're right, but as I get dumber, everything I read seems more insightful, so I don't notice the difference.

Is there actually anything in the Bible about God being omnipotent? From reading the Old Testament I remember a sense of his power being limited, particularly from a conversation where Moses is trying to convince him not to wipe out the Jews and start over, because the Egyptians would think Yahweh was weak for not successfully leading them to the promised land, and the argument seemed to work. You're not totally omnipotent if a mortal guy helps you out with your marketing strategy.

I'm guessing the concept of omnipotence emerged later?

And the Old Testament is not really monotheistic as we think about that today. It seems to say Yahweh is the most powerful of gods, but not the only. Some language like "above all others" implies to me that the *author* is saying "mine's better" instead of "yours don't actually exist".

I wonder about the duration of the effect. Is it just immediately following analytical thinking you're less inclined to report belief, but if you wait a week the level pops back up to normal? If it's just a temporary effect then that's more obvious and not as interesting. The full paper is paywalled so I can't tell.

Einstein's beliefs deinfitely don't fit that binary yes/no, but if you had to pick one it's closer to no. Here's a quote:

And here's more commentary.

Newton, on the other hand, yeah.

I tried multi-classing but I was levelling up too slowly so I re-rolled.

In fact maybe pilots should be required to make erratic maneuvers at least once per flight with the seatbelt light on as a way of encouraging people to heed the sign. Then in a real emergency everyone will be buckled in. So the next time Venus threatens an aircraft the passengers will be safe.

The problem with the Plantronics video is there was no news, no interesting thought-provoking topic to discuss or debate. And no obvious warning that would be the case beforehand. With your text articles, usually there's something new and interesting or it doesn't get posted. Maybe if you had the same selection process from many submitted videos and were picking only the best ones, applying the same criteria which should basically be: "Are our readers going to find this interesting?" Maybe you're trying too hard to post videos so you're not being choosy enough about what gets posted?

It is surprising that you weren't paid for the Plantronics video, because why else would you do it?

Here are some video suggestions:
1. Interview Darl McBride and ask him what his deal is.
2. Interview rms on any number of subjects.
3. When a version of Unity or Gnome shell comes out, do a quick video demo of it followed by comments from someone on the dev team explaining the rationale, and also someone who hates it venting about how much it sucks.
4. Interview former senator Dodd about the future of copyright
5. Interview some scientists about the Higgs boson.
6. Interview Sergei Brin about privacy.
7. Robots fighting.
8. Bruce Schneier about TSA

I think you have a strong enough readership of an influential community to get those folks to talk to you. Do a bunch of them and don't post the ones that suck. I bet the Google people read this site and would like the opportunity to talk about privacy.

Actually, thinking about it, you could stage debates and make it a very big deal. Like invite people from Canonical, GNOME team, and some XFCE zealots to fight it out. That sort of stuff video is great because there's a lot of passion and controversy. And I'm sure people here would give you lots of other great ideas for topics if you did a poll.

Another idea is to run a contest for best video on a specific topic. Like the next time the old question of how best to destroy old drives comes up, give away a prize to the best video submitted and then post it.

Anyway, have fun. And worst case if you find yourself posting another video like the Plantronics one, please ask them for at least a little money so it makes more sense.

This made me look around for a good definition. There's a pretty good one here. They're an advocacy group focused on eradicating slavery - a pretty good site.

It absolutely is not slavery to offer someone a job that they willingly accept because it will improve their lives. If the labor is not compulsory under threat of physical force, it's not slavery. Citation please if you think that's actually happening in those industries. There is actually slavery in the world, particularly in the sex trade, and it is unequivocally morally reprehensible. Calling other labor arrangements with mutual consent the same thing dilutes the term, and is just generally idiotic. There's sort of a grey area if, for example, I create the conditions in which your only choice is to work for me or die. Like a military coup that seizes all the resources, decides you'll work in a mine. You can refuse but you'll starve. This is much closer to and perhaps morally equivalent to slavery than the industries you're describing, but still I would call it "forced labor".