"Challenge it, " He did.
"Speak out," He did.
"Engage in a constructive act of protest," He engaged in protest, by whistleblowing, but I guess it doesn't count due to their qualification of "constructive", just like our president's explanation that he's not opposed to wars, just "dumb wars".
"and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions." Isn't whistle blowing legally protected from retaliation?

Agreed. I don't know how they successfully marketed this as as preventative measure, but all it does is show them who to hang afterwards. It's retribution, not prevention.

I'm not sure why this claim is revolutionary. Parents clearly set the basis for what children are interested in.

You've probably heard about NASA's potential exploration of planetary bodies with water (yes! real water!) such as Europa, which is known to have solid ice water on the surface, but possible liquid water beneath. Would you consider moving your expertise on oceanography to more space based programs, with the possibility that your discoveries on Earth could be the same on these other planets?

Why do you tease me so blurb.

Can I remind you it was a Democratic president who implemented forced privatization of health care services through mandatory HMO's?

Agreed. HMO != Health insurance. Not all insured use their HMO's, but still have to pay.

I also didn't bother to read it because it follows the "finite blame" model that you can either blame the celebrities or the hackers, but not both.

Mexicantacogirl.tiff

Drivers are the confounding variable.

I don't think we can make chain link fences that high.

Why would autonomous cars, ones that are programmed to obey traffic laws, be their first go to?

"I'm going to rob this bank...and then automatically stop at this red light."

I have a unique name IRL, but I never thought using it was a problem because while I did have discussions online, I made a point to not say anything controversial or trollish. If only my own intentions were what mattered, right? A woman on Buzzfeed didn't think so. She disagreed with me, but disagreeing wasn't enough. She looked up where I worked and sent messages to my company saying that I was saying disgusting things on the internet. I got called into the HR to notify me about this. I didn't get in trouble, of course, because I never said anything "disgusting".

But it did get me thinking about who would be so petty as to pull real life and real reputations into an online discussion where my arguement should be my words and not whether I'd stake my job on it.

I don't know about you, but I don't go around my office discussing politics, sex, religion, or any polarizing topics. My opinions on those are something I try to keep separate from my professional relationships. My personality isn't defined by my opinions on topical subjects; I don't find myself to be hypocritical for not announcing my views to everyone I know. The aforementioned type of person, is someone who doesn't understand this. Someone who can't comprehend that not sharing does not mean lying. Someone who believes this so deeply that they take it upon themselves to "expose the truth" as a selfless act to save others.

This actually sounds a lot like you. I make a point to stay away from people like you.

According to the study, two parallel experiments were conducted, one where positive comments were reduced and one where negative comments were reduced. They weren't exposing them to any additional "negative material".