These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other).

It lets criminals know exactly which homes to break into to get guns (or which to avoid). It won't let anyone draw any conclusions about the neighbourhood itself without doing statistical analysis. And frankly, I can't help but notice similarities with the sexual offender database, which is specifically meant to dish out indefinite punishment, thus I must conclude that the main purpose here is intimidation.

If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.

If you criticise the government, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you opened your mouth, so don't bitch about it.

Also, we don't hold the users of any other products to this standard. Not even cars: if you crash into someone because ECC suddenly applies brakes on one side due to programming error, you don't go to jail. Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?

Why is it that in every other aspect of life I can accept prevailing (almost universal) scientific consensus and no one will bat an eye, and yet to accept same in regard to global warming is some sort of heinous act?

Why do alcoholics deny they have a problem? Because admitting it would imply that they'd need to give up the sweet, sweet booze. That doesn't mean that they still can't agree that drugs are bad, just not alcohol.

And of course they are completely correct in that giving up fossil fuels will be horribly painful and likely make us look back to the golden age of prosperity due to cheap energy. Who would want to accept a fact that would necessiate it besides the more radical eco-nuts - and I doubt even they really understand just how horribly miserable de-industrialization would make them. It's an impossible sell.

So we have large and rich oil corporations selling people lies they want to believe, versus scientists selling facts about a danger that can't be dodged without painful sacrifices (of the kind which will actually affect people personally, rather than the kind they wouldn't even notice if not for the evening news). Who will the people believe?

Does something have to be "fun" to be a game?

A game has to be fun to be relevant. If it isn't fun, it might still be a game, but it doesn't matter since no one's going to play it unless forced to, and if they are, they'll just go through the motions while daydreaming.

But of course the straightforward answer to your question is: it depends entirely on how you define a game, and thus varies depending on the context. Which, in this case, is "convenient scapegoat".

So having a page just work without drama is not a solution, while requiring the user to manually close it (hopefully before FF crashes) and not visit it in the future is?

What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?

The desire of the Chinese to sell more "traditional Chinese medicinal foods", I'd imagine.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but this line screams "marketing scam" to me.

Not reincarnate. Isn't that the whole point?

Whats worse 100,000 cases of polio or cultural eradication?

100,000 cases of polio. "Cultural eradication" doesn't actually harm anyone, but polio does.

When I was unemployed there were so many companies using New Deal to get basically slave labour.

Same here in Finland. And, I suspect, everywhere where such systems exist. It makes plenty of business sense to abuse an offer you can't refuse to get free labour, while those lucky enough to have jobs will naturally attribute them to their personal qualities rather than luck, thus prompting them to look down on "lazy bums".

Still people say it is not enough and unemployed people should be a workforce of the government to clean parks etc. -.-

As long as these people are paid a normal monthly salary for such work, sure, no problem. Or did I misunderstand, and this is actually an attempt to get unpaid slave labour? Coming to think of it, it probably is. And once you start such a program, you can expand it to provide workforce for private companies in a guise of "training" - perhaps for the very company that fired the person in the first place! Yes, the way to compete with Chinese slave labour is to have domestic slave labour!

The point is that for some things animals are still better than mechanised vehicles, even ones with tracks or artificial legs.

It is almost certain that a horse or a donkey is better than this thing, but it's also almost certain that this thing will improve faster than horses or donkeys do, and with far less ethical problems or unfortunate implications. It might well be worth it to invest in a solution that's inferior in the short run to get long-term benefits.

And one obvious benefit this thing has is the ability to scale up, all the way to heavy equipment size. Walking trucks have obvious military benefits, walking forestry machines would allow efficient harvesting without damaging the ecosystem, walking firetrucks could make rescue operations easier, walking and climbing police spider robots would make it easy to terrorize the general population into submission, and so on.

But, the key is that if there was a need for LS3, then the US would already be using pack animals. They aren't, so there probably isn't.

Don't think of it as a robotized donkey, think of it as a jeep that can move in really rought terrain. Also, there's obvious future benefits to supporting this kind of thing, since walking is far superior to wheels anywhere except roads - and nothing stops you from attaching wheels on the bottoms of a walking robot's feet.

Just imagine it: a two-ton walking, climbing, rollerblading autonomous spider tank armed with lasers, capable of dodging rockets, never sleeping, never resting, tirelessly prowling the night looking for its intended targets... And just to go that extra mile, we could equip it with a glucose-burning fuel cell and have it suck its victims dry with its titanium mandibles. And if you do get a lucky hit, the thing will release a horde of flying robotized killer bees that attack everything in sight.

The possibilities are endless.

Sounds like a very expensive donkey/mule replacement. Why not just use real animals?

You can't just turn real animals off when you don't need them.

The one single problem with renewables is energy storage.

And the second is that in order to capture dispersed energy you need a lot of infrastructure, which requires maintenance and eventual replacement. This is expensive and dangerous (especially for wind).

Their POTENTIAL deaths is massively higher than anything else.

No, hydro has them beat: a dam breaking will kill everyone downstream. And of course coal's actual annual death toll beats nuclear's potential one hands down.