Or it's an amalgamation considered more reliable than any one news source.

It's either going to be a rare or common occurrence. If it's rare, then it's not really any worse than not hiring you because you prefer a different sports team or whatever stupid reason they have. If it's common, then it would be something happening enough to get some decent data.

If someone is wrongfully accused, then the most appropriate solution would be to publish an update stating such to the original article. If you want to require THAT, I have far less qualms with it than hiding the results.

And when you have idiotic laws like our sex offender laws where you pee in public you are on the list and everyone who sees your name there thinks you had sex with some little kid.

Then perhaps we should fix the idiotic laws instead of creating more idiotic laws.

Or, we could solve the problem at the root instead of using soft censorship and claiming it's not censorship because the information is still there, just really hard to see. We have better documentation of our lives than previous generations. That means that we have more dirty laundry that can be found. How about we just become more tolerant people and call out people who are not being tolerant people instead of trying to fight the realities of the spread of information . If someone doesn't get a job because they stole a candy bar 10 years ago, organize a boycott of that company for being such petty dicks.

Also, the practice of brand management is exactly the kind of thing we should scared of. Blackwater does awful shit, and changes their name every couple of years so we don't point to the same evil bastards again and again.

If you could reliably keep something secret indefinitely while practicing it, you'd be a fool to seek a patent on it. I wish people would quit repeating the ridiculous myth that patents somehow reduce trade secrets in any beneficial way.

Life based copyright is totally stupid. It is far less reliable for all parties involved. If we are going to have copyright, it should just be X years. That way the same amount of protection is given for a work that is written in high school as a work that is written on a deathbed.

Also, you can't 'punish' authors in this context since they are not inherently owed anything at all. The problem would be that it disproportionately rewards certain authors.

I think one of the biggest issues with eugenics is that most of those that have gone down that path have been stuck in the idea of seeking perfection, when the ideal is actually diversity. Humans are in charge of this rock uncontested because we have different people doing different jobs. Likewise, in the case of disease or changing environments, there are big advantages to diversity. Again, we are one of very few species that can live on every continent on the planet. The lack of diversity is also a big concern in regards to our food supply.

In modern terms, race would effectively be a haplogroup, or sub- or superset thereof.

I would say that 'being human' is about adapting to your situation. That can be overcoming your disadvantages by sheer force, but it can also be finding a different path to where your disadvantages don't matter, or are even an advantage. There is no reason that we should all be striving towards having the same skillset, though.

It's usually considered unethical to raise identical twins separately for the sake of such experiments, although cases where this happened are rich for study.

Learning to learn, is just another expression to say "stay calm, listen and do what you're told in the permitted limits" which is a not so simple part of a kid education.

It sounds more like you are talking about learning to obey, which is pretty much the opposite of learning to learn.

One's ability to learn is generally thought to not be tied to one's specific knowledge. The topic of discussion is one's ability to learn, not what you have learned.

No, it's not just a matter of work ethic. In fact, this often runs contrary to work ethic, as people will learn new skills to avoid or reduce the amount of work they have to do. A similar thing happens at the physical level when you learn. Something incredibly complex such as bipedal locomotion gets to the point where it's handled without any active thought because it's less work to do so.

PS. If genetics played a part, someone good at math is not going to be good at languages There is a reason why they are separate subjects and fields. For starters, one loves ambiguities while the other rejects them outright. It's a completely different mode of thinking.

That there are differences between fields doesn't mean that being good at one would lead to being bad at another. The key factor here may be the capability to shift between paradigms.

Be careful what you wish for, or they'll use internal organs (which are by definition not extremities), and you don't want anybody cutting those out.

Awesome and awkward aren't mutually exclusive, and both could cut into sleep.

I would think that it's the roller coaster effect that turns your stomach.