The snopes article doesn't quite back you up. It's possible that he spoke to a related gathering a few hours before the convention, not knowing it was EURO related nor that there were a few white supremacists in attendance. But it's also possible that he did address the EURO convention with full knowledge of who they were, either because he wanted their support (or non-opposition) and/or he was sympathetic to their beliefs.

The truth is there's insufficient information to know what really happened.

You're confusing hard science fiction with speculative fiction.

Star Trek is not hard science fiction and I don't think anyone ever claimed it to be, the technology presented is not only scientifically unrealistic but internally inconsistent.

But it's definitely speculative fiction. Regular moral quandaries over the Prime Directive, questions about the actions and motivations of all-powerful beings, when to resort to military force, conflicts between respecting individual rights and respecting other cultures, etc. There's a lot of serious issues they tackled head-on.

Star wars by contrast is essentially a fantasy adventure, it's fun as hell (when done right), but never really strays from the basic good vs evil narrative.

Will it really fix things though?

I'm sure it will improve the humour, but that wasn't really why the movies sucked.

Star Trek at its best was speculative fiction with a bit of action thrown in.

The new movies are action films with a bit of speculative fiction thrown in.

The focus of the TV series and even the first movies were philosophically interesting problems. The focus of the new movies are big FX action sequences.

You've almost got to completely re-reinvent the franchise again, even if it were possible with the current cast I'm not sure Pegg, as a writer, would really have authority to do that.

You wouldn't grow your own wheat, sugar cane, raise chickensc, etc for the ingredients for your choclate chip cookies. Just go buy the dough from the store.

That's quite a leap man. No I would not grow my own sugar cane, but store bought dough is disgusting compared to small effort to make your own cookies from ingredients you buy at a store...

Can you explain why E=mc^2 is clearly real?

I can see the principal in saying that politicians shouldn't hold votes affirming some scientific theory, but if you are going to allow votes of that matter than somewhere where there is a clear scientific consensus, such as climate change, are valid.

You seem to be conflating the law and morality.

I have a proposal to make, I stand outside your door with a video camera, I film you the entire day while you're in a public space, and then I post the video online for everyone to see. Ignoring the stalking, if this prospect makes you uncomfortable than you must acknowledge that it's not as simple as you imply.

There is such thing as privacy in public places, we've just lacked the technology to seriously violate that privacy outside of some narrow cases like stalking. As such it was simply to simply declare that there legally was no expectation of privacy.

But Google glass is a new technology, it changes that equation. It's entirely appropriate to question both the morality and whether laws should be rewritten.

1) Most of the patrons in the bar are under canopies, out of view of the camera.

2) The camera is positioned explicitly so pretty much all the people you would be able to see - you are looking at their backs.

3) That camera is obviously about the view FROM the bar, not about the people there.

" Many bars employ photographers to wander through the crowd taking photos"

Name one, that is not in South Florida, with a Girls Gone Wild truck parked out front.

What I *can* see happening in "Many Bars" is a photographer first being assaulted and then being ejected for taking random photos of everyone there.

My point was that politics sometimes sometimes follow facts, often they don't, but that doesn't change the nature of the facts themselves.

Yes, totally agree.

Concluding "any facts politicians agree on must be wrong" is as stupid as suggesting the reverse.

Now there you lost me again. The link you provided was the very essence of that - PI as 3.2. I would claim that in general politicians are not scientists and you can say with 99% certainty that any bill such a group tries to pass related to science is going to range from wrong to horribly wrong.

Yes, in fact I would say ""any facts politicians agree on must be wrong", almost by definition!

The article linked says the bill implied Pi should be 3.2...

So you really want to bring that up in the context of a bill that claims humans cause substantial warming? Or that the warming we see is anything to be concerned about?

Observable reality is what it is, no matter how much a law rounds or chastises.

I've been around a few Glass users. I didn't find it creepy from the recording aspect since we are already recorded everywhere already anyway.

I do think it just plain looks ugly though, and bulky enough I wouldn't want it on my face. That was the thing I never got about Glass really - people generally don't wear glasses if they can help it, to the point where people have invasive laser surgery so they don't have to wear glasses... suddenly we are supposed to want to wear them all the time? It just never made much sense to me, not as much as watches do (not talking about the Apple Watch specifically, just the concept of a smart watch).

I can see glasses having some very specific HUD kinds of uses - like sunglasses for driving, or snow goggles each with very specific displays. But I just don't see it being a good form for general use for a wide range of people.

They can take that into account.

I'll mark them true which means we probably agree on a lot of things, so if I mark other things false you'll probably agree they're false and FB shouldn't give them much weight.

But if someone else thinks they're false you probably disagree on a lot, so if that other person flags other things false it shouldn't carry much weight as to whether it's shown to you.

I don't know if that's the plan but it would be a nice way to create an information bubble.

That's all true but for most people 28-50 pixels face is close enough, especially considering the burden carrying a real DSLR and lenses - even smaller mirrorless cameras mean a case and some weight. Some people will do it (I've done it) but fewer and fewer... the iPhone 6 plus IS also works pretty well for helping with lower light.

The iPhone burst capture also really helps with low light, I've used the same technique on "real" cameras where in a burst one will be sharp as it was taken at just the moment your hands stopped shaking briefly.

It also doesn't really matter if just 20% are keepers, because the images are easier to deal with on a smartphone (for most people). You don't have to go through the effort of getting them off the camera and deciding what you like, you can either deal with them in the moment or in brief moments while waiting for something.

What you say is true about digital zooms, you might was well crop - only now you are framing for the crop live on screen essentially, meaning no work later.

In thinking about photography for the masses, what most people want is zero work later. People who are not photographers want no post-process at all, so the closer anything gets to that the more people will use it.

Interesting that the advice to prepare for both Santa and SWAT are identical... Hmm.

So the average person spends most of their day walking around with a GPS recording their every movement, I have to imagine this is already having a pretty big effect on the criminal court system. Sure most people committing a premeditated crime would be smart enough to leave their phone at home (or give it to a fake alibi), but this seems to greatly simplify the standard TV question of "where were you between the times of X and Y last night?"