Ya, the funny thing isn't who you think it is.

First off I have a high suspicion this study won't be reproducible. Secondly the TFA has this very interesting paragraph:

This begs the questions, how much did "grooming style" factor into the apps gaydar, and where did the list of gay and straight "grooming styles" come from?

On top of all this, TFA doesn't give any details on sample size and I find it difficult to believe they managed to get a large number of pictures of random people... along with the sexual preference of the person.

That may be possible in California, but here in Texas they'd do it once then get shot. I'm not a lawyer but that sure as hell sound like it passes the legal requirements on killing to protect your property.

Unfortunately if it's that bad them likely many of the employees now have them at home so they'll just keep getting reinfected. The only was for this to get solved is for the company to rent the building and everyone's house. But expect a massive amount of hotel infections to follow.

Prefab homes aren't necessarily mobile homes. In some cases they are just as good if not better than traditional homes. The way some are made all the framing is made in a factory and trucked in and assembled on site. This allows factory level efficiency and reduced cost but results in a house you can't tell was prefab.

It can be heated and pressurized to cabin levels, but the pilots don't have to do it unless there are animals in the cargo hold. Sometimes they forget or don't know and it ends badly for the animal. In all honestly the pilots will probably head and pressurized the hold if batteries will be a problem, which will make it much safer next time fluffy flies.

And 90% spend 20 minutes a day getting coffee which requires an additional 20 minutes a day going to the bathroom. People spend time at work doing things other than what they are paid for, it's the nature of most jobs. Most companies accept this.

I can't think of a more fitting honor than first man buried in space, perpetually circling the Earth in a make shift coffin. Hell even if his orbit decayed and he was cremated on entry, it would be a fitting end for such an important person to science. Even if he doesn't pass away on the trip, I would gladly pitch in to help send his body up.

I don't think you understand how this works... There will never be any useful information found, or at the very least never any information that's presented as evidence. That way the government still gets the information, without ever having to disclose how.

I suspect the problem is serious people wouldn't want to put this on their resume. Imagine "served as . What they failed to understand is how much of a conversation starter it is. I'd bet they'd get interviews from people interested in the name alone. Plus if they're single men they have the best opener ever: "hi, I'm the first mate on the Boaty McBoatface"

He's not a mosquito, he's not a smoldering ember, he's likely not even a mentally ill person. Imprisoning anyone for researching alternative viewpoints (even if you believe to be evil) is wrong and you don't punish people for it. This man did nothing other than basically research and as far as anyone can tell had no plans to do anything further.
In my 20s I downloaded a copy of the big book of mischief. I never tried to make anything from the book, probably good I didn't or I might not be here now, however by the logic that convicted this guy I could have faced years in prison... for curiosity.
No matter which way you cut it this is wrong.

I don't think we forget that part, it's just irrelevant in our opinion. If it's acknowledged that the amendment was added so the people could fight the government should it no longer serve them for whatever reason, then the government can't be allowed to determine in any way what constitutes a militia. Otherwise the government could define militia in a manner that negates the entire amendment and it's purpose. Thus only the people outside the normal government processes can determine what a militia, which opens it up to multiple valid interpretations and implementations. Of course this idea requires you to believe the founders added irrelevant text to constitution, which doesn't seem likely given the thought put into the wording.

I've wondered if aliens might be using some sort of advanced communication method we haven't discovered yet... say a subspace radio, and once we discover the tech and turn in on and discover planet foobar public radio. You have to imagine that even in highly advanced civilizations they'd still need a way to broadcast news to everywhere their race exists.

This is the crux of the issue, someone needs to step up and accept the fact they are going to deliberately kill three people rather than let 300 people die. I'd equate it to whistle blowers like Snodwen. Unfortunately a country government cannot operate without some secrets (though they should be few and far between) and there should be prosecution for whistle blowers. However principled individuals should risk imprisonment when the cause is just. Sure it sucks but the court of public opinion does help somewhat. In relation to the original post, this is what will prevent drive less cars. Any company that attempts to mass produce driver less cars will have to face a possible avalanche of wrongful death lawsuits which will scare the bejesus out of it's stock holders and kill the idea. The only way this can move forward in any sort of scale is laws limiting liability (which I doubt the inept US government can create), and a decently sized case history showing the laws can stand court scrutiny. So unfortunately even though they will be safer I feel it's unlikely we'll see driver less cars at the consumer level for several decades if ever.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to give people the power to fight their own government should the need arise. If you look at the Bill of Rights and what was going on under British rule many of the Rights were added specifically to address issues they experienced. The British were limiting the ability of the people to report on what was going on, was preventing organized demonstrations, was confiscating weapons and forcing private citizens to harbor troops. Without the 2nd amendment the people of the US would have zero chance of overthrowing the government should the need arise. Of course with the technological advances in military weaponry it'd be very difficult to due with personal weapons, but that may be more justification to broaden the weapons allowed by private citizens.