Both, obviously. Why the false dichotomy?

Well sure, you could make the argument that he was an idiot, and the only farmer around who didn't realize that only Monsanto seeds were roundup resistant. That would be a bit like claiming that you found a really cool plant growing in your back yard, discovered that it was really fun to smoke, and then sold it to all of your friends ... but "I swear, officer, I didn't know it was Marijuana".

Unfortunately, Percy's defence was even stupider than that. He didn't bother trying to play innocent; instead he just said "Screw you Monsanto - I found your seeds on my land, so they're mine to do with as I please".

The courts disagreed.

There have been some interesting suggestions, involving things such as releasing sulphur (or something similar, I don't remember exactly) into the upper atmosphere to reflect more sunlight before it reaches us. I've read of a few different approaches, all of which are mostly theoretical at this point.

I'm not saying there are any sure-fire ways to stop global warming without reducing CO2 output. And I'm all for reducing it wherever practical. What I'm saying is that we need to put more effort (read "money") into researching Geo-engineering. Some of our current ideas will likely turn out to be wrong. Maybe all of them will. But failing is a big part of the scientific process, and we won't learn anything unless we try. Instead of spending billions buying carbon credits, why not put billions into Geo-engineering research?

You're making a very simple - and very common mistake; "eating healthy" has absolutely nothing to do with weight control. Sure a "whole wheat" bread may give you more nutrients than bleached white Wonderbread, but nutrients don't cause either weight gain or weight loss.

As far as weight loss/gain is concerned, eating 1,500 calories worth of "processed" food is the same as eating 1,500 calories of your home-made tree-hugging fully-organic vaccine-free health-juice.

No, they haven't. If you were at all familiar with the Schmeiser case you would know that he intentionally planted Monsanto seed. He never even denied it - not in court anyway. In interviews he tries to twist the story to hide the pertinent details, and his supports outright lie about what happened, but the court proceedings tell the real story - he found some plants which were resistant to Roundup, he kept their seeds, and he intentionally planted a crop which was Roundup resistant.

So tell me again how that's a far cry from claiming it never happened?

That's nonsense. Sure, if we're willing to make huge sacrifices, AND if we can convince the rest of the world to do the same, we could drastically reduce our output of greenhouse gasses. Even that is a pipe-dream, but ok, it's technically doable.

What we can't do is regulate solar output and the natural variations in the earths climate. Not by just limiting our pollution, anyway. So even if we miraculously stop the current cycle of warming, we'll be screwed as soon as mamma nature decides to turn up (or down) the heat.

That's why the real solution we need to be looking at is Geo-engineering. We need a reliable means of modifying our climate so we can deal with ANY change that we don't like. After all, natural global warming isn't any better than man-made global warming.

This particular baby is stillborn, so why do you want to hang on to it's corpse? It's much more rational (and much more fun) to make a new one.

Hah! You've clearly never dealt with Ma Bell.

Oh yeah. This is also why I'm terrified of the people next door - because there are hundreds of millions of people who were abused and/or murdered throughout history by people who aren't in the government.

No shit, Sherlock! Nobody is disputing that the risk goes up with each new individual involved. I'm just laughing at the stupidity of putting yourself in that position in the first place.

Oh goody, laws will protect me. Just like the laws which prevent NSA agents from prying into information they shouldn't have. Thanks, bro, I feel so much better now!

That article is stupid. Pick any one of their examples:

They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.

Oh noes. You mean the way the phone company knows? You mean the way the sex line owner knows. You mean the way the hook ... er, young lady on the other end knows?

As soon as I make the call there are already two organizations and hundreds of individuals who could use it to blackmail me. And you want me to get upset because now Teh Gubernment knows too?

If you're doing shit you don't want found out, don't do it on open comms while using your own name. This isn't rocket surgery.

Oh man, this They is very scary! I'm experiencing great amounts of fear, uncertainty, and doubt! Please, sign me up to your newsletter so I can once again feel better about the world!

The F-35 has a significantly greater combat range than our current fighters, so we can pretty much dismiss that argument right away. But combat range is a shit indicator anyway if what you care about is covering our own airspace. What we need is intercept capability, not combat radius. We need to get there quickly, blow the invader away, and head home - possibly meeting an air-to-air refueller along the way. And the F-35 is MUCH better at that because of supercruise.

With the F-18 you either go subsonic in order to have greater range, or you fire up the afterburners to get there fast, but only over short distances or you'll run out of fuel way too soon. With the F-35 that equation becomes much more balanced because you can go supersonic with a much lower fuel cost. You also have the advantage of being able to fire from farther away, but that's a lesser consideration.

Unfortunately drones aren't quite there yet. This will probably be the last manned fighter purchased by Canada, but we're not quite ready to go drones-only at this point.

That's actually been one of the only really solid objections to this purchase ... it can be persuasively argued that it makes much more sense to try and extend the lifespan of the current CF-18 fleet (or purchase new CF-18s with a much lower price tag than the F-35s) and wait 10-15 years for drone technology to further mature. I'm undecided on the issue. We do need new fighters in the interim, and the F35 is a fantastic piece of technology, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest decision at this point.

Sure, and a .50 Cal sniper rifle will set you back a hell of a lot more than a 3D printer. Either way the original point is stupid.

I'm curious - how exactly do you imagine this technology could be misused?

Follow someone around? Pretty sure cops already do that ...

What else is there?

You're kidding, right?

At the moment, Canada pays the US to pay the Russians to get us into orbit. In a couple years we'll pay the US to pay SpaceX to get us into orbit, or we'll just pay SpaceX directly, and save a bundle in the process. It doesn't make bit of difference to us whether or not the US and Russia are cooperating.

Hadfield's pro-international-cooperation stance is purely a result of his own values and politics. Though I have a hunch most astronauts would voice similar feelings.

It's also cheaper to buy a book than a normal printer.