I read somewhere that cyanide gas was used. I suspect that if nitrogen was ever considered, the peopled involved assumed it would result in painful suffocation.

Or just closing the room vents. Putting a mask on the convict would likely make him panic.

If you mean simply death-by-vivisection, even the US considers that far too barbaric. If you mean harvesting organs, doctors competent to do that won't do that unless the donor is brain dead. But there's a catch. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed. If the convict is brain dead, then he is no longer mentally competent, so must then be kept alive until he does of natural causes. Therefore, execution must take the form of stopping the heart, first. But the chemicals used to do that make also make the other organs useless. While it would be possible to anesthetize the convict then use a defib machine to stop the heart, it requires a qualified doctor (an anesthetist) to do that correctly, so again, not going to happen.

No doubt there are unethical doctors who would be willing to do this, but using them would open yet another legal/political minefield. I think Ohio politicians who allowed this execution are going to have far more than enough trouble walking the one they just created.

Even if Texas seceded from the US, they will still drag the US down their "rabbit hole" due to lack of an organized counter balance on the influence their money has on text books.

Sadly, the open text book project won't be of much help. As great the potential of this project for increasing rational thought, ultimately, someone has to put in money to make the texts available, whether electronically or in print. The conservatives who are running text book selection in Texas aren't going to let federal tax money pay for it. And if they'd even touch it at all, more likely they would take the material, re-edit it, then make profits from the distribution (and maybe printing) charges.

The organizations still doing actual science are either under the control of similar conservatives or barely have enough money to do science, let alone donate enough to the open text book project to make a real difference.

And if a grass roots organization tried, how much money would it be allowed to raise before it gets either co-opted or shutdown?

Also note that the people channeling public money in to these schools are also the ones who claim public education is a waste of taxpayer money.

I know some women of the "Father Knows Best" variety, who are on state assistance. 2 of them are windows of soldiers killed in the Iraq war. The others were abandoned by their husbands. Because they were raised to be dependent on their husbands - just like their mothers - they weren't prepared to be "single" mothers. The only jobs they are qualified for are waiting on tables at restaurants, non-cashier work at McDonalds or stocking shelves in stores. They are not able to earn enough to support themselves and their children. and their father-knows-best fathers lost their manufacturing jobs so are not able to help. These women are trying to find new husbands, but seems there are not enough available men who are both able and willing to become "instant fathers".

Most other single mothers I know are able to get better jobs, so don't need state assistance. They were raised to be able to be independent. They do not view themselves as "feminist", merely "capable of carrying their own". Also, some of them are dating men because they like dating men.

I do know a few non-father-knows-best, single mothers who are on state assistance. Their husbands/boyfriends abandoned them. Then they either were forced to accept deep pay cuts, were laid off due to off-shoring or were disabled due to injury or illness. They do not view the state as a surrogate husband. Nor do they view themselves as "feminist". The one I mentioned this to responded, "Then I want a divorce! And a real job!"

Seems to me that the problem isn't "feminism".

Sounds like you work in a generally unpleasant place.

I have rarely experienced hostility or nastiness, let alone sexism. I have witnessed most of my female coworkers be subjected to such on a semi regular basis. Most often, some variation of a male finding excuses for devaluing a female's contribution in spite of clear evidence of equal or superior quality and quantity of contribution. Sometimes there was actual hostility/nastiness directed at women that was never directed at other men.

As for school-age treatment of females vs males, from pre-school all the way up, the school discouraged my female classmates from science and engineering, and for those girls set on science and/or engineering, the school cast them as future teachers (or nurses for those interested in medical science), discouraging them from pursuing careers in industry. My girlfriend, who is an engineer, experienced this bias in school, so did our daughter, who is now an engineering student at a highly rated university.

My colleagues in other companies report similar experiences and observations.

Maybe the friends they want to be with are n'tthere?

While our daughter was in high school (and middle school), the 3 of us would often go to the mall. My girlfriend and I would alternate between shopping and watching our daughter from a discrete distance. This allowed her time with her friends - at least the ones whose parents also gave them enough space. If none of her friends were there, then yes, she'd be on her smart phone - but still managed to meet new friends. Sometimes, her group would use their phones to include friends not there, but usually just socialized with those present.

Is it really shocking to you that teens would want face-to-face social time?

I think it is good they want face-to-face time with their friends (and no, I do not mean "Face Time" on their iDevice). Opportunities for real, face-to-face socialization are far, far fewer than when we were teens.

I also think that most of today's adults would agree that face-to-face socialization is better. Unfortunately, too few are willing to take on the responsibility of enabling self-directed activities like when we were teens. Example: When I was a teen (and even when I was a child), all the parents in my neighborhood made the effort to get to know each other and help each other monitor the neighborhood so that it would be safe for the kids. I have not seen that happening in recent years. If neither of a kid's parents is with the kid, the kid isn't playing outside. And when kids do visit other kids' homes, the host parents expect the visiting kids' parents to stay for the duration. And the parents of the visiting kids expect to be allowed to stay. Another example: My school had informal, after school activities that were only loosely monitored by teachers and/or staff. In recent years, the closest there is to unscripted time is lunch break, which is often barely long enough for all the kids to get their lunches and eat.

I think you greatly under estimate the ingenuity of motivated tax collectors. This is "merely" a "technical limit". They will find ways to work around it.

I think the GP was saying the default would have been much smaller because the bank would have (a) been less willing to loan out the money, and (b) had less money to lend out.

While (a) might be a reasonable assumption, I am not sure about (b). I think that the banks, regardless of the currency, would have figured out other ways to emass gigantic sums of money.

Each metal has a set of properties that differentiate it from other metals that affect its desirability for various uses. The combination of gold's properties and its relative scarcity give it its value. Scarcity can vary over time, thus changing the value. An interesting example is aluminum. Before the techniques and technologies required for large (or even medium) scale smelting of bauxite, aluminum was almost as valuable as silver.

The difference with digital currency is simply that it is easier to assemble the required algorithms and protocols to create new currencies with whatever set of desired properties/features. The main obstacle to its competitors is achieving sufficient level of adoption by users. Part of achieving that will involve addressing Bitcoin's problems without compromising its benefits. - and then adequately demonstrating its superiority,

Um, several million will die quickly, but the rest of the world - both humans and non-humans - will suffer some combination of radiation sickness and freezing weather. I think that is bigger.

Unfortunately, this won't be a deterrent. The ones like the 911 terrorists expect to die during the attack. Even if they didn't die - and don't then kill themselves - even the most humiliating public punishment would not deter others. They will just be more careful to not survive.

Then there are the crazies. They won't even think of the consequences.

So that leaves prevention. Most of the crazies could be dealt with by vastly improving access to mental health care. For latent malignancy cases and "professionals", detection is much harder.

And that means the debate on what and how much data is collected and how long it is stored will continue. Also, just what the true value of any given datum. For example, the use of the terminology "friend" in social media. Or even "follower" or "contact". I think, in most cases, "monitored people" would be more accurate.