So is creationism science, or is it religion?
I thought that creationists argued that their ideas were "scientific" or was that the intelligent designers?
Anyway, either it's a religion, the basis for the creationists' case here, and would therefore have no place in a proper education system to begin with,
or creationism is a science, giving it a place in the education system but allowing teacher to have & express a negative opinion about it.
This seems the kind of circular reasoning we've come to expect from creationists and intteligent design proponents, in yet another interesting new form.

you have zero privacy anyway. get over it?

freaky ... you must be operating on the exact same frequency ... what are the odds? (No, please don't tell me)

Some people do literally everything to be perceived as a "hot date", don't they?
Of course, the kind of women that this would attract end up showing all that they can online eventually anyway.

Obviously, you can create a timewarp and throw it through the hole to your past self in order to be in 1993's top 250 on that list.
Regrettably, you'd need something topping today's #1 to do the math required in order to actually do that.

The real question of course is, what the "Windows Vista experience index" of this machine is. If it's anywhere below 5.5 it's obviously not worth the bother.

"But like any open-source project, it's impossible for one person to be anything more than an inconvenience."

Tell that to the former users of ReiserFS, why don't you?

Where were the creationist "scientists" with cameras, catching scientific evidence of the "intelligent designer" at work?

Of course it sounds creepy. It was then, and it still is now.
But are the implicit criteria that are currently in effect to select the "haves" and de-select the "have-not's" on this planet any better?
On an overcrowded planet, when one wants to think about population and birth reduction, one can't write that down without at least some speculation on selection criteria.
The real danger is in giving a (small) group of people this power of selection, no matter what the criteria will be (though the ones mentioned here make up a creepy set indeed!).
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

All those charges for piping and nothing being there underground at all.
And now, the jig will be up for them when the robot discovers there are no sewers there!

First order of business: how to harvest water ice from space?

So now we've seen the end (or the beginning?) of the first interstellar war. I wonder how much more we'll see in the coming years?
Only 600 million years for a star system with planets to form and one or more civilisations to evolve, then discover and annihilate each other is quite a respectable feat!

The ability to host 65 terabytes of movies is insignificant compared to the power of the dark side ....

If the point of the article is mainly to awaken public perception about machine referees,
then sentences like "but the fact that the machine can also make mistakes should always be clear." don't help at all.
People should have at least the awareness that as long as they aren't broken and function as designed,
machines don't make mistakes. (A mistake being the same as 'producing output not in accordance with the input and the design specification' in this case).
Machines however, CAN be inaccurate and often this inaccuracy is part of the design specification.
Equating inaccuracy with "making mistakes" is as bad in misinforming the public as it is to maintain the aura of perfection that surrounds sophisticated machinery now.