The kid in Ohio who was shot because he had a toy gun,

A toy gun that had been painted to look like a real gun. That he was pointing at a cop... a rookie cop. I don't think there's much dispute that a better trained cop (like his partner) would not have shot the kid, but of all the incidents, it seems the most reasonable.

The police in NY clearly should have gone to trial, and, based on what I saw, jail

I assume Michael Brown became the poster child because the local community organized, which gave news crews something to film, which lead to more people, etc. in the snowball effect. And the facts of the case seem to be disputable.

Why you choose to further the narrative that gun owners are somehow racists or bigots is beyond me. here is no basis in reality for it...

Okay, first, there seems to be a correlation, esp. among people who don't know many gun owners, between gun ownership and crazy racist. Look at Cliven Bundy, or Ted Nugent. Now, that's a skewed sample, but it's the sample most people have.

Second, the NRA itself promotes this. The most recent 35 ads I could find for the NRA feature white people. Same with the first few pages on their website.

I'm not saying they're correct, but it's easy to see how those views could form.

Here's my question: why doesn't the NAACP stand up for the right of black people to keep guns?

Because a more important goal of theirs is to stop the police from shooting/killing their constituents. And the message conflicts with "and also, they will be carrying one to three concealed weapons"

I think everyone who believes in free speech ought to buy a ticket,

The movie is neither courageous nor a triumph of free speech. It would be both if North Koreans had made it. But it's not.

It didn't even look like a good movie

And giving money to corporation for a shitty in return may be an American way, but it's not one I want to encourage.

Regulations aren't the best solution for every problem.

Never said they were. I do think they are (a part of) the best solution for these problems.

This action is going way too far though

The outright ban may be, but the ban on going to high, flying out of sight or flying at night?

Look, either the city needs to license drones and/or drone pilots, or they need to limit the damage that can be done.

No, like those concrete path thingies that people follow with their fantastical "horseless carriages"

Banning things like UAVs, guns, and large sodas is definitely the best way to keep citizens (who are all too stupid to make their own decisions) healthy.

UAVs and guns have pretty obvious externalities. Why wouldn't you want to regulate them?

You're both right, you're both wrong.

The burden is on the bank to force you, via the law, to repay them. The burden is on the person to clear their credit report of the issue.

Now, the desirability of having a large system that operates under "guilty until proven innocent" and, while not having the force of law, is still pretty vital to living in America.... well, that's a different story.

I once talked to the CTO of GarageGames (back when they were not open-sourced). He said "Torque was 400k lines of really good code, with another 100k thrown in for free". We ran.

While that does look nice, I'm really interested in what happens when the non-creator gets a hold of it and people start printing crazy stuff.

Other less dysfunctional cities either have better mass transit

LA is supposed to actually have quite good mass transit. Just underrated.

I seem to recall there was some reason a lot of people were off the roads, leaving them clear. And there were some races between mass transit and driving. The results (again without traffic) were within the margin of error.

Not sure if the test was rigged, or what, but it was interesting.

I didn't get one (the office got a 3D printer the same time the kickstarter went up), but it sounds really interesting. I'm interested to see what the prints actually look like in the wild.

Well, they claim 1 in 11000, as opposed to 1 in 20000. I question their math. (And yours). You don't get to multiple the liklihood of Chrome and Chrome 39 together, they are highly correlated. See also Windows and Windows 7.

Interesting. The only time I had heard 'evergreen" before was in reference to characters/worlds/other fictional material, and referred to ensuring continued cultural relevance (e.g. Mickey Mouse).

But it explicitly talked about the pragmatic issues... I suppose they already assumed perpetual ownership of the IP.

did anyone consider the possibility of the government backstopping insurance companies for high-expense patients, by (for example) putting a cap on the amount of money an insurance company must pay out in the lifetime of an individual (call it $1 million)--then when you hit that cap, the money beyond that cap comes from the government,

The problem with this is similar to the problem with saying "The emergency room is a special case!". Different payers at different levels give rise to different, conflicting incetnives that raise the cost for the system as a whole.

Imagine Patient A is ensured by Company B. Any costs beyond X are picked up by the government. Now, A gets sick, and has two treatments available. The first (costs X/2) has a 50% chance of working off the bat, and a 50% chance of costing 10X if complications occur. The second costs X (or any number higher than X) and pretty much is assured of working. Maximizing societies total pool of resources devoted to insurance says the second option. Maximing Company B's profits says take the first.

Why don't the instead deny the patent for the new drug? That way, there's no incentive fort hem to act like this.