I guess I don't understand your point. Let's say you are completely correct; so what? Aren't we, as Americans, supposed to hold ourselves to higher standards of behavior, particularly in terms of tolerance of different races and belief systems? Saying that a militant theocracy acts in a certain horrific way doesn't mean we get to act that way, too;. it means that it's a good thing we're not a militant theocracy. Additionally, criticizing another nation for not adhering to our standards of behavior seems pointless to me, while criticizing ourselves for the same reason seems like a good idea.

What am I missing?

No, but not because it's the nice thing to do. I wouldn't say that because art is about expression, not competition. It doesn't matter at all that her sister is better.

It is fear; what you are seeing is overcompensation. Americans have been bombarded constantly with fear by our media, politicians, and even entertainment for a couple of decades now, at least. We are a terrified nation, and that is why we have so much bluster. There are things for which we can rightly be proud, but we've lost all perspective. There is no purposeful evil behind it; it has made a few people very, very wealthy. That's all.

If the student failed to learn, the teacher failed to teach.

It would never pass; to defeat it, opponents could simply add unrelated and unacceptable riders, which wouldn't yet be illegal. And to be completely fair, some lawmakers did attempt to solve this problem, but it didn't work.

Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.

Okay, let's forget empathy. The problem with pointing it out, logically, is that it is a complete waste of time and energy. The athlete is already aware of his medal status. If he feels that he let his father down, then he already knows that, as well. Pointing either of those things out serves no logical purpose at all; the only likely effect is to make the athlete feel worse, which does not change the outcome and is unlikely to improve future performance.

In short: if you truly do not (or cannot) care what other people are feeling, then perhaps there is nothing wrong with doing it, but no reason that you would. If you would send such a message, then you do care; that's why you're doing it.

Applying your standards to others' actions, and vice-versa, simply does not work; surely you learned this long ago.

Barring some completely new innovative MMO, there is only one game that can kill WoW, and that is WoW. It made a fine attempt around the release of Cataclysm and lost a lot of people, but then righted itself in time. Could still happen, but it won't be "WoW done better," it'll be "WoW got worse."

I did not miss your point. However, if the computer does actually prevent accidents, which I assume would have to be the case for people to become so complacent, the number of accidents may well decrease even with lowered human alertness, i.e., the type of accidents that are increased may be fewer in number than the type of accidents mitigated. In that case, lives are saved, damage is lessened, and it is an overall gain. Your position seems to assume that the computers do not actually work.

Yes, because when public safety is the issue, what's important is ownership of the data. It's hard to believe that all these people can't see what's really on the line here: profits. Get some perspective, you capitalism-haters!

I have also worked for the federal government, and I do see the problem here; the scientists in question used the chain of command properly, and that chain failed to act appropriately. There is no law or moral code that requires them to submit to incompetence or corruption, and shame on anyone who would have them do so.

I suspect that you misread that; the IG declined to investigate the leak, which was (ostensibly) made in the public interest. This is how the good guys would act. The FDA is out of line, but the system as a whole seems healthy in this case.

You can play Steam games completely offline once they are installed, and if you're looking to pay less for games you're probably ignoring the single best way to do that; Steam sales are pretty ridiculous.

That game, was crap, commas are underpowered, and need buffs! I have to spam them, just to keep up, with periods.

What you're mostly saying here is that if the system doesn't work at all, then it's pointless. Okay.

The legal liability is a more interesting point, though; I think this is the highest hurdle such technology faces. Even when it is nobody's fault, our system demands that we assign blame.