Why would anyone ever try to improve on the good old bullet to the head. The only decent method of execution to have ever been used.

Seems like this could have drastic effects on how we search for life. Not only are we looking for planets in the Goldilocks zone, but we now know that if we see too much water it could be a sign that there an absence of life.

Yes, but we have to understand the difference between not being a nice person and breaking the law.
1) "The Germans treated Jewish prisoners poorly." Sure he supported this, but he was not in control of any prisons and did not instigate any laws to their running. 2) "He asked Hitler to be mean to them." I am pretty sure I could mail my PM and ask them to "deport all the juden", I don't think I would be arrested, and I definitely would not be considered to have committed crimes against humanity. 3) "People mistreat Israel". He has been dead for a hundreds years. You cannot charge him with Iran developing Nuclear weapons or Palestine hating Israel.

For the most part, you are accusing him of thought crimes. Things that cannot be used to declare him an official war criminal or to have committed crimes against humanity. Sure we could easily charge him with having committed thoughts against humanity, but there are no laws in place to prevent your heirs from profiting from your horrible horrible thoughts.

redistributing drivers to areas currently under heavy load is the same thing as getting a new drivers on the road. It doesn't matter if the new driver is coming form his mom's basement or just heading into a new part of town to continue working. Also. sure prices change by the minute, but you would definitely see patterns. taxi use is not being to be anywhere need random, demand is going to very predictable and come in spurts (lunch, morning, afternoon). But then surge pricing will hopefully allow the system to dynamically redistribute and get more drivers to take shifts during high load. And if there is a huge accident and demand skyrockets for hours get more drivers to respond.

US copyright law clearly allows documentaries to show a few snippets of copyrighted text as fair use.

Hitler and Himmler ordered crimes against humanity to be carried out. The only thing I have heard so far is the Goering hoped that crimes against humanity would be carried out. As the propaganda minister, yes he would of been in control of spreading hatred for Jews, but it is hard to condemn that during wartime when spreading hatred and dehumanizing your enemies is standard practice. And it might not qualify as heinous enough to actually count as a crime against humanity.

You cannot charge a government official for helping to carryout a war. I am not even sure if you can find a law to charge him for disliking Jew and hoping others decided to execute them.

I don't think it matters if it is for profit. There are hundreds of documentaries about horrific acts both in general and against humanity. I have watched documentaries abut the holocaust, and people made money on me watching them. The only one prevented from making money is the estate of the one who did it.

Now I do not have the laws in front of me, but for-profit documentaries or otherwise obviously need this ability as well. They are not stealing their property, they are commenting on it.

I am pretty sure when you quote small extracts with attribution it is always fair use. Either it is or every review, report, wiki, etc is illegally breaking copywrite law.

That would not prevent anyone else from profiting. And owning the copyright does not profit the owners if they are not allowed to use it to make money.

They are not stealing the content. They are quoting with attribution in a scholarly work. There is no country in the world that does not allow you to quote someone else.

This. Used to be a thunderstorm just meant a fussy TV. Now a little rain and TV is out completely.

One easy litmus test I would stand behind is the use of "self-confidence". Only charlatans try to blame bad performance on "self-confidence", and only charlatans try to solve bad performance by increasing "self-confidence". There is no reason to believe that self-confidence will improve anyones academic achievement (http://www.acceptandchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/vialle-heaven-ciarrochi-2005-jagu-relat-between-self-esteem-and-acad-achieve.pdf). I knew loads of people in highschool who were very confident that they knew more than enough to get by on and that since they were already far smarter than everyone else they did not need to bother learning anything more. Confidence is the Achilles heal of learning and knowledge. And it is not only stupid to try and increase confidence separately from actual ability, but also reckless and dangerous. Imagine someone telling you, as you attempt to get in a car: "You don't look very confidence, here have a beer it will give you confidence in your driving, allowing you to succeed"

OK, be we were talking about self-esteem, not academic performance. There are many reasons to believe that SS education would improve academic achievement. There is no reason to believe that it would improve self-esteem that I have seen; And many reasons to believe the opposite, at least for the female sex.

But then it is hard to understand why the article is even talking about self-confidence, there is no correlation between that and academic success (Everyone knows the more you understand about the concept the less certain you know anything at all (aka self confidence)).

But then no one should be worried about what people believe if they cannot point to any evidence. I have seen antidote evidence, statistics based studies, logical based arguments using evolution, generic, and historic evidence.