In probably less than 50 years first-world countries and their poorer allies will have tools far more precise and forgiving than bombs for eliminating undesirables. Imagine land-based humanoid drones that from a distance or at night look and move convincingly as people whose mission is to apprehend enemies and only maim or kill as a last resort. Imagine air-based drones the size of an eagle firing small, guided rockets with a payload only large enough to kill their target but leave anyone standing next to them unscathed. Combine the current technique of dividing drone functionality between members of small teams (target acquisition, movement, etc.), the exponential increase in intelligence-gathering current trends indicate the future holds and the rapid development of smaller, nimbler robots with semi-autonomous systems and you have the perfect recipe for the precision engagement of distant enemies. The future will bring a redefinition of the word "drone" to include nearly everything a soldier or humanitarian worker could ever be asked to do and more.

So yes, the usual human issues will still exist (territorial disputes, religious differences sparking violence, dictators and warlords seeking power, illegal trafficking of whatever, etc.), but the ability of governments to shape and/or resolve them through force will be unrecognizable with respect to the casualties received and inflicted. For example, you can't execute a robot. Even if you do it in the most horrendous way possible, film it and post it on Twitter people will just laugh their asses off. Any weapon (such as a bomb) with a blast radius of more than a few feet is going to cause collateral damage. If a drone of a foreign power killed my dad because he just happened to be in the same area as a known terrorist I would be understandably upset. I probably wouldn't start burning people alive or anything batshit crazy like that, but I empathize with the anger some of these people feel. Granted, that is but one component of the extreme violence being committed by radical groups such as ISIS, but nevertheless human nature and the desire for retribution can't be erased by statements of how precise bombs are or that infants blasted apart in their homes are unfortunate accidents. I don't know if bombs kill more terrorists than they create, but there will be a better way to deal with them and with a little time many of us will see it in stunning 8K on the news channel of our choice.

To answer TFA's question, technically "Yes" in that it informs the public of a newsworthy event, though it's trash journalism in that it emotionalizes the issue through a depiction of violence atypical of what Fox News viewers are accustomed to witnessing on the channel. I think they did it for the lulz and ratings. I don't think it was wrong or un-newsworthy, just tasteless. Things like that shouldn't be shown on a channel not widely known for showing such things due to the static nature of television. You could have had your child in the room and flipped to the channel 1 second after the video started, for god's sake. Real asshole move, Fox (disclaimer, my HTPC serves all my needs; I have no cable/satellite).

About ten years ago I started getting into cooking and cuisine have enjoyed and benefited from it since. What I began to realize on this journey based on observations of my own changing tastes as well as the unchanging tastes of everyone around me is that most people (at least in the U.S.) actually have no idea what good food is. Apparently having a lot of fat, salt and sugar constitutes a good meal and the rest isn't important. Frozen dinners? Delicious! McDonalds burgers? More please! It is an education problem, because it takes a little work before your palate can tell the difference between something that's been frozen more than once and something that is fresh. Knowing what's in your food and how it's made is also pretty enlightening, as you'll be far more hesitant to put much of it in your mouth.

Considering the state of general health these days, I'm surprised the government hasn't forced culinary and food education classes on our kids yet. As much as I hate the government forcing anything on anyone, this would be an exception.

Were that somehow not a fact, we could hook obese people up to mile-high cylinders and we'd have a perpetual source of energy by harvesting the difference in energy between what they eat and what materializes out of thin air. Science has failed by not testing this, for certain.

If a doctor can find no medical reason why a person can't be vaccinated and they still choose not to be vaccinated then deport them. The creepiness of the government strapping you down screaming while they put needles in your arm (excluding executions) will be avoided, as will a bunch of diseased idiots walking around infecting the population like a pack of starving zombies. And you'll still have a choice.

Good point, although it would be useful for launching probes and such.

Eh, they could just have a red light that turns on when it's about to fire and some crap to sign when they hire you. And paperweights, of course.

You're right. We should find all those ignorant, warlike motherfuckers and kill them.

Instead of a two kilometer tall office building they should build a two kilometer tall railgun. Then design a super aerodynamic, heat-shielded carrier with a late-firing chemical rocket for satellites and spacecraft payloads that can be launched from the rail gun. If there were stability issues (could be tied down with cables, I suppose, like a radio tower) they could build half of it underground, though I don't know how much momentum they'd lose from having to travel the extra distance.

The problem is that while trying to survive and maintain some kind of social normalcy most people don't take an active role in shaping their local/regional/national/world topology until men in black are infiltrating their home at night and killing/disappearing them and/or raping their wife while their children watch. Complacency lies in the middle, and we're ("civilized" countries) still in the middle. The middle's that slippery slope between the crest and trough of utopia and North Korea. Hopefully the EFF will have some success before momentum takes us to that dark point where we have no choice but to answer with drastic measures. Ironically, the goal of both sides is peace and order. I suppose the difference in opinion about the road to said peace and order is what puts us at such unenviable odds.

Cool, I didn't know that. Seems like the U.S. is behind the times when it comes to that sort of thing (giving women the right to vote for example). At least we have the middle east to make us feel better. Those guys seriously need to get their shit together.

I've seen every Star Trek episode and film in order with the exception of TOS which I watched last in an epic and sadly final marathon. Sci-fi has moved on, but Star Trek deserves a place in our hearts that will be difficult to fill again. It was the first serious sci-fi drama on television and has more episodes and films than any normal human being would dare to watch. Star Trek began dying, or should I say everyone began moving on, right around the time TNG was ending and DS9 was beginning. Voyager was its gasps for air and Enterprise its final throes. Battlestar Galactica put the last nail in the coffin, making people realize just how different (and equally if not more excellent) a sci-fi television show could be. The two JJ films succeeded because they had a recognizable name and were simple action flicks.

So Star Trek is dead. Everyone has moved on. That being said, let those who deeply love Star Trek for everything it has given us have a little fun with Star Trek Continues. They're not hurting anyone. Unless they violate the Prime Directive. Is it getting hot in here? Report! Compensate. Check the relays and coils and all that shit. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

That some people today are insistent about the use of gender-agnostic nouns doesn't mean that those using lesser-so nouns in the past were bigots. I highly doubt TOS's use of the word "man" was meant as a slight toward women considering Roddenberry's vision and the fact that it was the first television program showing a white and black person kissing. The entire premise of Star Trek Continues is that it's a continuation of the original series, which used the word "man", so I doubt they intended it to be a slight or exclusionary either. I despise bigotry, but people gotta loosen up a bit. If I say to my kid, "Hey, it's the mailman!" and then realize it's a woman driving I'm not going to start calling them the "mail person" and flog myself for being a misogynist. Language is fluid and its primary purpose is to get the point across. I wonder how many people when they heard the "where no man has gone before" bit thought, "Those sexist bastards! They specifically chose to use the word 'man' instead of 'one' because they're sexist pigs!" I mean, really? I hope someday people will realize that bigotry and choice of words are two very different things and that it's the intent and meaning of language that should cause offense, not an individual word in a sentence.

http://gambas.sourceforge.net/...

http://gambaswiki.org/wiki?l=e...

I think my first hard drive stored something ridiculous like 10 MB. The old ones don't sound like the new ones. Much louder, beefier and slower; they really gave the computer life. I miss the sound of my old Amstrad.

Stranger in a Strange Land is the only book by Heinlein I've read; it was awesome. I'm thinking Jim Carrey would do well as Valentine. He's great at pulling off "strange" roles (whoops) and is a damn good actor. It's a fish-out-of-water story that serves as a mirror to human nature with an inevitably dark ending. I can already see Jim at the bottom of a swimming pool. Can someone please make that?