Turns out the biological lens of your eye blocks UV light, but if you get an artificial lens, your retinas can register UV light.

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

--PM

I think nuclear power CAN be safe, and CAN be a net environmental benefit (meaning it causes far less environmental damage than equivalent gas or coal operations), however, I'm not sure that it can be those two things AND be economical at the same time.

It's hard for a fission plant to pay for the interest on the capital used to build it selling electricity at rates competitive with alternatives. The way fusion is looking, if it EVER works, it might be in the same boat as fission, economically, except worse.

If a really good battery comes along that makes storing solar/wind energy cheap enough, the economic case for fission/fusion power will be completely wiped out.

--PM

I'm not sure you're correct about the cost, can you cite a source?
Flexibility is often more important to withstanding a quake than strength.

https://www.engineeringforchan...

I recall an example, using different nails for construction in the South vastly increases a house's resistance to tornados and hurricanes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

These can increase the wind resistance of a house 2x over standard nails, and don't cost all that much more.

--PM

A research university like Stanford has dual goals, educate the students and perform world-class research. What is the 405% professional/non-teaching staff for? Are they doing research? Are they doing it on grants that the professors/staff have won?

If so, then it's not fair to hold that against Stanford--the staff they have hired is to do research not teach students, and they are not using tuition to fund this staff.

I've seen cases like this at other universities: non-teaching "Research professors" are hired to help do grant research, and have no role in teaching.

I don't know what the situation at Stanford is, but just on the face of it I am not sure that firing the staff and administrators will help the educational mission--those people may be executing grant work on grant resources.

--PM

Because without good encryption, commerce will be WIDE OPEN to fraud as criminals acquire information required to steal money from people, like bank account numbers, passwords, locations of money, etc.

If we can't use encryption to protect our information from criminals itching to use it for fraud, then fraud will explode and we'll need LOTS of cops to track down all the criminals.

We should tell them to take a hike, because:
1) Cops will never catch fraud before it happens
2) Cops will never recover all the money stolen
3) Trust in banking will falter
4) Trust in using the internet for commerce will falter

Also, "key escrow" won't work.
I'm sorry, but if the US Government couldn't keep the HYDROGEN BOMB secret, how am I to trust ANY government to keep secrets WORTH TRILLIONS? (I.e., their escrowed keys secret from the criminal element?)

--PeterM

EVERYONE has mental health issues. It is only a matter of degree.

There is no black and white line that you can draw between someone who is SAFE and UNSAFE. And someone who is SAFE is not necessarily always going to be so, and neither, necessarily, is someone who is UNSAFE now.

And the simple fact of the matter is, ANYONE who isn't locked up is trusted with other human lives, in proportion to the power they can command.

It's always going to come down to the opinion of the person himself, and hopefully competent medical professionals in the case of airplane pilots, that a person is going to be capable of responsibly handling power until his next examination.

In particular, it's perfectly possible for someone to recover from major depression and be capable of doing as good a job as anyone as a pilot.

--PM

Would you rather that depressed people seek treatment from professionals or avoid treatment like the plague for fear of the loss of their livelihood?

Personally, I'd rather that depressed people, even if they hold the lives of others in their hands, be free to seek treatment with no fear that they'll lose their livelihoods or otherwise be stigmatized. I'd draw the line at ACTUALLY SUICIDAL. A possible compromise is a TEMPORARY leave WITH PAY until they've got their issues sorted out.

Because the fact is that ANY human is potentially mentally unreliable. All it takes is one little burst blood vessel in the wrong place and the person who was very sane literally one second ago can do insane things the next second.

--PM

You realize that the sun/moon size thing is just a temporary condition, right? The moon's been receding from Earth and will continue to do so, so in a few hundred million years it'll be noticeably smaller than the sun and we will have no more total solar eclipses.

And the dinosaurs probably got to enjoy more eclipses because the moon was closer then.

Given that, it's hard for me to read anything into the sun/moon size thing other than that it's a coincidence.

--PM

Because you got it completely backward. Finland's education is one of the most egalitarian in the world.

Everyone gets the same educational opportunity in Finland and it is *all* state run. And in fact it is aimed very much at the working class, starting with free daycare starting at 8months. Finland's teachers are FULLY UNIONIZED.

Finland's education system is a system of LEVELLING UPWARD, and has lifted their entire nation. US education is screwed up,but it is NOT because the left got what they wanted.

--PM

Something like 60% of the US's commercial honeybee hives end up going to pollinate the California almond crop.

Maybe they honeybees will do better if they're not made to take that trip, one less commute, maybe fewer colony collapses.

Too bad about California's produce. Food's going to get more expensive, especially almonds.

--PM

See, a real person is created and has to LIVE WITH and SUFFER FROM the changes you've inflicted upon them.

Think about it. Standard reproduction, you have no control over the result except what you can do with nutrition and environment. So your liability is also limited. However, if as a result of your DIRECTED genetic change, someone lives a life of suffering, well, your liability is enormous. You controlled it and caused it, therefore, you are responsible.

And it's a mind-blowing responsibility. If in my hands, I'd restrict myself to JUST trying to help with the very worst of genetic defects until I was VERY sure things would work out well for the modified people.

--PM

Should we really eradicate all heritable disease, or post-edit the afflicted to mitigate effects?

Like for example, the often cited benefit of being heterozygous in the sickle-cell anaemia gene. You are more resistant to malaria, a definite survival trait.

My point is that if you reduce genetic variability by always using the 'best' gene variant, your species becomes more vulnerable to extinction due to a sudden environmental change.

If you come up with a lot of gene variants as a patch for a broken one, all of them far more workable than the broken one, then gene editing could result in MORE genetic variability and a more resilient species overall, however, I doubt investment would be done to come up with multiple good solutions.

--PM

Maybe have a slashdot-like karma system, where bad comments on the forums are modded down, and you build up good karma.

Seems like bad people would soon ensure the community would "fire" them.

--PM

Frankly, I'd rather have tougher, more resistant bees.

  Monocultures aren't that great an idea, but they're unfortunately common. A big almond orchard wouldn't provide year-round food for the amount of honey bees required to pollinate it. Better to have mobile hives that can be taken where the bees can forage, and pollinate the crops.

Yes, that's tough on bees. But its less disruptive to breed better bees than to rework all the orchards to provide year-round food for stationary hives.

--PM

Would be breeding a better bee. One that is more resistant to mites, insecticides, wax moths, etc., and that isn't so susceptible to CCD.

And also perhaps more efficient at pollenization. For example, the mason bee is supposedly a more efficient pollenizer than honeybees and will work in bad weather.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

These guys generally won't sting either.

--PM