Why is there no remote manipulator robot to do this? Is the goal here to test space suits or maintain a space station?

The space station should have the most advanced remote manipulator system available. Deep-sea work is not done by guys in complex suits, it is done by remotely controlled manipulator robots. The continued dependence on space suits for basic construction/repair/maintenence operation just seems like a bad idea given current remote maniplulation technology.

Once again a bitcoiner doesn't understand that the ever-increasing value of a bitcoin is a primary problem with it as a currency. Nobody is saying its not working out as a great speculative investment vehicle. Currently the fed is fighting deflation like crazy to keep the economy stable. Currency and investment are different things.

Wow, free marketer fail. Regulation has fairly little to do with why I have only one power company. That has to do with the fact that it would be insanely disruptive to run multiple power companies' lines all over the place. Most of the regulation is to counteract this factor driving toward a natural monopoly.

Have you aver heard of H-index. It combines rate and impact (measured by number of citations) in a way that also de-emphasizes one off flukes. I actually tend to compare H-index per year, which is a useful measure of contribution rate. But, that said, there are massive variations between even sub-fields in the same discipline due to different publishing and citation culture.

How would he sign the TOS without a linkedin account? The point is that people are saying you have a choice, but if your friend uses gmail, which you may not even be able to tell if their mail is forwarded, you don't have much of a choice but to be spied on by google. At least with the government your data is not for sale to the highest bidder.

As far as I know, the main terms the Japanese wanted for the surrender were to keep the same people who started the whole thing in power. That was absolutely unacceptable to the allies, and I would say for good reason.

Honestly I never would have thought he needed to qualify that with "assuming your insurance company continues to offer it." I thought that would be obvious. I'm sure a lot of plans are being discontinued because they existed under the assumptions of a lifetime maximum and being able to drop coverage if you get sick. Those things are not allowed now, so some insurance plans are going just going away. What you want the government to FORCE those companies to continue to offer insurance?

Because if you can't pay because you didn't get good enough insurance, everyone has to kick in because the hospitil won't just let you die.

That depends on what you mean by "harm". The ecosystem harm of the associated extensive use of herbicides is obvious.

It does sound like this shouldn't have made it past the referee, and so should be retracted for that reason. If the paper itself said the results were interesting but statistically inconclusive that would be one thing, but it sounds like it is completely obvlivious to the flaws of the study.

Actually check out friendica. Much more reasonable than diaspora.

But the problem with social networks is that people have accepted the panopticon that is facebook. If you even try to talk to a facebooker about why facebook is bad they fall all over themselves to rationalize why its okay.

My question is why would the black market settle on a currency in which all transactions are public record? At some point, after enough busts, the black market people will figure out that bitcoin is the opposite of anonymous. Its enough to make you wonder if it was invented by the NSA.

Of course this doesn't prevent its use as a speculative investment item in the mean time. Funny that something can have value because it is a high-risk investment and for no other reason.

Though it sounds like the current bubble is being driven by Chinese evading their government's currency controls, which I gather could be stopped at any moment by the Chinese government. Presumably when that happens it will be the first big crash of bitcoin.

I am actually a bitcoin doubter, but I don't think this is a flaw. You are claiming that if law enforcement finds that Criminal Z had a particular bitcoin, and the block-chain says that bitcoin is currently in my wallet, that they can compel me (say by court order) to transfer that bitcoin to the state, despite the fact that the block-chain says that coin was transferred from Criminal Z to person A, then B, then C, then D, then ... then to me. I have a tough time believing that would work in court. Though I agree that it would kill bitcoin on the spot.

I think bitcoin won't work because it will become unstable like any limited currency. The proponents don't seem to understand that bitcoins becoming "more valuable" is exactly a prediction of this instability. They tout it as "success" when in fact it is direct evidence of a deflationary runaway that makes bitcoin non-viable as a widespread currency.

Well they receive protection from law enforcement and enjoy the privilege of appeal to the courts, separately from the individuals who own interest in the corporation, so why should they not pay taxes?

No, as hoarding grows, value grows and the incentive to spend DECREASES. It is startling how clueless about macroeconomics most bitcoin proponents are.

Hoarding currency is bad because currency itself has no value, it is only valuable as a means of exchange. Monetary policy exists to prevent individuals from hoarding so much in aggregate that it hurts the overall economy (including them). Excessive hoarding causes currency instability. If nobody can buy/sell goods, including food, because the value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month or year to year, everyone starves, including the "rich" (i.e. the hoarders).