After all, the school organized and funded (invested) these events.

They most certainly did not. I checked, and that school district and therefore that school is funded by tax revenue. Taxpayers funded those events. The school employees organized them, yes, but because they were paid by taxpayers to do so.

Part of the reason people are starting to insist on body cameras is we don't trust the police. Because increasingly the police are not trustworthy, and don't know or care what the law says.

Well, mostly. I've been arguing with people for years on this. For so long, many people had this default notion of the police as the good guys. This is very much the default in traffic court. If the police say you did it and you say you didn't, you're guilty. People need to understand that putting on a badge doesn't change your morality. Some people are trustworthy, and some people are not. Police are people, and we don't have a perfect process to separate the trustworthy from those who aren't, so inevitably sometimes we hire police who aren't. Just like every other profession.

An asteroid may kill a lot of people, but it will not cause global extinction. No asteroid strike has ever completely wiped out life on earth.

Just because it has never happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Granted, it would take a very large asteroid and it is highly unlikely, but it is possible.

From http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/asteroid-hits-earth.htm:

By the time you get up to a mile-wide asteroid, you are working in the 1 million megaton range. This asteroid has the energy that's 10 million times greater than the bomb that fell on Hiroshima. It's able to flatten everything for 100 to 200 miles out from ground zero. In other words, if a mile-wide asteroid were to directly hit New York City, the force of the impact probably would completely flatten every single thing from Washington D.C. to Boston, and would cause extensive damage perhaps 1,000 miles out -- that's as far away as Chicago. The amount of dust and debris thrown up into the atmosphere would block out the sun and cause most living things on the planet to perish. If an asteroid that big were to land in the ocean, it would cause massive tidal waves hundreds of feet high that would completely scrub the coastlines in the vicinity.
In other words, if an asteroid strikes Earth, it will be a really, really bad day no matter how big it is. If the asteroid is a mile in diameter, it's likely to wipe out life on the planet. Let's hope that doesn't happen anytime soon!

It might not wipe out ALL life as some sea creatures might survive and some microbes would likely hang on, but a mile wide asteroid (especially a dense one) impacting at the right speed would wipe out nearly all life on Earth.

As far as detection goes, I agree that we should be looking out for them, but suppose we found one. Suppose tomorrow it was announced that scientists just spotted a one mile wide asteroid that will collide with the Earth in two months. (Let's put the impact zone at New York City just to add to the fun.) Could we do anything about it in that time? Of course, there would be panic as the entire northeast United States (and some of Canada) tried to relocate. Politicians would give long speeches (and perhaps some of the more anti-science politicians would try to block spending any money on the problem until "more data was gathered"). Even if the world rallied around the cause instantly and everyone didn't panic (HUGE ifs), do we have the technology to alter the course of a mile wide asteroid in 2 months?

I'm well over 18, and care because I saw this sort of thing when I was a kid. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The fact that it doesn't impact me directly means I care less than the student in question and less than when I was in school, but I still think this sort of abuse of authority should never go unchallenged.

I think you found the worst possible answer to this question.

"Elon, I finished the task you gave me! I haven't actually done what you wanted, I just redefined the terms so I was done before I started."

I usually say asking such questions in an interview is a terrible idea, but I'd honestly disqualify anyone who gave an answer like this.

There is something similar to this with Amazon VOD, Google Play, and iTunes. You pay per episode of each show you want to watch or pay a discounted rate and get the entire season. It's more expensive than 25 cents per episode, though. On Amazon, episodes typically cost about $1.99 for SD versions or $1.89 for the entire season of SD versions. (Obviously, they cost more for the HD versions.)

The content owners seem to treat Netflix as if it were just a baby step up from piracy, but in fact Netflix (and services like it) are the content owners' best weapon against piracy. Imagine if Netflix were given free reign to stream every TV show over a week old and every movie over a month old (from all content owners). Even if they raised their prices, Netflix would be quicker and easier to use than any pirating software out there. Sure, some people would still pirate, but those people would pirate no matter what. For the rest of the users, you would see a massive drop in piracy.

And yet, content owners keep content off of Netflix and plan on how best to kill off the service.

"I'm sorry, but you can't drive on this road. You have a Nissan and Walmart Roadways has an exclusive agreement with Toyota. You need to be driving a Toyota to travel on this road. Don't worry, though, you can pay $5 per mile to go on the Walmart Service Road. Sure, it hasn't been repaved in years and it is only one lane with five lanes' worth of traffic, but there aren't any car brand restrictions!"

I would MUCH rather pay a state tax on miles driven elsewhere than be tracked so the state knows when I'm driving elsewhere.

Or you're still working your way through school.

LK

I'm still hoping to see the GOP split into two. Group the looney fringe (the anti-science folks, the religious nuts, the Tea Party, etc) in one party and the actual, honest-to-goodness conservatives in another party. Let the "Looney GOP" tailspin into oblivion while the "Sane GOP" thrives as a worthy contender for my vote.

It also doesn't take into account the political parties' platforms changing over time. There was once a time when supporting civil rights meant voting Republican and not Democrat. Since then, the parties flip-flopped. Right now, the Republican party seems to be heading down the "Old, Straight, Christian White Guys Only" path. As the OSCWGs die off, though, the remaining Republicans will start to have more of an influence as to the direction of the party and might change the platform. Things that might have been unthinkable for today's average Republican to support might be par for the course for future Republicans. (Imagine how a Civil Rights Era Republican might be viewed by today's Tea Party Republican.)

Voting for a third party candidate isn't likely to result in said candidate winning. However, if the third party candidate gets enough votes, one or both of the major parties will likely adopt the third party candidate's positions to gather more supporters.

I don't see voting third party as throwing away your vote. I see it as a protest vote. Yes, you could simply not vote in protest, but then your "protest" gets lost among the "I just can't be bothered to vote" crowd. Not voting is the only way you really throw away your vote. If neither major party candidate really strikes you as a good choice, go with a third party candidate as a protest vote over simply not voting.

No. It's the hero's geeky friend who hacks into the system which buys time for the well muscled hero to overpower the generic olive skinned hijackers (who are armed with machine guns that they somehow smuggled on board) with his bare hands and whatever he finds lying around.

I don't want government internet because my government thinks it's ok to read my email (and everything else). Letting them be the ISP makes it that much easier.

That said, I don't see any problem with letting local governments, with the consent of their citizens, provide that service any more than I think it's a problem for them to provide trash service, water service, etc. Internet service at this point should follow a utility model. All I want is a pipe.

Just don't make the public option the only one. Monopolies can be bad no matter who runs them.