With all due respect to his brilliance, Hawking should stick to his own subject of expertise. Without aggression we would die, pure and simple. Aggression has been a significant factor (arguably) in making us the dominant species on the planet.

I don't care if I'm really extending my life any longer. We're all going to die, that's a given, and nothing other than medicine and hygiene (both personal and societal) have been statistically shown to significantly increase that life span. What I care about is how I feel while I'm alive. I don't exercise to live longer, I exercise to feel better while I'm alive. That's also why I don't exercise in a gym. Go out and play.

Bah, they don't need that data. They just have to look at posting history on slashdot. Of course [he] is.

No they don't add up to 100% but it's a huge portion of the working populace and you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to give people choice and then limit ~60% of the job market from them.

Regarding cost, I was talking about the cost of the oversight. Verification that people do, in fact, have the appropriate vaccinations etc. You can't ensure this without some significant cost associated with the tracking and oversight.

So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?

If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?

Hiring people actively engaged in breaking federal and state law and putting themselves in a position of incapacitation as a result? I draw the line there. I don't like drug tests but the reality is I dislike hiring people who could potentially screw up my company by 1) bringing illegal substances to my office 2) potentially getting arrested before a big meeting they are crucial to 3) whatever else you might be able to come up with that increases the risk of hiring the drug using person over a non drug user.

That said, I won't provide employers with financial data, nor will I provide anyone that asks information about my personal life outside of work, be it facebook information, linkedin, my hobbies or anything else.

F that. Give me the quietest car possible. I'd much rather listen to my music or my companions speaking to me than the damn engine!

Your definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and mine are different. the few times I've moderated something overrated it has ALWAYS been because it was at least a majority, if not entirely, incorrect. I agree, there are very few reasons to mod down but incorrect information is definitely one of them.

No one has said it was acceptable. What I said (and what I believe the Pope meant) is that it's not a surprise that when you go out of your way to offend someone, they react badly.

There are any number of instances where you could say so & so should be "turned into a glass crater" because of some real or imagined slight or offense. Obviously no one is condoning the out-of-proportion response to the Charlie Ebdo but let's not act like this is some sort of shock either. It's happened before and the editors of Charlie Ebdo chose to continue the action. I'm not saying I disagree with their choice (I think we should be able to say & print whatever we think as long as it doesn't put people in physical harm - like yelling fire in a crowded theater as the classic example) but let's not try to imply they had no part of this and the action was completely unexpected.

The only real question is whether or not it is reasonable to think that their actions did directly put people in harm. I think not, but clearly someone disagrees with me.

What he said was violence is bad and you shouldn't commit violence. But if you deliberately offend someone, you should expect some level of violent response. He implied this is because humans haven't learned very well how not to respond with violence.

Just because violence is bad doesn't mean you should go through life somehow expecting to avoid it and acting insulted when it happens after you've been a douchebag.

Please read the rest of Genesis. Abraham lived to be 175 supposedly. This came after Genesis 6:3. Hell, Isaac (son of Abraham) was born when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah (Isaac's mother) was 90 years old (Genesis 17:17). Terah (Abraham's father) was 205 years old (Genesis 11:27–32).

That reference is inconsistent, to say the least.

What world do you work in where so much goes wrong so often that you've had 15+ occurrences where you had to "check my old email" to keep from being in a bad situation? Wherever it is, I'll stay the hell away.

I keep all my old emails, for the same reason, but I've used them once or twice in nearly 20 years.

Seriously?

I trust google with my data even less than I trust the government. It's why I no longer use any of their services. This article is not for anyone with a functional brain, it's for the masses that believe what they're told to believe. I'd also suspect this wasn't something Schmidt said without some "guidance" or "suggestions" from some of his high powered friends in the government.

Some people simply can't afford to pay for their bandwidth usage themselves, though. Think of the communities that used to use BBSes and now have forum sites where they post pictures, videos, and massive amounts of text. The owners, presumably hobbyists (originally), just want to share information, not foot the bill for everyone else who has a similar interest.

Advertising has a place. Personally, I can ignore most non-intrusive ads and they really only bother me if the move around following my cursor, or blocking the real content, which is more a problem with site or particular ad design than advertisements in general. Other people have a lower tolerance.

Make no mistake, though, what you're suggesting is just elitism trying to keep "poor" people from using the internet for its intended purpose, sharing of information. I'm sure that's not your intent but that's the reality of what you just indicated in your post. "If you can't afford it without advertisements, you shouldn't use the internet" is basically what you just said.

Feel free to post links to these videos. I'd be interested in seeing how these studies defined "girly" things and "boyish" things for newborns. I suspect that will be more telling than the babies' responses. If building are boyish and teddy bears are girlish, I'm going to call bullshit on the whole damn thing.