No one in their right mind near the top of the hierarchy is going to limit their future by exposing and/or going up against a political family like the Clintons in this situation. Protections or not, you stand a good chance to relegating yourself to lower level jobs for the foreseeable future.

Same no doubt would go for Republican dynasties.

I think the implication is that much like CO2 back in the day, we don't really understand the long term ramifications of harnessing wind power over a large scale comparable with the burning of fossil fuels. It is certainly intriguing to think that 100 years from now history might look back on people charging forward with renewables with rose tinted glasses and think them idiots for the destruction they wrought on the environment. Or a humorous idea at least.

We probably don't fully understand the ramifications of our pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, given the ever changing and learning that goes on with scientific study. And we certainly don't know everything about our climate. That's not to say you don't go forward with renewables. It just makes you wonder if we will one day rue the day.

"I don't think the time is yet right for him to come home, the government isn't any friendlier now than when he left and the people are only slightly less apathetic."

Although consider this: the longer that he is away from the United States, the more that the overall population forgets about him, forgets about the concerns he brought up and more likely that they are willing to listen to the government's narrative if/when he does come back. As the furor dies down more and more, people aren't going to support him more, but rather less. If he needs to come back 10 years from now, I would imagine that the likelihood of him getting a "fair" trial is much lower than if he returned today.

If he is going to come back at all, it needs to be before he's been largely forgotten. And the longer he stays, the more he risks being traded back to the United States by Russia. Or Russia simply decides he's no longer worth the trouble and doesn't provide him residency anymore. Then he gets no deal.

There is a point where broadening your definition of something makes the definition next to worthless. If there are a couple dozen planets in the solar system, many of which are just big asteroids that act like asteroids and not planets, then you're having to create a new definition for "real" planets because of all the garbage collected in the broader definition.

The word "Planet" should mean something apart from a round object that orbits a star. It should mean something that makes you understand basically what it is and what it isn't and the ramifications of it's existence. I should be able to look at one planet, and a second planet and go "yeah, those are planets". Since I was a kid, Pluto has always been the "weird" planet, the one that didn't operate like the others. So when it lost it's "planet" status, it seemed natural to me on some level.

Who cares if it's called a "dwarf planet"? Who does this harm other than the discoverer of the planet, or those that are obsessed with the idea that it MUST be a planet? Whether it's called a planet, a dwarf planet or a bagoglifunkle, it's still a large object in the Kuiper belt that should be known of and studied. Most people didn't even know are Ceres, but it's got a mission going to it, even though it was never called a "planet".

Seems like a lot of wasted energy on both sides of the argument.

"But, if you just need a couple packages of paper, are you really going to order that online?"

The brick and mortar stores can't stay in business because of the occasional need to pick something up like that same day, especially when there is competition from own market AND from the likes of Walmart. Most businesses, the bread and butter of their revenues, are getting deliveries in bulk. Stores like Walmart, Target and similar can often cover the one time needs of stuff that may run out. It would probably be more profitable for a place like Staples to allow you to stop by their distribution warehouse in an emergency, or just allow same-day for a premium or X number of same day "emergency" drop offs as part of a contract.

With continued competition, these stores are going to get worse and worse and they eat away at each other while both are getting needled by the mega-store chains. I'd rather have one store that is maybe more expensive (I doubt it though, given the other secondary competition they face both physical and online) and has a decent selection, then two stores that are tiny and worthless.

Although don't forget, it's a government agency providing the right to control that chunk of property on the moon. All the FAA has to do is rescind that "license" and the government can lay claim to kicking you out.

"Facebook and other social networking services put their resources into tagging content (religiously offensive, sexually explicit, drug use and other types of content that users often find unpleasant)"

This is an excellent idea. The problem is though that it's not that people don't want to see it themselves. They simply don't want it to exist at all where others might see it. Or the argument used with pornography, "where are innocent youth might stumble upon it".

So although yes, this is a great idea and would help keep offensive things from being seen by those who don't want to see them, it misses a major portion of that group which is offended. It's not that they don't want to see it, it's that they don't want it to exist. And just like with pornography or homosexuality in the United States, I'm sure it's not just the crazy fanatics that think this way, it's many of the middle of the road types as well. It's wrong. They don't want to just not see it. They want it to be gone entirely.

Most of the links I was able to find stated that event the NHTSA felt that their were major weaknesses in their study. First, it was done in only 12 states. Second, it is only since 2000 so that sample set is drastically reduced compared to other accident studies which can typically go back much farther. Though you can start to use this sort of data to think ahead, you can't use it to make broad statements and force change in the automotive industry. It also doesn't use the more tried and true method of accident studies which is based on distances traveled. It's more of a "wow, something to think about and consider" versus a "hey, this is a fact, shut up and get used to it" kind of study.

On a side note, for pedestrian accidents the increased rate is primarily due to backing up, something you can easily attribute more to noise but I thought we were going to solve with backup camera mandates?

But overall, those looking at the study and performing it agree that the data set is too small to make large scale conclusions. And unless we want to just be alarmist, it's probably not a good idea to take this and run with it. Instead, use it to commission some larger and more detailed studies. Who knows, maybe the people who drive hybrids tend to not pay as close attention to what they are doing? I could make a latte sipping, enjoying the smell of their own farts joke here, but I'll refrain. Oops, I guess I already did. ;-)

http://www.greencarreports.com...
http://www.treehugger.com/cars...

If only someone had invented a Jump to Conclusions mat, this process would be so much simpler! Instead, I'll just ask my pet rock.

"In our society, there should be nothing that stops someone from getting a job"

Other than qualifications and competition, obviously. If there is someone more qualified than me, I expect I won't get the job. Teasing out this from true discrimination can be difficult and we usually have to just trade types of discrimination in an effort to defeat one type.

Theoretically, I shouldn't be prevented from getting a job because of my gender, as much as a woman should not be prevented due to her's. A 20% quota on female hires could accomplish that as a by-product.

Of course, I work in a tech field where as the male I am in the minority, surrounded by a strong majority of female analysts and developers. So does it have something to do with the field, the need, the qualifications, or the gender? Simply looking at a percentage doesn't tell you 100% of the story. And seeking to hit a particular percentage doesn't really address the root. Maybe it's a start? Or maybe it's taking you down the wrong path. Who am I to say.

"So Elon Musk and worldwide-famous physicist Stephen Hawking spread FUD in your opinion?"

So being an expert in one field means that I've got to listen to you in all others? Last I checked, Stephen Hawking was a physicist and Elon Musk was an entrepreneur. Do you believe everything that Bill Gates tells you about particle physics?

Being an acclaimed scientist and genius in a field does not make you an expert in all things everywhere. And does not exempt you from the ability to make biased or incorrect statements.

There is a difference between "discussing and addressing problems before they are a threat" and making wild claims with little factual evidence and then basing your arguments on them. Arguments against AI are largely based on fictional stories about them, not around the facts about what is possible, how it works and how research in the field is performed. And they largely come from people outside of the field.

You make an excellent point with bringing up Global Warming, just in reverse. With Global Warming, the major complaint is that you have scientists in the Climate field saying something and many others outside of that field arguing that what they are saying is wrong. With Global Warming the rally cry against those claiming it's false is that they aren't scientists, they don't understand the science, they aren't qualified.

But in this case with AI, people are listening to the non-scientists, the non-experts and claiming that it's THOSE people we need to be listening to and not the experts in the field, the scientists, the people with all the factual knowledge around what AI is currently and it's limitations now and into the future. Why is that? Is it because we've been trained over the years through fictional stories that AI is something that it isn't and we have a hard time believing otherwise? Isn't that one of the same reasons we say anti-global warming people are biased and should be ignored?

"that both parties are against the needs of the people!"

I wouldn't put it that way, as often enough they are. I think it's just #3 on the priority list behind getting re-elected and helping out their cronies, be they private parties or political parties. Those two are nearly one and the same, and as long as they aligned with the needs of the people, they're all set.

Part of the issue though is defining what exactly the "needs of the people" are. Dictatorships. communist and democratically elected governments all alike do things everyday for which they state they are meeting the "needs of the people". Besides, one could argue that the government doesn't exist to meet the needs of the people, but the needs of the country. And often acts to meet the needs of the government.

Yet the article includes a statement such as "The good news is that scientists have truth on their side".

No, what scientists have on their side is an excellent process for trying to uncover truth. Thousands of scientists throughout history have failed to have truth on their side. They have examined the evidence, done research and come to a conclusion that was wrong. Maybe they made a mistake, or maybe they didn't have access to enough information, but they in the end for one reason or another were wrong. Yes, many scientists ultimately reach truth, but that truth needs to be expected to be tested over and over again. That's what science is about, continually examining and coming to new conclusions.

Simply reaching a point and saying "this is the truth, it is no longer up for debate" is the antithesis of science.

A good politician would never miss an opportunity to use an emotional moment such as this one to push their own political agenda. It's rarely been about looking at the situation and what the government can do to better protect against it or learn from it. It's most frequently about finding some way to connect something you and those around you want to push through and manipulate the situation to make them apparently connect.

The same politicians that stand up and exalt scientific studies and research routinely fail to use the scientific methods in their own processes. Because in politics there is little worse than finding out you might be wrong or your opponent may be right on a subject.