Great so you see that in the future your employees' jobs will be automated away (maybe not in your working lifetime but sometime) and are likely wealthy yourself. You are arguing that new jobs will appear for your employees', they are likely far poorer than yourself. What are you doing to create jobs for your employees once they lose their jobs? In the Great Depression the government stepped in and created jobs just to get people working and kick the economy out of the no-demand cycle it was in. Within the US most people arguing that automation won't lead to a doomsday scenario are also against the government solving these problems, yet they are not trying to solve them either. So who is? It will take a lot of capital to create a (or many) new job sectors, who is investing in that? Who is going to pay for the re/education of our workforce?

I don't mean to pick on you in particular nor do I really think that automation is the doomsday that some claim. However, I do think that we should be thinking about this now. Investing in education now. Investing in new industries now. But we, or rather the wealth holders, are not.

You can run OS X on an encrypted case-sensitive file system without any issue. This is nota bug of windows and Mac but a bug of git allowing its own files to be overwriten because it thinks it knows better than the file system what a file is named.

Except he is referring to solar on rooftops so the 30 MW would be spread over much larger than a half kilometer.

All of what you said makes sense except the seconds time scale. If the power company can't see changes until they are in dire need in seconds that is a problem they need to solve. Clouds do not generally cover large generation areas in seconds (minutes maybe). That being said having a local battery storage would be good but I doubt most users would want to cycle their batteries to benefit the power company especially when they will want that power when they get home and want a warm/cold home.

This statement and the one in the summary assert that US cultural trends are inherent and immutable. Look at other countries that have different cultural norms and you will find that India has a booming female coding population. If US cultural norms make it so women do not feel comfortable entering fields is that the fault of women as your statement and the summary's seem to imply? In my opinion, as there is sufficient evidence that the situation in CS (and other fields) in the US is cultural not biological it is societies problem to change the cultural norms. The US will lose out on great ideas if the culture systematically inhibits women from entering the field.

No they clearly didn't care about stone tablet bearers.

That is a reasonable conclusion. That is not, however what the GP stated. The GP state the he wanted a text book written on anthropogenic climate change. That is very different than being able to explain it to a lay person that is being able to convince someone it is worth publishing. In the case of anthropogenic climate change the book would be rather short:

• * A number of gases interact with the upper atmosphere is such a way as to trap heat within the atmosphere.
• * Since the industrial revolution we have been releasing huge quantities of these gases that were previously sequestered within oil and gas deposits.
• * The churn of the atmosphere allows for the passage of the newly released gases from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere.
• * Some of these same gases also sublimate into the ocean where they dramatically affect the PH of the ocean which cause major problems for the top dwellers of the ocean where much of our oxygen is generated.

The issue isn't that there isn't a text book or a clear laymen description of the problem it comes when someone says: so prove to me that the churn of the lower atmosphere can carry these gasses to the upper atmosphere and the scientist starts talking about climate models which cannot predict any specific event with a high degree of accuracy but do tend to predict trends with great accuracy. To me this is like saying: what is the energy of a particle in a chamber at a defined pressure, temperature and density. The answer is very easy to give the average but essentially impossible to give the exact unless your model knows ALL of the inputs (i.e. every momentum vector and quantum state of every atom contain within the chamber).

I am a physicist. I have explained the expansion of the universe to many lay people without trouble. I have also tried time and time again to explain it to my mother. All such explanations end with her asking "so where is it expanding into." The short answer to this is: nothing. And one can either accept that or learn metric differential geometry. The belief that whatever any given PhD is working on can "describe in laymen's terms what they are doing" does not mean a laymen has the knowledge to understand or even accept the details of the theory. Heck look at Quantum physics in the early 1900s and you see many very intelligent people thinking it is crazy because it is probabilistic. So in short a good scientist can explain to a laymen what they do but the laymen has to accept their expertise when it comes to many specifics.

As stated by others many frequent flyers are not flying by choice but buy direction from work. That work also REQUIRES many of us to purchase the cheapest fare. I cannot upgrade my seat and get reimbursed for my ticket. Furthermore you are technically correct about United, however, unless you are flying major city to major city you are going to be one of United's local carriers which do not have Economy Plus. Spend a couple hours on one of the smaller "local" carrier planes which has neither leg nor headroom for ANYONE on the flight and it becomes quickly clear that United doesn't care about anything other then their immediate bottom line.

Do you have any citation for your assertion?

As others have stated most of the information doesn't seem to be any more harmful than a copy of The Cookbook. With regards to biological weapons: one would hope that whomever thought of this would keep on thinking to realize that poorer nations always fare worse when it comes to communicable diseases. They have fewer resources, longer response times, denser populations, etc.. If the biological isn't communicable it still doesn't make too much sense without some industrial scale dispersal methods which are generally easy to detect.

Redundant system for what exactly are you referring to? If the US isn't recording important calls made by their Secretary of State's then there is something wrong.

Why can't they us a VPN AT LEAST? The GP is not ignorant but perhaps too idealistic. Personally while I don't think it is a good idea to have health records available on the internet I think it is far worse that our electrical system REQUIRES internet access and communication between various points. This is a horrible national security risk while private health records are rather difficult to either monetize or use (financial records excluded).

I agree that there was a great failure in the US to build out newer nuclear plants in the latter years of the 20th century. Unfortunately it isn't as clear as you state. Energy produces were spreading mis-information if not lies about nuclear power while the Environmental people were crying about the waste. Nuclear power is NOT without its drawbacks. I remember vividly having a PG&E rep come into our class and go through her whole spiel which included numerous falsehoods. When I called her on it she was literally dumbfounded that anyone would know enough to question her falsehoods. It took me YEARS to realize that while PG&E wasn't being trustworthy about nuclear power the other options where worse (generally). So the energy companies themselves hold some of the responsibility for the failure to build new generation nuclear reactors. People do not like being lied to or mislead and often will assume your goals are suspect because of it.

This App reports on symptoms and could be very useful to the WHO to determine where they need to look for outbreaks. It do NOT verify , as the WHO, does that a particular disease or strain.