"The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have."

As opposed to pretty much the christian which think they have a god given right (pun intended) to impose their moral value on people, among others things by refusing those people either the same right as others (gay marriage) or by imposing their moral view to stops some type of operation (abortion) or by imposing their religious view in classrooms (creationism in sheep fell - ID), or even by trying to sneak prayer and religion in government stuff like classroom, courtroom. As opposed to the people which want to be inclusive in rights. Welp. The irony burns deeply in that one.

"He said the model used in all EU airports to check the validity of tickets was "malfunctioning" noting they lacked "direct access to the airliner database", but wouldn't be drawn on whether he tested his research by boarding a flight."

To that I have to say only "yeah , right" as in very sarcastic. Some airline in europe have spearheaded the interline and ground handling electronic exchange between TKT and CKI systems (using edifact messages TKCREQ, TKCUAC, TKCRES) since.... 2001. Even the medium airline are using the itnerline access. only very very small airline are still using offline process like ETL list.

That "security" researcher never checked in real life its results.

All the CKI system i know of, count the pax boarded against the pax list in the CKI system. If they find a discrepancy, they check the one in addition and ask to check the ticket. Good luck making your explaining.

The bottom line was that the secure (relatively) thing is not the boarding pass but the ticket. Now if you could free ticket i would be downright impressed. Free boarding pass have long been known to be insecure. They are not there to be secure but to count boarded pax on the system against real boarded on plane, to be able to remove the one which are No-Show and remove their baggage.

You reap what you sow. That guy meddled with private issues with prop 8 and decided that he did not want others to get benefits they should be awarded in a society which gives equal coverage by law. And now he got beaten the same way by having his private stuff smeared on his face. How does this shit sandwich taste like, mr bigot CEO ?

magine a world where a computer can always do it cheaper than a human. In that case, no humans will be employed. In this scenario, what is the harm in providing people with income via fiat money creation? I don't see much harm as long as it does not spend past the point of rampant inflation, and I sure as hell can see the harm in letting people go hungry without hope of income.

The problem is, our democratic and capitalist system promote more easily people with less empathy, or even far more sociopath to the top. You do not see any harm in the above and see harm when people go hungry. The problem is that those at the top are far more likely different. See for example how some republican decry food aid.

In some MacDonald i was there was a terminal you could put your bank card and order stuff, you would get a slip with a number you can present. The local worker made me very clear that if I order from that terminal, I will be the *last* served, they will ignore the machine telling them to fulfill my order until they felt like it. My conclusion :
1) The cashier are intelligent enough to understand their job is on the line with those machines
2) they are dumb enough to tell me I will not get food quickly and will intentionally make it slow
3) I'll never go again to that macDonald.

If journalist were giving the "analyst programmer" type of info and news I would agree. But at the moment frankly it feels they are giving you the junior first level tech level support (to continue your analogy). In fact when it comes to technical knowledge , blogger give you are far higher quality technical knowledge that the regurgitated newspaper and tv news.

The problem has never been that it is a camera. After all we have phone camera. The problem is that contrary to normal phone or normal camera, it is pointed toward your face all the time. And nobody trust the light to really show whether it is filming or not. Is that so hard to answer google.... No instead you made up 10 nice strawmen.

There is no difference to physical entity to electronic entity. Or are you pretending we need MORE law to regulate electronic/internet entity ? No ? Then imagine if I was telling you this :

"Any door that is unlocked is not a free for all. Openning and entering that door is not trespassing at all. And he had no legal requirement to notify the door owner first. "

We have already enough law on the book. If youa re accessing a direct URL and manipulate URL to see what is not normally accessible thru the public portal by a link, you are trespassing. Any "but it is not behind a lock / password" is a bullshit defense.

"The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards, primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease they were studying."

The problem were NEVER the first 8 years, but the 32 afterward.

That said , I am part of the (apparently small) population which think evidence based medicine is the way to go, and the "natural cure" "homeopathy" bullshit should be regulated to hell the same way normal medicine is. Why should they have a apss right if they CLAIm to have an effect. They should get the 10 years study phase I,II,III,IV , and all the burden of following side effect and adding them etc... But when researcher/doctor blow it up, then it should not ever be minimized. Again , with the tuskegee study the ethical problem were that 32 years after a cure was found , it was not sued to help those people, and in fact they were not even told they were contaminated, potentially spreading teh disease to other. At the latets by 1947 when penicillin had become a standard treatment something should have been done. And the next 25 years ? NOTHING was done.

In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to others in the area.[5] The study continued, under numerous US Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press eventually resulted in its termination on November 16.[6] The victims of the study included numerous men who died of syphilis, wives who contracted the disease, and children born with congenital syphilis.

Do not EVER minimize the impact of malicious blunder (it cannot be unintentional when treatment and help and information was *withdrawn* when it was made available in other area so forget the "do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" it was intentional and it was done to study effects forgoing the health of the patient. Pure malice). As soonas you minimize malicious blunder, you give ammunition to the idiot anti vax, natural cure, homeopathic crowd.

Seed with limited number of generation, simply kick themselves out of any gene pool which has no such limitation.

What about firm which communicate using VPN ? No entities are in Australia , just maybe a worker or two communicating with a german firm for example.

Firstly the airline industry tend to be very conservative. Secondely, I seriously doubt we are speaking of a 100K$ TOC. They say 100K$ to fit the device, which does not take into account potential downtime due to retrofitting. Also count that some airlines have fleets of 100 of flights, we are speaking of 10 of millions of dollar *just installing* not even infrastructure to receive data, tests, and so forth. In an industry quite strapped for cash. To catch data more conveniently in case of plane falling. When there is already a functionning *robust*, *tested*, technology, the BB. But even if you did it at the next maintenance, if you read the RTFA it states the streaming would only starts at abnormal events. Well woopy doo. It is far too late at that point you want to know what led to the abnormal event, because this is what you want to avoid in the future.

The editor has data to reach its conclusion , the "fucking moron" (a term I disagree with BTW) on the other hand trusted an authority under the form of a "model" which did not have any medicine training and a corrupt doctor which not only did unethical test, but also sold coincidentally an alternative product and he has long been discredited. Those people *decided* to trust people which were not expert over the quantity of expert. To give a "redneck" equivalent, it would be like trusting some random internet "hindu" poster over issues of christian faith rather than ask their local parish.

"Because they have no free will " For one, free will is ill defined. But most version of it are either non existent for human , being all molecular biology and turtle all the way down, or other definition pretty much applicable to robot too.