Although I agree that unscientifically founded optimism is frustrating, so is pessimism based on unnecessarily limiting the options. The choices are not limited to 1) find liveable planets outside the solar system or 2) make other planets in the solar system liveable. That's Planetary Chauvinism:
Planetary Chauvinism

Back in 1976, Princeton Prof Gerard K. O'Neill and a NASA sponsored study designed some alternatives. Human colonies in space

This is the kind of guy that should be looking for building opportunities after a "hundred year flood event". After all, he's got another hundred years without a flood. Right?

I live in Illinois and use a Livescribe pen at work. I use it to record and take notes at meetings. Illinois requires all parties to be notified and approve recordings. I guess I should stop using the pen, but it's so damn handy!

Looking at the actuals vs. the predicted costs in the graph you linked, they underestimated by 30%. Maybe they were just having a bad day.

Did you miss the part about it being biometric? This would seem to be the best tool to fight identity theft.

Now for all of those slashdotters who will start fretting over the misuse of this card -- get over it. You are not likely to find yourself in Dr. Richard Kimble's situation (unjustly convicted of murder and needing to hide from Tommy Lee Jones). And as for the government having too much power, please note that these are the people who have our guns, tanks, drones and hydrogen bombs. No, we shouldn't trust them -- we should watch them for any abuse of power and call them out when necessary. But a system that insists we should maintain personal security through making personal identification more difficult is misguided.

I don't know about the motives of the parent AC, but a lot of people worry about privacy because they have something to hide. In this case they don't want their vehicle to rat them out with hard facts about how they were driving in the seconds before their air bags deployed.

If this evidence was easily available, we might realize that our big problem with traffic accidents, injuries and deaths aren't hardware or software -- it's the driver, stupid.

We don't need "amazing and so-far-unforeseen" advances in technology for large-scale, independent colonies in space. We just need to get over our "planetary chauvanism." The feasibility of space colonies was largely proven in the 1970's by studies at the NASA Ames Research Center. We just need to build some of these.

For variety, and to show an author that understands language as well as technology, have them try Cordwainer Smith. "Norstralia" if they have the time for a novel, "Dead Lady of Clown Town" or "A Planet Named Shayol" for short stories.

My instructor in a class called "Literature of Fantasy and Imagination" in junior college introduced me to this author. I seldom re-read a book just for pleasure -- Smith's are the exception.

One of today's Nobel Prize winners (Carol W. Greider) was quoted in the New York Times:

People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that ''It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'''

You're probably right. I think there will be at least as many opportunities to replace humans with robots based on ethical weakness as there are for our physical weakness.

A robot solder won't be prone to anger, fear and revenge when his robot buddy is killed.

And a robot postal worker won't be likely to go "postal" because he has a soul-numbing job.

The existence of God is pertinent here in the sense that some people think that God is choosing (brown hair for this one, congenital heart defect for that one, etc.) Certainly if you start with the belief that you're putting your knowledge of the consequences against that of an omniscient being, you'd be a fool to try to interfere.

If instead you think the genetic outcome is a random occurrence, you are only pitting your limited knowledge against random chance. If we use reason and seek knowledge we are going to have a superior outcome the majority of the time. Hopefully, most will make choices based on factors that lead to healthy, happy and productive lives for their children.

Yes, surprises are wonderful. Sometimes random chance produces a great outcome -- sometimes it doesn't. Saying that making these decisions is "playing God" or that we aren't wise enough to make them is a cop out. Either you're saying that you have no preference and all outcomes are equal -- or that the choices are too hard.

The choices are hard -- avoiding them isn't the answer. As Stewart Brand said, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it."

So I can't even use my own video camera to get street scenes without infringing on your privacy?

If you're in public don't do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about. The right to privacy in public is oxymoronic.