Seems to be the parent's objections are a classic case of "perfect being the enemy of the good." Of course the metadata definitions won't be complete enough when these documents are scanned. This leaves the user with having to digitally search through the records (if they OCR'ed decently). How is this not an order of magnitude better than going through the paper?

I agree with the parent. The adage that one man's trash is another man's treasure is no where as true as with "Nuclear waste". The rarity of the elements contained in that waste and their unique characteristics means that it is likely we will find important uses for them. So it may make more sense to store them in a way that allows us to get back at them. Even if we don't find uses for them, we will surely develop better processes and technologies to extract and render them less dangerous.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the pessimistic view that we are inevitably going to see the collapse of civilization and the return of illiterate barbarism. In which case, I would suggest that you are focusing on one of the smaller risks in that post-apocalyptic world.

My suggestion would be to find a way to safely store them for 50 years. If, at the end of that time, we still haven't found a better use for the "waste", then we repackage it for the next 50 years using the superior knowledge and technology that will then be available.

Is this an argument against trying this technology? That we would wouldn't need such safety technology if we all just drive responsibly?

Experience shows many more lives will be saved by applying technology than we could ever hope for by depending on people to behave properly.

Of course such a rule could (and inevitably would) be misused by a teacher or principal. What rules would be left if we eliminated all of them that could be misapplied by corrupt or selfish authorities?

As to your broad assertion that anyone claiming anything done for the children is lying, I know that to be false. (The way you framed the argument only requires a single counter example). My wife has been teaching for many, many years and I have been a part of decisions she has made to confront parents, argue with administration and generally do things not in her self interest. On those occasions it has been for the good of a child.

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.