Following this line of argument, we end up with a descent into the trivial.

If they're "woman-slavers", as you claim, you're a "baby-killer".

Leave the name-calling out--it just reveals that you're not able to discuss this rationally.

On the contrary, all I did is take his comment at face value and derived a corollary from it. I'm not mischaracterizing the expressed position; it actually is unreasonable via reductio ad absurdum. To argue otherwise, you ought to present something more substantive than "gross oversimplification".

How can you make such an inappropriate comment? It's suitable for politics, not supposedly rational discussion.

It's really simple, if you look at it from the point of view of stochastic search algorithms. If you significantly weaken selection pressure (as we've done and will continue to do increasingly) while mutation and crossover continue to randomize the gene pool, the average fitness of a population by any given metric will fall over time (because the gene pool is very far from random, and individuals are on average closer to some (local) maximum of the current fitness function than a set random samples would be). There's just no way around it. If there's no natural selection, then there's a clear case to be made for artificial selection. I equate eugenics with selective breeding in the most general sense. It doesn't require genocide, and it doesn't require preventing anyone from reproducing -- it only requires encouraging reproduction for some portion of the population. While that still is distasteful for some, I'm still waiting for an alternative proposal for the very long term.

Parent's post is one of those that sounds nice, but is factually incorrect, so please mod it down. Many prominent biologists are supporters of eugenics. This includes the co-discoverer of DNA structure himself, the famed James D. Watson, who in recent years became more public about his support for eugenics: http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N46/4... The more you dig around (start with wiki articles on the subject), the more like him you find. Parent poster didn't do his research, preferring to post what fit his ideological preconceptions instead.

You should learn to read. SCOTUS specifically said it has to be a closely knit ownership structure with a history of religious beliefs against abortion. Just like aereo, this is a narrow ruling.

it's -> its

Are you serious? The post specifically says secure _key_ storage. Only the encryption key needs to be kept this way. You could have an exabyte data warehouse encrypted with that key. If the key is safe, so is the data.

So if they clone a human, the clone is not a distinct organism because it's DNA is not distinct from the original, and thus we can do away with it? Something's seriously rotten with the argument you've presented.

Oops, "Across it's ground" --> "Across its ground"

There's a much better approach. There are secure key storage ICs you can buy for a few dollars a piece at the usual electronics distributors (Digikey etc.), which have a pin or set of pins to which a signal will cause instant secure erasure of the stored data. With one of these, the solution is quite trivial, and I've prototyped it before. Across it's ground and VCC pins, the device has a capacitor large enough to give it a fraction of a second of charge when disconnected from power. The erase signal pin is triggered by ANDed physical interlocks and power sense. If the power goes out, or the physical interlocks are opened, the key is instantly erased.

OneDrive reuploads a whole file when it's changed, which makes it useless if you want to store an oft-updated TrueCrypt container, or other encrypted container. Dropbox, on the other hand, does delta updates of files. With OneDrive, every time you add/edit/remove files from your encrypted container, it will reupload the whole container. Unless you have a really small one, that's unacceptable.

Just use Snap to get full access to Google's Android app store. It's unofficial, but works great. Not all Android apps work, but plenty do. http://redlightoflove.com/snap...

Information production, writing, storage, and retrieval requires the rearranging of matter and energy in the real world. Information doesn't exist unless it has a physical manifestation. Indeed, physics places very hard fundamental limits on things like processing rate, maximum information density possible (due to Bekenstein bound), and so on exactly because information can only exist through its physical manifestation. This is the case even if said physical manifestation is just the neural correlates in your brain of the thoughts you're having on a possible invention. You cannot sever the idea from physical manifestations. What you refer to as abstract ideas are not fundamentally different from specific applications because there's no such thing as a purely abstract concept that is not married to physics, just as there's no specific application that is not also informational in nature. I stand by my original point -- it's all a matter of degree and subjectivity.

Nope: "it" also be copied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...