If it's done for personal gain, it's always a crime, but that is not always the case for other kinds of intents. A prime example: f a cop kills a man because he hated him it's a lot different than when a cop kills a man because he was kidnapping a little boy.

Even when a random person kill someone by accident, is a different and lesser crime than killing someone on purpose.

In addition, Nixon's crimes were both for his personal gain and hit democracy at it's heart - elections. Those make it incredibly evil crime.

The CBS reporter's incident, assuming it is entirely true, does not have these issues. There is no evidence that it was for any one's personal game, nor was it an attempt to circumnavigate political system.

As such, Nixon's crimes are far worse.

I am not saying that GMO stuff will be totally harmless. But it isn't any worse than non-GMO stuff, like asbestos.

As such, it does not need to be outlawed, just reasonably regulated (and that does not mean labels that will encourage fear).

Living things have had millions of years to engage in a evolutionary massive arms race. Defense has kept up with offense. Evolution is all about using random processes. Evolution has already given us the full set of defenses we need to change from 'random' or 'unintentional' attacks based on genetics. That's why we have immune systems with white blood cells, variant blood types, skin, mucus, fevers, blood-brain barriers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The basic belief that human caused mutations will randomly create something dangerous demonstrates tremendous ignorance of evolution. It's like they believe in creationism.

I am not saying we can't get around these defenses. We can. But not by accident. The only truly harmful species will have to be intentionally designed by humans that go out of their way to make a dangerous life form, i.e. a plague genetically engineered to kill people.

But for every single 1 intentionally designed genetic species, there are (and will always be) millions of random mutations from cosmic rays, sunlight, etc. As the humans are not trying to make the gene engineered species dangerous, the chance of it happening are FAR more likely in the natural mutations than in the genetically created mutations.

Throw in the extensive testing that humans do to their genetically engineered species (that does not occur in the wild mutations), and you get a guarantee that for every single human engineered life that gets a dangerous trait by random chance, there will be 10 (or more) randomly evolved life forms with mutations we call dangerous.

Now, we might get things that inconvenience us - food that tastes bad or turns a funky color, etc. etc. Even something like a slightly greater cancer risk is just an inconvenience, not a real problem. We already risk that with non-gene engineered stuff. Basically, I am saying that a genetically engineered sugar substitute will be no more risky than Saccharine - which is still legal.

Liability is an EASY problem, not a hard one. No fault insurance is a real thing that already exists in some states and countries.. It already solves the problem

Your thinking is pessimist foolishness, ignorant of real world solutions.

Liability will do nothing more than hold up robot cars for MAYBE one year.

But no fault insurance, while it could solve it, will probably not be the solution to this issue. Car companies are already responsible for defaults in manufacturing. Given reasonable safety records, car companies will probably end up INSISTING on taking all the risk. It will be a big selling point, that when you buy their car, they give you free insurance. They will claim that their software is so safe, that they can offer that deal, but manual cars are so dangerous, they can't.

Actually some of these things have a scientific basis.

1) Economics
2) Philosophy
7) Music

Has jumped the shark.

Time to unload my Solar City, SpaceX and Tesla investments.

Funding for artificial intelligence is real stupidity.
    - John R Pierce

I think you're probably right, which helps with the disaster preparedness crowd. "Nope, less than a handful. That's zero beds we need set up somewhere. I really hope our estimate isn't too low."

This assumes that robots are safer drivers than humans (which is an obvious requirement before they legalize it).

The reasons are clear:

1) Car insurances don't want to pay you because someone else hit your car, but they can't prove it. Robot cars decrease this risk.

There is a LOT of money spent by the insurance companies trying to prove fault. It is big business. By reducing the actual risk from other drivers, insurance companies will save billions, even if they never insure a robot car.

Also, insurance companies make money when things become safer - because rate changes are always behind actual risk changes. So more safety always equals insurance profits and less safety always equals insurance losses.

I agree that speed traps and red light cameras will vanish, but I am not so sure about toll roads. In fact, they might grow in power, using the robots to connect tolls. They might simply have a tax charge to drive fast in the state. As in, your robot car will be limited to 50 mph unless you purchase the NJ Fast Lane upgrade from New Jersey Transit.

Nursing was originally a male-only profession. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we've undergone a drastic evolutionary shift in the past few hundred years, then no, there's nothing genetically innate about that interest.

The Klingons are already there.

I really hope the statement was taken out of context. I'm a layman, but I read a lot and I know that. Anyone who studies climate should have learned that in the beginning of their first year classes. Well, grade school is just a fuzzy memory, but I believe it was taught then.

No they are not members of MIB..

CVS is giving up less than 2% of it's total sales by dropping tobacco while they are growing sales overall by 10+% a year.

It does not have a significant effect on their corporation.