It basically works like this. The better you are at any field, the more likely you are to use precise words. These words include both the more common and the rare cases.

So you talk about 'enterprises' instead of businesses because enterprises includes charitable organizations.

The problem comes when the expert tries to talk to (note I said talk not communicate even though we are really using an electronic form of communication, not talking) to normal people (an expert might have said non-technically proficient people).

They talk like this for a reason, and it is very hard to get them to stop.

Same things happen in law, medicine, and other extremely precise fields.

I am not against free speech - you can blur the face on videos, and/or show it on local TV. I am against invasions of privacy. The internet is particularly bad at this because there is no filter. People can easily lie about what happened before the video begins or about what is going on in a video. There are several cases where actors were paid to do things like make catcalls at women and then someone put the video on the internet pretending no one was paid.

As in, when your friends tag you, even without Facebook "suggesting" it.

We need some digital privacy laws for the internet. Perhaps - the right not to be named in a public photo/video on the internet - or even have your face shown without express, written permission.

This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.

In addition, real financial penalties of $1,000 could apply.

This would among other things, stop things like people posting embarrassing youtube videos of other people.

Hm. So let me get this straight. You listen to the media which exaggerates real scientists fears.

You then ignore what the actual scientists say, instead relying on the exaggerations.

When the exaggerations don't come to pass, you blame the scientists, instead of the media?

Or did you actually personally hear Al Gore et. al. speak?

No? You didn't? You are just mis-remembering wild ass storiies told to you by the media?

And blaming the scientists as opposed to the media?

Hm. So basically your own bad logic is a clearer explanation of the problem than the article itself.

No it does not.

The basic problem is that the kids' blood is different from the mothers. As such, the mother's body attack's the kid's blood.

The problem re-occures when the mother gives birth to a female child that has blood similar to her own. But in that case the daughter does NOT need the blood.

So actually every kid the golden arm saves will never have to worry about this problem again.

Worse, the idiots never heard of the Streisand effect.

Or it's political corollary: The cover up is always worse than the original crime.

Lots of older people have to sell their cars/stop using them because their vision, reflexes, etc. give out. They get homebound not because they have no money, but instead because they don't trust themselves to drive.

Bars would thrive.

Police in small towns would lose a ton of money - much fewer speeding and traffic tickets.

Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.

Movies ( and a bit of books) will increase - think of all the stuff kids do while you drive them around.

But all of this will take 10-20 years, after the first sale, not immediately

If only to see if it works.

I have a battery tester and when batteries stop working, I sometimes check and easily see they still have some power left, if not enough to run the device.

Even if this device extends battery life only 10% it is probably worth it.

Of course, the real question is why don't they build it into the batteries/devices in the first place?

And not machine 'intelligence', but creative, human intelligence.

Kids at heart want to learn the cool stuff. But to get to the cool stuff, you have to learn a whole crapload of boring stuff.

The thing is, the 'boring stuff' can be made fun - with a lot of creative work by a human teacher.

Technology can't do that.

Throw in the fact that wealthy parents encourage their kids, assure them of the opportunities, and give them extra resources that poor parents don't.

So no, technology can't cure the problem.

They are not stealing.

They are illegally importing.

I am sick and tired of shmucks that rip people off trying to 'upgrade' the crime of not being ripped off into 'theft'.

When you have a policy of destroying old records, it isn't 'destroying evidence'. They need to show that clearing browser history was not standard behavior for him. I for example, have my browser set to destroy all history after every session.

Or some other similar issue of no real importance, with minimal disagreement?

Look, you want some geek cred, you come out in favor of Star Trek/Star Wars and dis the other.

But talking about the metric system is like talking about ... well, the metric system.

I would say you have it backwards.

In America, it is incredibly easy to buy a gun - even if, for example, your ex-wife has a restraining order against you getting within 1,000 feet of her.

Given how easy it is to buy a gun, it is incredibly silly to prohibit making guns.