It is becoming cheaper and cheaper. When the cost is low enough, more consumers will buy and it becomes profitable.

Once people put out designs to buy for stupid things that teenagers like, it will fly off shelves. Print out your own cell phone cases or designs you can stick on your text books.

Also, you have tinkerers who will think it is fun to play with at that price.

All it will take is one killer product and everyone will start wanting one.

Because they don't want science to be compatible with religion. Religion is right and science is wrong.

Of course they do. We just don't see it because our news is terrible and only focuses in domestic issues. Get out of the country and the rest of the world pays attention to each other.

Ok, then google stops being viable as a company. You get all this stuff, for free, because google is an ad company and can make enough money doing that they don't need to charge you for its applications of services.

Don't like it, don't use it.

I guess I don't see any logic in what you wrote. Passwords are something everyone is familiar with now and is useful.

But to think that just because no one has come up with the password killer that it is necessary seems ridiculous to me.

Before airplanes....and seeing our first failed attempts at flight...you could say that the logic of human flight was broken.

Doesn't mean you give up, you come up with new ideas and try them.

Everything is vulnerable to some form of attack. But this combination makes it much more challenging.

If you do it long enough, you are loitering.

If you are coordinating a distributed attack on a system and preventing others access, thus damaging a companies ability to do business...then yes, that indeed should be illegal.

Flip this around and put yourself in the other shoes. Pretend this was your website and was the way that you made money. I'd imagine you would want it to be illegal for someone to take away your ability to run your business.

There is also a difference between an accidental attack (slashdotting a site) and doing something to intentionally cause harm. Intent matters.

No, I am pretty sure they could drive cars on closed courses to determine what is an acceptable speed based on curvature of the road, type of road (highway, residential, etc), and number of lanes. You don't need to break any laws to understand this.

In any case, your argument misses the mark because you aren't actually arguing against his point. Only disagreeing with his example.

His point is that in most cases, breaking the rules is going to lead to stricter enforcement of those rules...not loosening of them.

No, they are not antithetical at all. There is nothing stopping from a scientist who tries to build a model of the real world can't run for office and be a politician. There are certainly scientifically minded people in our government right now.

I think the issue is more that the type who is attracted to power tend not to be the scientist type. They are more the sociopath type that believes they are better than everyone else and whatever view they have is superior.

Actually, Obama has done a lot for science and is a great supported of science. One of his science cabinet members came and spoke at my company and it really illustrated a lot of the funding and effort in to funding and supporting science.

I think you also don't understand politics if you think he can wave his hands and fix the problem. You would need Republicans to support the idea of science as well. And since they pander to a base that believes in zombie Jesus over climate change...just isn't going to happen any time soon.

I completely agree. Yet for some reason I am guessing that you and I would both thing each other has "mind cancer" considering you think there are legions of "free shit" people.

You don't understand what a scientist is because there are still plenty out there and you don't need a degree.

To be a scientist, you need to conduct your research using the scientific method. Your research should be validated through peer review. If you research stands up, then it stands up. So that case, Hawking's viewpoint will be equivalent or better from a nuclear physicist because his research has passed peer review.

No, the term intellectual is only a label to people who lack the education and understanding to know what an intellectual is.

You can tell the difference between the two very easily. One use facts and research to back up what they are saying. The other ones manipulate facts to say something that fits in with their agenda, but if you put any small amount of scrutiny on them, the facts just don't hold up.

The anti-intellectual movement are the people who don't trust you because you have a higher education. Because you have researched more on a certain subject, you are not to be trusted. It is ridiculous but that is where the country is at.

Or you mean, people who know nothing about the second amendment try to use it to defend their right to own any type of weapon they want.

Or the idea that when people are shot, there should be more guns in that situation.

Or that we need guns to protect ourselves from the NWO.

Sorry, I am on the side of the people who use the term "clip" incorrectly over people ranting that the government is out to take their guns.

Everyone should be scientists.

I don't mean getting a degree, I mean that they are always trying to understand the world around them and pursue factual information. So anyone can be a scientist. We need to remove the people who make decisions based on their gut or ideology. These are the ones that are the problem because they stopped caring about learning and improving. They just want to impose their view of the world on everyone else.