Often, I see TV shows that dramatize the hindrance of proper procedure to convict a "bad guy". But what threat does Silk Road represent versus government agencies that use illegal data collection and secret information to convict people? More people die from legal prescriptions than illegal -- but regardless of what anyone believes about Silk Road's activities, they bypass laws that are designed to protect people (whether they do or not). While the justice system is bypassing it's own rules, or eroding legal protections.

Look at it this way; if all data is collected, and there are so many RULES we can break - then with enough data mining, all people at some point are breaking a RULE even if it does no harm to anyone else. Everyone is guilty. Enforcement then becomes merely a process of picking and choosing where you bother to enforce the law.

Silk Road isn't the "little guy", nor the big bad guy -- but I don't like the idea of secret information in any court case. It's the end of free expression because anyone who offends the system is already guilty. The trial is merely a formality.

So basically you can have your confident prince charming who sweeps you off your feet, and then take the risk of them continuing their princely conquests, or you can ask a guy out who is not so confident, and complain that he's not that exciting one day.

These are simple facts of life, but the take home lesson I think is that women are going to complain and wonder why stuff isn't working. Not to be a chauvanist but a realist. I think at least the non-macho Men like myself have a more realistic expectation of reality.

I think it's going to be more challenging for writers to create a scenario than even Battleship!

Is the hero going to use a laser beam, telepathy, or Jeff Goldbloom's laptop to steer geometric alien enemies into a well packed space in order to disable their ships? Or do they have a weakness to water? Or is our super weapon of the future large geometric shapes and we have to contract a super bright Chinese exchange student to quickly configure them in order to save the world, while John Glenn walks slowly in the background to stirring music?

The EASY part will be the battle scenes -- just hire the same FX group that did Enders game.

The HARD part is creating a movie where the plot is; "use large geometric shapes and pack them well!" If it's a comedy, I'd enlist people who stack boxes for a living. Maybe a giant fork lift with laser beams.

And the other giant elephant poop in the room that burns me up; A drone is a NEW WAY to allow surveillance on people. The attitude seems to be that "they have a RIGHT to find out everything the can" without actually letting anyone know what the burning need is. Technology is accelerating, but people don't seem to be at a greater threat of organizing, growing unions and becoming educated and empowered citizens in a Democracy.

Heck, you've got Wall Street brokers talking on PBS, and sleezy monopoly frankenfood peddlers endowing NPR, and since the Reagan era, there are no more civics classes -- so people don't know what a Congress person does anymore. Where is the threat?

Oh, you mean them bad guys you divert a Trillion dollars to chasing down rather than spend it on education or jobs -- so people here get angry and you have to spend another trillion spying on them so they don't make a mess of your perfect country that has no opportunity except for prison guards and drone operators? Yeah, well, I don't think the BAD GUY in the us are going to be doing stuff out in the open. They won't use their credit cards to buy bad guy equipment -- they'll steal it. They won't use their names to plot of facebook.

Honestly, it's all about keeping citizens from organizing and having some capability to disrupt them should they start acting like French and treat this country as if it belonged to the People, rather than stock holders.

Well shouldn't the burden be; "does not infringe constitutional rights" and not "might take away our fun of snooping on everyone"?

We have a "climategate" controversy because more money is spent to keep people ignorant than to do research today.

than that.

It's not that the public doesn't trust the abilities of scientists.

It's that they don't trust their motives. We have a long literary tradition that meditates on scientists that "only cared about whether they could, not whether they should," and the politicization of sciences makes people wonder not whether scientists are incompetent, but whether they have "an agenda," i.e. whether scientists are basically lying through their teeth and/or pursuing their own political agendas in the interest of their own gain, rather than the public's.

At that point, it's not that the public thinks "If I argue loudly enough, I can change nature," but rather "I don't understand what this scientist does, and I'm sure he/she is smart, but I don't believe they're telling me about nature; rather, they're using their smarts to pull the wool over my eyes about nature and profit/benefit somehow."

So the public isn't trying to bend the laws of nature through discourse, but rather simply doesn't believe the people that are telling them about the laws of nature, because they suspect those people as not acting in good faith.

That's where a kinder, warmer scientific community comes in. R1 academics with million-dollar grants may sneer at someone like Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers, but that sneering is counterproductive; the public won't understand (and doesn't want to) the rigorous, nuanced state of the research on most topics. It will have to be given to them in simplified form; Alan Alda and others in that space did so, and the scientific community needs to support (more of) that, rather than sneer at it.

The sneering just reinforces the public notion that "this guy may be smarter than me, but he also thinks he's better and more deserving than me, so I can't trust that what he's telling me is really what he thinks/knows, rather than what he needs to tell me in order to get my stuff and/or come out on top in society, deserving or not."

What you are talking about is the very real pressure to "publish or perish". The fact is that those with better connections do get published and sited far more than the rest regardless of merit.

However, when scientists publish garbage, they can lose their credibility. You don't get a Nobel Prize for filling sheets of paper.

A good deal of offal pulled from the nether regions of highly paid media pundits and think tanks.The fact that some people suspect the average scientist MORE than people who MAKE A PROFIT from the exact topic they are disparaging tells me that someone spent their money well to make sure people are ignorant.

That isn't to say I don't process what I'm told from all sources with a healthy dose of skepticism and logic. But I don't swat at butterflies all day just in case they might attack. I think I can depend on butterflies and scientists more than bees and pundits.

I think that critical thinking skills are something that scientists cannot trust American citizens to have. We are lead to believe that someone would have around 16 years of higher education, and take a job that pays at least a third of what they could make with the math and technical skills if they became stock brokers or media pundits -- and they do all this so they can lie about a passion for seeking truth and knowledge. It shows a complete lack of empathy or understanding of human nature.

If I'm wanting to rip people off, I'll open a pay-day loan or a bank and charge bounce fees to poor people -- I don't need to waste time with difficult science to fudge a climate report in the desperate hope of getting a meager research grant.

The Crooks that own the media and hire think tanks to make every controversy like dealing with the Tobacco industry -- they are to blame. They are a cancer on society. We have to do something about these idle, useless rich people gaming the system to ruin it for everyone else. What, are they not able to afford a prostitute and enough steak to eat? These entitled parasites need to be shut down. We face a few existential crisis right now but we can't deal with Climate Change or the end of cheap labor (replaced by robots) because money owns politics and the media.

They do, but after taking 8 liters, they won't need it anymore.

I expect to hear mysterious reports from China of vampire attacks, as thousands of students inexplicably get 24 Credits and graduate. On the good news; blood shortage solved. The drained husks lying in the street won't be getting transfusions.

The retail replacement cost is why it's insane to put it in your pants pockets.

"I just dropped a grand on this. I know, I'll subject it to huge forces and see what happens!"

Why would you do that?

I frankly don't see any difference. Big, fat force, tiny little space. That's not good for a sheet of glass, a sheet of metal—hell, you've seen what happens to a sheet of paper after spending all day in your pockets. People learn that in grade school.

If it really has to be on your waist somewhere, get a holster. Otherwise, just carry the damned thing, or put it in a shirt or coat pocket, briefcase, backpack, etc.

Since the '90s, I've never regularly carried a mobile device in my pants pockets. Obviously, it would break, or at least suffer a significantly reduced lifespan. On the rare occasions when I do pocket a device for a moment, it's just that—for a moment, while standing, to free both hands, and it is removed immediately afterward because I'm nervous the entire time that I'll forget, try to sit down, and crack the damned thing.

Who thinks it's okay to sit on their phone? Why do people think they ought to be able to? It literally makes no sense. It's an electronic device with a glass screen. If I handed someone a sheet of glass and said, "put this in your back pocket and sit on it!" they'd refuse.

But a phone? Oh, absolutely! Shit, wait, no! It broke?!?!