Researchers have been making humanoid robots for much longer than they've been trying to make any of those other things you listed. And yet, such devices are still limited to doing simple tricks of little or no real value. In the mean time, robots designed for specific purposes (that look nothing like people) are used throughout society. Humanoid robots will always be much more complex, and much less stable, than their non-humanoid counterparts. So of course they will never be affordable because you will always be able to make a cheaper wheeled robot.

Also, it is baffling to me that anyone would throw away money on this line of research. The limits of this kind of robot should be obvious to all of us, since it would have all the same limits we do. But for some reason this idea is so compelling to the less logically minded masses that it attracts all kinds of money for research that is destined to lead nowhere.

I did watch the video. You certainly can use a regular loader or mini-excivator for disaster relief, so I don't know what they were on about. It was more like they wanted to make a cool robot exoskeleton, and they needed to come up with an excuse for why you would even want the stupid thing.

If they were really interested in disaster relief, they would be making attachments for compact loaders and mini-excivators, not ridiculous exo-skeletons that could never possibly be useful for that (or any other) application.

So it has 10 times the moving parts of a regular loader, but can lift less than 10% of the weight?

I know these things look cool in the cartoons, but there's a reason we don't build construction equipment this way. Things like these will never be as practical as wheeled and tracked vehicles.

Why investigate and attempt to solve a potential problem that your engineers have brought to you attention? There could be some risk involved (to your career). Better to do nothing and write a report later on saying there was nothing you could do.

It's about learning from mistakes, not making them worse.

If NASA was capable of learning from their mistakes, they wouldn't have been flying space shuttles in the first place.

Fortunately Cowards don't become astronauts.

Unfortunately, they do become administrators. . .

It means you're a bad developer because you're using .net to make webpages. You should always use the right tool for the job.

This is one thing that bothers me. If the natural order is for a period of glaciation to begin in the near future, surely global warming will benefit mankind. So why are we acting like we need to cool the place down? All the geologic evidence points to a risk for run-away cooling, if temperatures get a just few degrees lower than they are today. None of it points to a serious long-term threat of run-away global warming. And if the present ice-age were to end, it seems like the world would more hospitable to humans than ever. Sure over the next couple thousand years some cities would have to move to make way for rising water, but most buildings aren't occupied over that kind of time-frame anyway.

Most of their arguments for a potential global catastrophy hinge one a hypothetical "tipping point" beyond which the climate will no longer be in stable equilibrium and will spiral out of control. I haven't seen a plausible mechanism for this, but based on what we know about the climate, such tipping points probably do exist. On the other hand, we know this kind of thing has happened in the past without human intervention. The causes cited are always much larger than anything humanity has been capable of (huge meteor impacts, super volcanoes, things like that). Also, it seems that only run away global cooling has been the real problem in that past, and we understand how that can happen: ice sheets reflect a lot of light and result in the earth taking on less and less heat from the sun. If there's too much ice, the sheets will get bigger and bigger every year.

Frankly, it's hard to consider a website to be a legitimates source of information about programming when they botch their redesign this badly. I know that a lot of websites out there have a similar look and feel, and also work very poorly, but a good developer should be able to see those shortcomings and know to avoid them. If you're not competent enough to pull of the redesign, why not simply stick with the older version? What it looks like is some brainless suit from the parent company who doesn't understand the website or it's users tried it out and decided he wanted a more modern look. You can't make a good product when the person who has the final say is an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing.

Discovery can involve any material which might be relevant to a particular case with substantial restrictions to protect the identity of government informants and to prevent intimidation of witnesses. The prosecution is not the authority in determining which information may or may not be relevant. They must comply with any request for information the defense makes which the court agrees may lead to information relevant to the case. Any lawyer worth anything will ask for, and be entitled to, all the information the police gathered during their investigation. Of course, this also goes the other way in that the defense is required to comply with any requests made by the prosecution.

With regard to illegal wiretaps, if a defendant's civil rights were violated during the course of an investigation, that would certainly be relevant to the case. That is why they build a parallel case using legitimate means to present to the prosecutor.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but the curvature of the earth would definitely prevent a laser beam from an aircraft in Kentucky from hitting a building in South Carolina, to say nothing of Oregon.

That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency. They would have all this information that they gathered by whatever means are at their disposal, and you'd only have the evidence they presented to be used you and whatever else you are legally able to obtain (within your financial means). There is no way that scenario fits the definition of due process, the government would be practically guaranteed to win every time. According to you, they could have evidence that exonerates you and simply choose not to present it and it would all be totally legal.

You are not correct, during the discovery process the prosecution is required to turn over all the evidence they gathered. Not just whatever they saw fit to present.

Shouldn't your local charger be in your garage?

Listen, the home owner can own the pipe going to his house and a share of the pipes in his neighborhood. There is absolutely no need for the water company to own the pipes or the power company to own the power lines, or the phone company to own the data infrastructure. The developer can put them in and charge for maintenance and access. In fact, letting the supplier own them is very stupid because, as you've said, it's a conflict of interest of epic proportions, and all the regulation in the universe could never make up for it. Also your connection costs are way off base and do not reflect reality. If you believe running 100 feet of 3/8" HDPE costs $5,000, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Also looking at the cost of 12" vs 8" pipe is nutty, because most of your costs are labor to dig a trench and bury the pipe.