Goddammit, if I weren't already ideologically minded, I would despise conservatives for their crimes against the english language.

When the best you can manage is passive-aggressive solipsism and intentionally petrified bawdy humour, PUT THE KEYBOARD DOWN.

Another fucking coder thinks the right side of his brain is worth a damn...

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."

When enough others decide to buy an app-able crockpot, you won't have any choice but too buy one as well.

Yes, for normal people, but we're nerds. We'll simply hack them, just like we jailbreak iPhones.

This story reminds me of something that happened in a bar a year or so ago. A fellow had a strange looking contraption that looked like it had something to do with a furnace. I asked him what it was, and he said it was an "obsolete" analog part that cost him twenty bucks new that he was installing in a friend's furnace to replace a burned up digital board that cost $200 used.

Look at cars, my last car had a digital circuit to control climate. If it had gone out, the replacement was $300. $300 for something that surely cost the automaker less than $5 to manufacture.

If I'm forced to buy an internet-connected toaster, you can bet its antennas will be the first parts to be removed.

A lot of reasons. I probably don't have a fixed IP address, I'd have to keep on top of security far more closely than with a PC, and I'd have to have at least two computers running 24/7/365 in case one went down, and I usually only have one or two running when I'm awake. The electricity alone would cost more than hosting.

federal

how? it's not interstate commerce.

Tesla Motors is headquartered in Palo Alto, CA. They are trying to sell in as many states as possible, and this article is about them conducting commerce in Iowa. Last time I checked, Iowa and California were different states. Furthermore, Tesla is building a battery factory in Nevada and their assembly plant is in Fremont, CA. While obviously California-centric, they are involved in multiple states.

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?!?!

You assume that you can only get to root through the path that login and su take. Running a program as root, like your dhcp client, then having it launch a shell script that has "#!/bin/bash" is sufficient to get there. and no step along the way were you in the dash environment.

or backed into it

People should walk at least once in their lifetime the radius of destruction in Hiroshima up to the Atomic dome to get a real sense of the level of destruction that a small nuclear bomb can do. I sort of did it last summer, from Hiroshima Castle and halfway the path to the Atomic dome I was crying, the carnage that could come in a modern city even with that old small weapon is mindblowing, what kind of barely sane person would do that now?

My eyes were extremely bad, perhaps if I wasn't so nearsighted it would have been cheaper but I'd still rather have a single payer system.

From what I've read, about the only things they won't correct is retinal and vitreous defects. I know that they will correct astigmatism.

If you get a cataract, spend the extra money on a CrystaLens. Unlike 45 year old natural lenses and implants available before 2003, they will actually focus. Of course they're under patent so they're about a thousand dollars each more expensive than other implants. I'm sure I'll have a cataract in the other eye not too long from now, the last eye doctor I saw said "a couple of years" and it's been longer than that.

I think I'll wait until 2023 when the patent runs out and everybody makes them, the ones like my mom has will be obsolete. I only use that eye to look at tiny things, anyway.

Insurance paid for all but the extra thousand, it was the best thousand dollars I ever spent. The device inside my eye is my favorite device of all.