I've seen quite a number of desperate last-ditch refutations of the obvious on /., but this one takes the biscuit.

This is why there are governments.

First do a study if this is really a good idea, including a scalability test. Then if so, Explain the citizens why this is such a good idea, and why this is worth the small investment. Then make it mandatory in the building code. Use some carrots and sticks to let people add sensors to existing buildings.

All boring existing government machinery, but that's how civilised countries got things line warning sirens, vaccination programs, street lights, fire departments, etc. etc.

These neat little theories are always so so convenient to explain why everyone else is inferior. Yet Pakistan elected a woman as prime minister: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... Perhaps the world is more complicated than these little theories suggest?

It is worth mentioning the efforts of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team: http://hot.openstreetmap.org/u.... They don't pretend to solve the whole crisis, but they do try to make navigation in the area a little easier by providing accurate and recent mapping information. At least in earlier crises, the effort was appreciated by the people on the ground: http://www.redcross.org/news/a....

Who exactly is 'they' in this context?

There are no level crossings on Shinkansen/TGV/ICE tracks, so I must assume this system will also not have them. (And it's in tunnels most of the time anyway.)

You mean the NRA, or religions in general?

Err, health care insurance. In fact, they are already for a group of people through medicare, and that seems to work well.

Of course I realise what he's doing. He's trying to teach all the blithering idiots that are spouting facile astroturfed memes that the world is not as black-and-white as they are suggesting, that Muslims are not the moustache-twirling villains of Hollywood movies that some people like them to be, and that said idiots should not believe all the lies and propaganda that is produced on an industrial scale.

In other words, he is attempting the hardest task every teacher ever has, he is trying to make people think for themselves instead of just echoing groupthink.

It's a thankless task and probably a hopeless task, but I'm glad someone is at least trying.

Oooh, wow, I think I'll add a new rule then to let everyone transfer 10% of their income to my bank account.

Or perhaps we have to return from your fantasy land, and realise that your blind mullah Wosisname perhaps doesn't have the automatic authority you're claiming he has.

Even if your claim about Muslim armies was true, how does that refute Prof. Cole's claim that Islamic law prohibits this? That people do not always obey the laws of their religion is hardly a new revelation, and is certainly not restricted to Islamic cultures.

You're using ad hominem attack, and you're moving the goalposts. Weak.

That myth was debunked yet again this week by Juan Cole's Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism. See: http://www.juancole.com/2015/0...

If said authority shows absolutely no concern for the wellbeing of "those people", as demonstrated by incident after incident, including this one, it is pretty damn hard to respect it. Fear it, yes. Respect it, no.

And calling someone a thug for (a) having, allegedly, a broken light on his car and (b) being too afraid to obey orders, is more than spinning the truth, it is a violent assault on the truth.

The difference is that there is well-documented evidence of climate change and its damage, and not of your made-up example.

Also note that the announced studies are to learn more about the exact damage. Thus, there is reason to believe there is a problem, but not enough is known, so the studies are trying to learn more.

To me this sounds like a pretty good investment of public money: useful science is done, and it is a defensive move against climate change. What's not to like here?

I fail to see what is so outrageous about her prediction. Let me repeat the quotes from the summary:

Is that really so implausible? There are hints that there is or has been life beyond Earth even in our own planetary system. There is solid evidence for many planets beyond our solar system, and although these discovered planets are usually too large to carry life similar to our own, they strongly hint that there are also smaller planets out there that could carry such life. Yes, Ellen Stofan is speculating, but if she's asked to speculate about the subject, this seems to me like a pretty solid reply.

Again, pretty solid reasoning. What's the problem?

Of course she can still be wrong. Predicting the future is hard, and there are no perfect guarantees, but her prediction sounds pretty plausible to me.