Neither the summary nor the article says that.

Nether the summary nor the article says that.

Perhaps English is not your native language, but you appear to be functionally illiterate. The summary does not say what you think it does, and you continue to misread it after your error has been pointed out repeatedly by multiple people.

TFA does not say that. I did not read the original paywalled paper, but if it really says that, then that pretty much means the rest of the data is meaningless and the study is garbage. You cannot conclude that "cameras cause accidents" when a far more plausible explanation is "shorter yellow light durations cause accidents".

Indeed. A big problem with these cameras, is that they issue tickets to middle class white people. But a live cop will just pick on teenagers and blacks, and leave the rest of us alone.

No. The summary says that they issued tickets in situations where the yellow light duration was below the federal minimum. But it does not say whether those durations were the same for the before-and-after data sets being compared.

It isn't really that obvious. There was an overall 5% increase in injury accidents at the intersections with cameras. But they did not mention the severity of the injuries. T-bone crashes (which were reduced) are likely to result in more severe injuries than rear-end collisions (which were increased). There were other complications: Most of the additional accidents occurred at intersections that were poorly chosen because they previously had few accidents. So it is possible that cameras improved safety at intersections with a history of accidents, and could improve safety overall if they are only installed at those intersections. Another issue is the yellow light duration. Longer yellows leads to fewer accidents, and some cities installing cameras also shorten the yellow light duration to increase revenue. It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied.

The study shows that cameras can increase accidents, but it doesn't show they always increase accidents. If they are used more intelligently, they could be a net benefit.

Sure it is. NK's goal is not to "get" Sony. It is to maintain the reputation of their leader as a psychopathic kook. This will strengthen their hand in future negotiations over important issues. If you act reasonable, your adversaries will insist on an outcome that is "fair". But if act like an irrational psychopath, your adversaries will settle for any outcome that is even halfway sane. The Kim dynasty has been using this strategy since 1950, and it has worked well for them.

Sony. If they release the movie now, a lot of people will see it that otherwise wouldn't have been interested. I am still sticking to my theory that the hacking was staged, the released emails are fake, and the whole thing is a publicity stunt.

Stop being a pedantic ass. To say that a market is only "free" if the customers and vendors are infinite, and all information is instantly broadcast at superluminal velocity is ridiculous. There are plenty of markets that are close enough to "free" that the benefits and drawbacks of free markets are clear. All across the world, many villages have public markets where any farmer can pull up a wagon and sell his produce. There are no barriers to entry, plenty of customers, plenty of vendors, and prices are transparent. How is that not a free market? There are many, many, other markets that are essentially free.

The "cost of automation" has been declining for centuries, and humans have been doing better and better. In particular, humans have done the best in countries that have automated the most. So you have a nice theory that is the exact opposite of actual reality. If you really believe that "this time is different", you need to explain why.

That is what security robots are for. It will be ED-209 vs pitchforks.

The problem is that these jobs pay relatively less, leading to growing income inequality. They also tend to be outsourceable. My company has a lot of graphic design work, that requires artistic skill, and human judgement. A job like that is a long way from being automated. So we pay a woman in Karachi, Pakistan to do it for $3/hour.

Except that America is approaching full employment, and high unemployment in Europe is caused by dumb fiscal and monetary policies rather than robots stealing job. A jobless economy is a fun thing to chat about on Slashdot, but it is still a long, long way from reality. Automation is replacing workers, but at no greater rate than other times during the last few centuries of progress.

The target market for this phone is government employees and defense contractors, not drug dealers and terrorists.

Some geo-engineering could make an immediate impact. For instance, oceanic iron fertilization could remove millions of tons of CO2 per day. Yet we are no longer even researching the idea. The problem is, the people yelling "caution, caution, caution" don't really want to be cautious, they just want to roadblock all research in geo-engineering. The cautious approach would be to explore lots of ideas, so we understand the consequences, and are able to make informed choices in the future.

This is nonsense. It is only true for sulfates and nitrates. But sulfates and nitrates are only a concern on land, where they are inhaled, or damage buildings or crops. When emitted by ships, they are funneled to the side where they stay low and quickly settle onto the ocean surface. Since the ocean already contains quadrillions of tons of sulfur and nitrates, this addition is utterly inconsequential.