This is a ridiculous comparison to make. Corporate executives don't have to worry about a missile being lobbed into their BMW on their morning commute. Middle managers also don't have to worry about being caught up in the collateral damage.

There are legitimate arguments to be made against drone strikes, but I struggle to see how it isn't effective. Al-Qaeda clearly been forced to change the way it operates. That big open air meeting they held in Yemen, in broad daylight was their attempt to pretend that they're not intimidated. The fact that a drone strike followed the release of that video shows the reality of the situation they face. If nothing else, it brings the same level of fear to these terrorists that they inflict on their own fellow citizens.

I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.

I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.

This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.

The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.

Is it that retrieval alters the memory or your processing of the retrieved memory that alters it? That's an important distinction.

I would propose that the original memory isn't altered at all, but that new experiences and thoughts get layered on top of it. The original memory, when retrieved gets inextricably tied to all that and thus distorted. If you were able to store a memory that is unlikely to be tainted in this manner, unique smells and flavors come to mind, I imagine when it's retrieved years later it wouldn't be distorted at all.

It is newsworthy, but not to the extent that is merits the constant coverage CNN has been giving it.

But it's easy to see why they're stuck on this particular story. It garners ratings but requires minimal financial and personnel commitment on CNN's part. There's nowhere to send reporters but the local harbor to pointlessly demonstrate some bit of tech. They could send reporters to Malaysia, but why bother when other news agencies are doing the real work for them? The fact that it's politically neutral is another bonus. So there's not much left but to endlessly speculate.

There are other stories that offer much more substance and are far more relevant to us. They also require a lot more work on the part of real journalists. Unfortunately, there's no room for those people because we need to pay for presenters who are borderline celebrities. That and the talking head format has gotten far too prevalent for it's own good.

I believe that 3D printing will eventually be ubiquitous. However, we're talking about something that's at least a decade or two off because not only does the technology need to mature but a whole infrastructure needs to arise to support it. Certainly, these machines will need to evolve beyond spitting out relatively rough hunks of plastic. The suggestion that the lack of a "killer app" is a major stumbling block to adoption is almost comical.

The article seems written by someone who lacks fundamental understanding of the technology and so holds unrealistic expectations. Unfortunately, this mentality seems pervasive as far too many people believe that the instant they hear of a new technology it's ready for mass consumption.

The reality is that many consumers struggle to set up a mere ink jet. They muddle through applications like Word and PowerPoint, using a fraction of available functionality. They need to call an electrician to replace a light switch and AAA to mount a spare tire. In light of all that, what hope in hell do they have of manipulating a 3D model, preparing it for printing and then assembling it?

Some day, the technology will likely affect the lives of nearly everyone. But I can't imagine it will happen in the way some people seem to be envisioning it.

You're wrong.

Apple's business hasn't been based on breaking new ground. Others, Microsoft and Google, are the ones breaking new ground. This risk with that approach, however, is that you're often bringing to market a product that's half-baked, either because the tech is in it's infancy or there's a lack of exposure to that particular type of device.

What Apple has been the master of is identifying a unique niche where there's a unfilled demand because existing products are subpar. But they don't just rush in to fill that vacuum. They wait for the dust to settle, for the tech to reach sufficient maturity. Other companies often predate Apple in the introduction of new technology, but they rarely implement it as effectively. My impression is that they're stuck in iterative mode. They're stuck trying to beat everyone to market and rely on subsequent models to address outstanding issues instead of considering a device as a holistic package and maximizing refinement.

That last bit is reflective of the important of integration, and it's really the most critical. It's the thing that really attracts consumers. Apple successfully removes most of the obstacles that have traditionally hindered user experience in that particular space. The ability to identify technology and successfully exploit it is part of that.

What Apple has done is impressive, but they are able to take this approach only because others have broken ground first.

I think the idea of still having a horses in the midst of a busy city is ridiculous.

That said, the proposed alternative is cheesy. I really struggle to understand the American fixation antique reproductions. It's ironic that in Europe, where cities are much older than NYC, a similar concept would look sleek and futuristic.

I'm also struggling to understand why this thing is so big and heavy. It's at a point where you might as well just take a double-decker tour bus. It's likely also the safer alternative.

Any solution that's good for your health is going to cut into productivity. What companies are trying to do is find a solution that helps but doesn't disrupt that productivity. Unfortunately, I just don't think that's possible.

Currently, I've got a coworker who walks at a specialized treadmill, designed for office use, nearly all day long. Great for her, but all she does is read and type on her computer. There's some work you just can't be moving to do effectively. I design, requiring precision and focus. I can't stand or walk while I work. But my workload is such that I can't talk long breaks throughout the day.

A sensible approach might be several long breaks throughout the day. But the problem is fitting those in to a work day. I wouldn't want my work day to get longer. Sure, if you're single, it's easy to just lengthen your workday but fit in numerous breaks. However, not everyone has that freedom or desire. I want to be home with my family at a reasonable hour.

I think we need a more fundamental shift in corporate mentality. There's this persistent attitude of rushing to wait. Jam in a ton of work into a compressed timeframe only to have it languish once it's complete. On the other hand, there does need to be some kind of balance. You can't just have employees sit around doing nothing. Although, sometimes I feel like that's all that happens with so many of my clients.

You're certainly right, but it's still funny how quickly some people compensate for any criticism of Democrats.

This is why we don't have pure democracies. You can't just have the majority vote impulsively on every whim that pops into their heads.

I have generally found that most foreigners and immigrants have a much harsher perspective on handling crime than Americans. Many developed countries engage in law enforcement activity that Americans would consider the mark of a police state. I've found most of those people, however, find it outrageous that Americans would be so obsessed with perceived freedom that they'd be willing to sacrifice quality of life and overall safety. The difference is that they're focused on prevention whereas American obsess about deterrence via punishment.

I'm not arguing they're right necessarily but it's hard to argue when cities in most first world nations are safer than American cities. I was generally oblivious to this until I lived in Taiwan for several years. It was refreshing to be able to go out at 3am and not have to worry about being mugged. Not that there weren't problems, particularly in Southern Taiwan and especially seedy neighborhoods. And sometimes I suspect crime in other countries in under reported. There's a lot of petty crime that I think is not adequately represented. But even then it's nothing compared to how rough things can get in the US. And to think that Japan somehow manages to be on another level.

Crime also doesn't tell the whole story. In Taiwan, if you really had to go looking for trouble. Otherwise no one gave you a hard time, even as a foreigner. In America, however, wander into certain neighborhoods with the wrong skin color and it's a near inevitability you'll get harassed. And usually the harassment comes from some punk teenager, which is a bit of a concerning trend. Where I used to live in the US was a borderline neighborhood that straddled the line between okay and bad neighborhoods. A week didn't go by that some asshole didn't make remarks about me, as a white guy, being out for a jog.

Inevitably, you learn to avoid trouble areas and I think Americans as a culture do that constantly. The problem is that it's the equivalent to sweeping the problem under the rug. And Americans seem to have a habit of reinterpreting statistics to suit some deluded world view. Take incarceration stats. People look at the numbers and assume there's some grand conspiracy. Doesn't it occur to people that more people are in jail because there's generally more crime? Certainly, the crime statistics corroborate that.

Now, the interesting thing I've found, is that American police departments are far more militaristic than anything I've seen overseas. In Taiwan, more than once I've seen a drunk woman slap a police officer and he just stands there and takes it, waiting for her to calm down. In the US they would have tased her and smashed her face into the pavement, assuming someone more gung ho didn't just pump a few rounds into her claiming probable cause.

On the other hand, I found the authorities there much more comfortable with continued surveillance. Here, it's all reactionary aggression. The rare police car I see is busy blowing through stop lights supposedly on the way to an incident. In Taiwan, however police presence was more persistent and reliable. Not that cops were personable there, but there was a lot more interaction. The only time people ever see cops in America, other than directing traffic, is when something has gone wrong. No wonder people develop a negative impression.

If I had to attribute crime in America with a cause, I think the single largest problem is irresponsible and shit parenting. If that were addressed I think so many other things would start falling into place. There are so many cultural problems endemic to America that you just don't see overseas, at least not to the extent they exist here.

Sometimes there's something critical going on and you need to be in touch after hours. That's reasonable. The big problem is that for most it's become the rule, not the exception.

I've never been told I need to check emails outside of work, however, in recent years I've felt an unspoken pressure to be responsive to emails after hours. Working late bothers me less than this because it feels like an intrusion into my personal life. My own time is for unwinding and taking care of personal obligations, not to keep fretting about work. And without fail, the thing that demanded immediate response was something that could have waited, if it weren't for an impulsive and impatient manager.

Sadly, we're in a world of instant gratification. If people don't get an immediate response they freak out. And it's the same old shit with corporate America; there's an incredible sense of urgency; until the responsibilities fall on them, then they can afford to take on a leisurely pace.

It seems to me like you work in industries that are less attractive to women, hence the overall issue being raised here. But your experience doesn't even come close to reflecting mine. I'm in the design industry where women outnumber men, albeit by a slim margin. Of the roughly 15 project managers I've worked under only two have been men. Amongst clients, which have ranged from small businesses, to universities, to large corporations, there's been a balanced mix of men and women in middle management. Within specific departments, however, women are sometimes the overwhelming majority.

In terms of work-life balance, things seem comparable too, at least right up to the point that people start raising a family. Then woman take far more time off than men for family obligations, and typically it's unquestioningly worked into their weekly schedule. And that's when they aren't taking days off outright. It's already hard enough for a man to simply get out of work on time, let alone get approval for leaving early.

In fact, I'm currently working with a project manager who leaves at 3pm every day and what that means is she's completely out of touch until the next morning. This, inevitably ends up being detrimental to the rest of the team. The rest of us have to pick up the slack in one way or another. Sometimes it's making decisions independently of her and hoping the client doesn't throw a wrench in the process, other times it's delaying progress until she's back in. Its to a point where you have to question why the company even wastes money on this individual. The money spent there would be better served hiring another designer and just having the team interact more directly with the client.

Now, the interesting thing is that I recently heard one of the reasons why female average salaries are lower is specifically because they tend to take more time off. But people will look at the numbers, see that women earn less than men and draw incorrect conclusions from that.

This doesn't mean they aren't competent. There are always exceptions, but female managers are generally as effective as males and easier to work with. I've found them to be more open-minded and less likely to micromanage. But I do think that in striving for equality we've overcompensated, creating a bit of an unfair playing field.

Of course San Francisco has decent weather and pleasant scenery going for it where Detroit does not. It helps make the residents a lot more tolerant of pervasive problems.

I'm not sure why people can't do both. I tend to be very non-linear when I'm online and probably skim more than I should. But I can still sit down every night and read a novel or non-fiction book. I don't feel like I need to readjust myself or anything. If there's a day where I can't read it's more due to my mood than because I've spent the day skimming.

That said, I do think lack of focus and patience is a problem. It's frustrating at work to have coworkers gloss over an email and miss important points, even when I've set up a bulleted list for easy reading. Sometimes skimming works, but often it doesn't. And I think many people have gone beyond that to where they just read a headline and nothing more. Crap like Twitter certainly encourages that, as it's nothing but headline spam.