There is a certain breed of individual that actually does want to live this way. But cities have known these people exist for generations. If you provide proper shelter for them then you have the moral ground to force them off your streets, out of your parks, and ban them from pan handling. But many cities make a concerted effort to provide no assistance and make getting help more and more difficult for the homeless.

Parks were made for public benefit, but there is a class of individuals who are now calling parks "socialist" institutions. They want to privatize parks to private businesses who could then charge admission.

There needs to be a reasonable middle ground.

When similar events occurred in Europe in the 1930's, faith in individuals led the individuals to oust the oligarchy and establish a fascist dictatorship. Social democracy took place only after fighting armies destroyed just about everything, and the fascist rulers were either hung at Nuremberg or at an Esso gas station. The people had to rebuild from scratch with a whole new set of leaders that weren't entrenched with the political establishment.

I guess I don't understand how sleeping on a public bench is leaching off others when the bench is made available to anyone who wants to use it. Homeless people have to sleep somewhere, and if you don't provide accessible sleeping areas, humans are going to do what humans do naturally. And it's a bit presumptuous to talk about homeless people getting a job. Many homeless people have jobs, but the pay often isn't enough to afford a place to live. This is a problem created by urban fascism, such as city ordinances that prohibit new homes being built that are less then x,xxx square feet, zoning restrictions that prohibit small affordable apartment buildings from being constructed, or economic restrictions such as outlawing subletting. In many cities it can cost $10k to $20k just in permit fees and mandatory professional services before construction on a new home can even begin. Some homeless are lucky enough to own a car to sleep in, but cities crack down on this as. Police routinely drive homeless out from under bridges as well.

In the 1960's we declared war on poverty. Today we are raging war on the poor. The powers that be hate homelessness, not out of concern for the well-being of others, but because the existence of homelessness suggests that there is a problem, something fundamentally wrong with our economic and political systems. They have poured massive resources into programs and campaigns to convince the population that we have freedom of enterprise, that the invisible hand of the free market will correct any problems of supply or demand, that wages paid are always fair, that hard work is enough to earn a living and secure a retirement, that labor unions are communist surrogates, and that state intervention on behalf of the poor or working class will always result in disaster, while subsidies, tax cuts, and special protections for private businesses will trickle down to benefit all of us. The perpetual and growing phenomenon of homelessness suggests that we need to re-open our mental institutions, fund our community mental health programs, government jobs in areas where the private sector is not hiring, job training programs where needed, and worker protections that keep qualified individuals from getting jobs, such as employers checking credit reports to make judgments on employee reliability, or excluding candidates with arrest records but no convictions.

Homelessness also exposes the unfair way in which the market for housing is manipulated to boost profits for landlords and developers at the expense of citizens with little or no financial leverage. At the urban level cities are run like fascist corporations rather than communities of residents, with city officials spending lavishly to cater to private businesses that imply that their ventures will directly or indirectly increase tax revenue in the area in which they operate.

Audio jacks, such as the original 14 in (6.35 mm) version date from as far back as 1878, when it was used for manual telephone exchanges. But I never saw audio jacks included as a standard item with any car stereo until just a few years ago, long after USB ports where being installed on just about every appliance imagined. Fry's still sells devices that make it possible to connect an MP3 player to their car stereo system via an adapter that takes the form of a cassette tape.

I don't follow automotive trends closely as it is such a slow changing and dull industry when you factor out the fashionable aesthetic designs that change from year to year. But to my knowledge cars still don't come with USB ports. How can we get such a slow moving industry to get on board with some seriously disruptive technology, such as autonomous operation?

All the more reason to plant and keep more trees, especially oaks and similar trees that will continue to grow for one to several hundred years. The more carbon they store long-term in the wood, the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, as long as we continue to grow more wood than we burn or allow to decompose. Decomposing wood should be buried a few feet beneath the soil to trap most of the CO2. The slower release of carbon into the soil also makes the soil richer for living plants (see also biochar).

Regardless of whether or not CO2 is really a problem, there are known hazards with extracting fossil fuels, such as the risk for oil spills, natural gas fires and explosions, cancer and poisoning from contact with petroleum, lung disease from inhaling coal dust, and questionable practices such as fracking that may pose risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and contaminated ground water.

The "experts" assure us that these practices are safe and reliable. But we also had "experts" telling us that smoking was healthy for our lungs, x-rays were safe for checking the fit of our feet in our shoes, asbestos was a safe fire suppressant, sun bathing was healthy for our skin, etc.

Or we could base policy on evidence rather than opinion polls. If this satellite proves that CO2 from industry really isn't a problem, then we can fire up the coal plants and carry on as normal.

If you want a "like" button, stop posting as anonymous coward, set up an account, and earn the right to handout moderator scores.

It's not that they don't want the science to be better understood, it's that they are convinced that government funding of scientific research is one of the factors contributing to their tax liability. For these folks we should leave scientific research to private industry, such as Koch Industries.

The underlying problem leading so many to commit suicide is the public health issue. But if I lived in a country where things are allowed to get so bad that I would want to off myself, I would prefer to have an effective tool like a firearm to do the job quickly. Forcing suicidal folks to leap off tall structures is terrifying, inhumane, and puts people below those structures at risk. It is the suicide equivalent of a back-alley coat hanger abortion.

If we had legal and affordable suicide clinics that could do the job cleanly and properly, then we could dispense with the whole gun-suicide debate altogether. And in the clinical setting someone who is really just crying for help (most "attempted" suicides) could possibly receive help they need, such as counseling resources, help with finances, etc.

Replace "real community group" with "US Congress" and you have our present system of government.

From your Wikipedia link: "The human body can briefly survive exposure to the hard vacuum of space unprotected,[2] despite contrary depictions in some popular science fiction. Human skin does not need to be protected from vacuum and is gas-tight by itself. Human flesh expands to about twice its size in such conditions, giving the visual effect of a body builder rather than an overfilled balloon."

Next thing you know the FDA is going to be pulling vacuum chambers after fattys have used them to take selfie's to "prove" they are or used to be body builders.

I wish the EU would stop infringing on America's status as leader of the Free World. USA is land of the free, home of the brave, dammit!

I imagine the following stream of un-consciousness:

  "Crap! That's not what I signed up for! But if it stops terrorists then I guess it's OK. Times aren't what they used to be. Things change. Somebody smarter than me probably has this all figured out to make sure we don't fall into tyranny. Oh, it's time for my 'No Hesitation' target practice. Last week was armed pregnant women. I hope we get armed children this time. Those are my favorite - probably because they are so disturbing. Good times."

Makes no difference to me. I prefer all-natural, organic stem cells, the way God intended, not some Franken-stemer cells cooked up in a lab.

As an R&D manager, I can assure you they just weren't trying hard enough. Maybe they just need the right incentive. Higher pay for those who achieve and those who don't get fired.

Either way, as an underpaid mayor of a small Texas town, this has given me a great idea to improve the flow of revenue. Thanks Ben.