Your fears are not rational. Self driving cars and robotic surgeons are tested for thousands of hours, under live conditions. SDCs are not perfect, but they already have a far better safety record than the average human driver. I had LASIK eye surgery done by a robot. I trusted it far more than I would a human surgeon. Getting rocket software right is difficult precisely because there is no way to do a live test. It has to work perfectly on the very first attempt. Very few other applications have such a severe constraint.

A lot fewer than would have died without it.

I don't think this poll was really measuring anything. Asking people if they believe in the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith" is not measuring their knowledge of science at all. Someone that has no scientific education could disagree, while a PhD in astrophysics may think otherwise. It is also implying a conflict between faith and knowledge. Through history, most scientists have also held religious beliefs. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Does that mean he was "scientifically illiterate"?

How deep did you have to drill for the holes in the control group?

The low areas of Ireland get more than 40 inches of rain a year, and the mountains get as much as 80 inches. I would be much more surprised if he found an area without ground water.

I agree completely. If this is an academic debate about legality, you win. But there are satellite photos of columns of Russian tanks crossing the border, along with batteries of self propelled artillery. So the real debate is: What are we going to do about it? A copy of the Ukrainian Constitution is not going to stop the depleted uranium penetrator of a Russian 120mm FSAPDS. So far the West hasn't even had the stomach for meaningful sanctions, much less military action, and that is unlikely to change. Military confrontation is not a viable option. So we have a choice of negotiating a compromise, or just letting the Russians take what they want. A compromise would be better for everyone, even for the Russians if sanctions are on the table.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

Right. Which was about a third of the country, and precisely the people that would have voted the other way.

So America should get involved in a war over the principle that the sanctity of borders is more important than the self-determination of people? Plenty of arguments can be made about which side is right or wrong. But the bottom line is that there is a huge gray area. Even if the Ukrainian government prevails militarily, the eastern regions will be nearly ungovernable, and the situation will fester for years if not decades. A negotiated end to the war would be in everyone's best interest, and that will required concessions by both sides. The people in the west shouting "no appeasement" should keep in mind that many people in Russia are shouting the same thing about "appeasement" of the West. If we really insist on taking a hard no-compromise stance, we will probably lose. The Russians have both the troops on the ground and the support of their people. We have neither.

There are also plenty of historical examples in history where appeasement (also known as "compromise") did work. If fact, it has probably worked better than taking a hard line more often than not. Just because it didn't work with Hitler, doesn't mean it never works.

The Ukrainian situation is not black and white. The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language. They intentionally alienated and provoked the eastern regions. Eastern Ukraine speaks Russian, and their economy is more closely integrated with Russia than it is with Western Ukraine. It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong. Why should we get more involved in a war to deny people self-determination?

Those things are what taught me to buy drives in pairs.

A lightning strike taught me not to have both drives connected at the same time :)

Crashplan and friends are God's gift to the lazy backup plan.

Even easier, just break open a stem. If the sap is milky, it is likely to be poisonous, and even more likely to taste very bitter. If the sap is clear, it may not be digestible, but it is not likely to be poisonous.

I disagree, but then neither of us are climate scientists so our opinions are pretty worthless.

... and one of those politicians is Harry Reid, the most powerful man in the Senate. But after the election on November 4th, he likely won't be the majority leader anymore.

The compromise is the bargain, and it isn't stupid or shortsighted. A central repository would be extremely expensive. Billions were spent on Yucca Mountain, just on analysis and legal fees. On-site storage is "good enough" for now, and nukes will require security guards regardless. We can build the centralized storage facility in a few decades when our understanding of geology, robotics, engineering, etc. will have progressed. Or even more likely, by then we will have figured out economic uses for many of the waste components, and the "waste" will no longer need to be disposed of.

That is one solution. But there are others:
1. Charge an "access fee" (really a tax) on all internet connections, and use that money to subsidize service to rural and/or low income people. We already do this with phone service, and the universal access mandate is basically a backhand way to do the same thing.
2. Get rid of the notion that some people should have their internet service subsidized by others. Instead, everyone can pay the real cost, and we can alleviate poverty in other ways, such as higher income tax credits, rather than with a large number of market distorting subsidies for specific goods and services.

There were lots of peaceful protesters and far fewer rioters. The police were distracted, and rioters used the protests as cover. If there had been no protests, there would have been no riot. If there was a clear record of what happened, there would have been no protest. For instance, this shooting looks unjustified to me, and the police lied about what happened, saying the perp came toward them with a raised knife, and they only fired when he was 2-3 feet away. None of that was true. But there was no protest or riot.