More simple explanation: Life is out there, it's just too far away to detect, or to visit us--and will ALWAYS be so, because you can't cheat Newton and Einstein. An alternate "simplest" explanation (though less likely) is that we are first.
To suggest that ET hasn't come to visit us because we are "too violent" or whatever, and that they are masking their presence is definitely NOT the simplest explanation--it suggests that every nearby alien species has agreed to isolate us, and every member of those civilizations is on board with the idea. No one is out there playing with an RF emitter in the VHF band, Harry Mudd hasn't stopped by and spilled the beans, no one's even accidentally done anything to give the game away.
Sorry, I'm just not buying that.
In central mass north of Worcester I have gotten 3 feet and it is continuing to fall.
There is so much snow I have no where to put it.
The storm is highly variable too. 15 miles due north of me they have gotten 6 ".
I'm going to take all those data points as evidence of climate change.
Local Motors is an investment of Bre Petis, of Makerbot fame, as noted on his web page.
I don't know if it is deliberate viral marketing strategy of his or just good investment instinct, but I have noticed that products which make headlines on tech sites trace back to his investments. Another example is the new LIDAR offered at SparkFun from PulsedLight, which, according to this YouTube video, is linked to DragonInnovation.com, another Petis investment.
Or, without your permission, they are interacting with you.
And not only in Soviet Russia!
The hardest problem I've seen people have with Google Glass is how obvious it is you are wearing the glasses. People in public assume you are recording them and it bothers them.
Actually, I don't think that's the hardest problem. Our innovation team at work brought in a pair of Google glasses and let us try them out. Frankly, they are exceedingly underwhelming. The screen is really small, but worse, the resolution seems low and the colors aren't very great, so it's actually really hard to read. And it's not really like a HUD or anything like that. You have to really take your attention away from everything else to read the screen, so in that respect it's not very immersive and it feels like you are doing two things at once: interacting with the real world or interacting with glass (just like how you can either look at the world or look at your smartphone). The real potential would be if you could walk around and have immersive information show up around products, etc, without you having to take your eyes completely off them.
And another design problem with them is that they get really hot. Like uncomfortably hot when you touch them, like those old laptops always were when you set them on your lap.
So to me, privacy concerns matter, but I don't think the average citizen thinks about privacy all that much. I think to them, as well as myself, the big issue is an underwhelming design, combined with an exorbitant price ($1500) and really no practical application for it yet. It doesn't mean it won't ever succeed, of course. I just read an article reminding people that cars were around about 40 years before they became actually decent, and PDAs have been around since the 80s but only really took off when the smartphone craze kicked off. Someday, we may look back on this as the first step towards a technology that everyone has, but for now, they really aren't that great and there are many reasons they failed.
The term for this is soft despotism.
It was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville and first described by him in the second volume of De la démocratie en Amérique, first published in 1840.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
This is anti-First Amendment, is it not? Free Speech *requires* the ability to 'slander' the superstitions of any group - Mohammed being no exception. The Supreme Court has ruled on this again and again and again. Obama is not only wrong, he is a danger to Free Speech (which is probably why he let Hillary Clinton push the disgustingly pro-Sharia UN HRC 16/18 criminalizing criticism of Islam for the citizens of all UN signatory states - unbelievable that a sitting US Secretary of State would do this - but hey, she is a disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky so not unexpected).
Are you one of those who believe Charlie Hebdo "deserved what they got" because they "had it coming" ? this is Obama's position in the speech you give. Do you think that is moral? or serves the causes of Free Speech and Liberty?
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” -- George Orwell
Which side do you think President Obama and his administration are on? which side are you on?