I know you are joking but yes it really is such a bad thing. The problem is that some people cannot get vaccinated due to things like allergies to vaccine components, a weakened immune system or other health issues. The more people that get vaccinated the stronger the herd immunity and the less chance an unvaccinated person has of exposure. These idiots who don't get vaccinated increase the risk to both themselves and the people who through no fault of their own cannot have the vaccine administered. If I may be so crude, they are basically peeing in the gene pool and endangering others in the process.

Plus you have to consider that most vaccines are administered to minor children who legally cannot decide for themselves whether to get the vaccine or not. So basically a scientifically illiterate adult is preventing them from receiving standard medical care. Personally I think that amounts to reckless endangerment of a child and in some cases where the child gets ill and dies I think it is basically manslaughter.

Maybe the proof is on an island you can only find if you already know where it is. [/piratesofthecarribean]

Remind me why we care about this guy? Just because his name is on some software that he is no longer involved with doesn't make it relevant. Every story I've had the misfortune of coming across regarding this guy leads me to believe he is a (possibly paranoid) publicity seeker who is telling a bunch of tall tales in order to get attention. Enough already.

Not that I'm in favor of fahrenheit (I'm not) but water freezing at 32F isn't any more difficult to deal with than 0C. Both are arbitrarily chosen chosen scales. Celsius has the nice round numbers but from a practical day to day usage standpoint that matters not at all. I know that water freezes below 32F and that doesn't take up any more room in my brain than 0C. The only real problem is that I have to remember two scales instead of one. Since Celsius is the more widely used scale, I wish we would switch to that one.

That sounds like a design flaw with the interface rather than an indication of the need for a stylus to do basic navigation. Frankly if you need a stylus for navigation, something is broken in the design. I have an iPhone and I can reliably push very small buttons with my fingers with good accuracy. (Not recommending it just observing that it is possible to have precise finger input)

I think the reason finger interfaces have worked well so far is that Apple and Google have made it intentionally difficult to use stylus and keyboards and mice which has forced the OS and application designers to spend some actual effort thinking about how best to design the application for finger input. Sometimes limiting options actually makes for a better product. The same thing need to happen with a stylus. If the OS limits it to drawing only (at least for a while) then it might start to be used for what it is actually good for software engineers will have to actually think about the interface instead of just treating it like a funny shaped mouse.

No, it means they need to fork over the $ for a new battery which is normal for a laptop. Rechargable batteries only have a finite number of cycles in them and the ones in laptops typically show signs of wearing out after 2-3 years, less if the battery is used heavily. I've never seen one older than 3 years that held anywhere near the charge it did when new. Presuming the battery will last the lifetime of the computer is incorrect.

This is why batteries need to be serviceable. They do not need to be hot swappable or even modular for most people but if you plan to keep the computer for more than 2-3 years there is a high probability you should plan on a battery swap at some point. It's typically not hard to find a replacement, especially if the battery pack is modular. Sometimes you need to get out ye-olde-screwdriver (and occasionally a soldering iron) and crack the case open.

Nonsense. Pursuit of profit *can* lead to unethical behavior but it does not follow that pursuit of profit *must* lead to unethical behavior. Buying something and then selling it to someone else for a higher price has no component that is fundamentally unethical. If you have a good I need and I'm willing to pay a price for it (a price that is low enough that it does not cause me injury) then we both get something we want/need and both are better off. There is nothing unethical about that exchange.

I won't even get in to the question of what you consider unethical behavior or why. Ethics are societal conventions and standards which differ between people and groups, not immutable laws of the universe. Perhaps you do consider pursuit of profit to be unethical. That does not mean that the rest of society must consider it so.

Species exist on a spectrum between complete selfishness (everything for me) and complete altruism (everything for the group). Some species tend more towards one end or the other of the spectrum. However the success of a species typically depends on the circumstances and the balance between the two. Our success depends on the tension between the two. Sometimes a little selfishness is good for the species as well as the individual. It's actually beneficial to society that I earn a good living instead of immediately donating every penny to charity. However never donating a dime isn't ideal either. The balance is somewhere in between.

E.O. Wilson wrote about this dynamic recently. Interesting read if that sort of thing tickles your fancy.

They didn't laugh at the concept, they laughed at the (pathetic) implementation. Microsoft tried to overlay using a stylus on windows as a sort of keyboard/mouse hybrid which is NOT what a stylus is good for. A stylus is good for *drawing* and nothing else. We take notes with a pen and what we are doing is drawing. The fact that we can draw characters is just a bonus side effect. Microsoft fundamentally misunderstood how a pen/stylus works and what it is good for.

I would actually love a tablet with a stylus option with the condition that the stylus be used for drawing ONLY. Not navigation (like a mouse) or as mass text input device (like a keyboard) but as a drawing tool in the same way we use it with a pen and notebook. That would be terrifically useful. But so far every developer gets all excited about character recognition or mistakes it for a mouse and screws up the interface in the process. The reason tablets are working well today is because they finally designed systems adjusted the operating system interface to be designed for finger input from the ground up.

This always troubles me. Science doesn't actually work on consensus. A consensus will tend to be formed when data consistently supports a particular model but the mere fact that a majority of papers supports a particular theory is utterly meaningless by itself. The data either proves a model right or wrong, not whether most people agree with the model. While the consensus argument is easy to make and can be useful for political ends, it ultimately weakens the credibility of those making the consensus argument because it implies that science is something where we can vote our opinions regarding validity of a theory.

The much more interesting question is whether any of the remaining 2.9% of the papers disproves some aspect of climate change. It reminds me of the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein) which was a compilation of criticisms of the theory of relativity. Einstein replied "If I were wrong, one would have been enough".

I'm not. The primary application for any targeting system is military. The fact that it can be used for game or target practice is secondary.

Apparently it wasn't sufficiently obvious that I was talking about military applications. When you are trying to kill something dangerous it doesn't really matter if you or a computer does the actual aiming. However even if we are talking about hunting, the important decision was to pull the trigger. That is when the person controlling the weapon decided to kill something. Focusing on how the aiming is being done kind of misses the most important thing.

I don't really understand the point of "demonstrating your skills" by killing some harmless creature. That is just killing for fun which is frankly rather barbaric and certainly not very respectful of the life that was just ended. I don't object to hunting if you really need the food (not applicable for most of us) or if there are humane environmental considerations. But most hunters I know do it because they find it to be fun. They enjoy the act of killing something and sometimes they also enjoy the challenge of accomplishing that feat. But if they really wanted a challenge, why not do it with a knife or at worst a bow, up close and personal. Using a rifle that can kill at several hundred yards to hunt a woodland creature is not exactly a huge challenge. If you want to test your sharpshooting abilities, you don't need to kill something to do that. Hunting isn't evil but it frequently is pointless and cruel.

You cannot possibly be that naive. That specific weapon may not be used in combat but the basic technology will without a doubt make its way to people who will use it to kill living beings, either human or animal. I'm not even making a moral judgement about that, it's just a clearly obvious fact.

They might not use that particular system but I promise you snipers can and will use a targeting/tracking system should one be available that fits their mission parameters. I would be deeply shocked if such technology was not being very actively worked on by the military.

Technology can be miniaturized and will be. Furthermore if the technology is large and needs support, it isn't exactly hard to attach it to a vehicle. The military does it all the time.

The technology is designed to cause a bullet to hit a target more reliably. The nature of the target is irrelevant. Plus you are contradicting yourself. If it can be used for hunting then it is portable. It if is designed for hunting there is little difference between hunting animals and hunting humans beyond the fact that humans can (and will) shoot back.

The point is to actually hit what you are shooting at. While I enjoy the challenge of target shooting as well, the actual primary purpose of a firearm is to kill/injure. There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger. Perhaps you have forgotten that a gun is a weapon?

Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.

Money enables publishing. It is not speech. Restricting spending for political ends to be the same for everyone does not restrict anyone's speech. They can still say whatever they have to say. They just can't say it say it (excessively) more than anyone else.

I pay for things all the time that I disagree with. I'm sure you do as well. I very much would prefer my tax dollars not go to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Limiting political advertising to equal (and hopefully sane) levels is no different. Furthermore just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said. I fund the salaries of Congress, many of whom I greatly disagree with but I'm ok with that.

There ALREADY is a strong bias toward incumbents. Re-election rates pretty much never drop below 90% for House seats and rarely below 75% for Senate seats. Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.

The data I linked to above does not agree with your assertion. Re-election rates haven't changed appreciably since 1980 and there ALWAYS have been a large number of wealthy candidates. George Washington was among the richest Americans of his day and adjusted for inflation was the wealthiest president ever with an inflation adjusted net worth of over $500 million. Jefferson, Jackson and Madison were in the top 5. Mitt Romney by way of comparison would have been the 2nd or 3rd richest ever had be been elected.