Granted, you can build a tablet to do specific tasks (like decoding video codecs) around a really slow processor and some special-purpose DSPs. But perhaps the companies in that business aren't making enough profit to interest Intel.
the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach
"Supposed" by whom? Some long-dead people?
I do think there is some misalignment between laws as written vs. current practice. But you should realize that bringing them together would most certainly result in more changes to the law, than to how they are practiced. For example, Social Security may or may not be particularly Constitutional, but it will get written into the Constitution long before it will be repealed. Most people want it.
That said I also think that access to "Cop-Cams" should be by court-order only. I don't think the police should be able to selectively choose whatever video supports their case, nor feel that they are being needless monitored constantly.
On a theoretical level, you're correct. On a personal level, the nose thing is pretty convincing. Give it a go, you'll see what I mean.
At some instant you are reeling from a punch to the face, and you have an awareness (a memory) of having asked for it 5 seconds previously in a heated philosophical argument. The problem is you have no way of directly experiencing those previous events from 5 seconds ago. It could be that the universe is just a snapshot of this precise moment, which includes sensations of memory, the appearance of slashdot, and the fear of being punched in the face.
There is no disproving this. But it also doesn't matter, since if nothing else the present does contain the perception of continuity, which is all that drives our choices even if continuity does exist. If we somehow discovered that we're just a dream or computer simulation, what does that actually change? What previous theory of existence does it displace?
This is wide open to interpretation. Obviously it would be insane not to teach the scientific process. I think there are some who feel education has strayed too far from mastering basic facts into abstraction, such as "new math" instead of mastering times tables.
Anyway this is just one guy's brain fart and not a law. I am kind of curious what he meant by it though.
Butting into somebody else's conversation just to blurt out that you don't understand it is silly.
But like you said that is totally dwarfed by SSD.
the effects on the environment are a side-effect, and comparatively small. If we decide to intentionally target the global environment, the effects could be much bigger.
We can only hope, but I find that extremely unlikely. How many dollars have been spent on dredging up carbon and dispersing it into the atmosphere in the last 200 years? The US spends a trillion dollars per year on gasoline alone, and the US is about 1/4 of world oil consumption (less by now). Global coal consumption is over 7 billion tons per year. That is a ton of coal for every man, woman, and child on earth, per year, every year, for decades on end.
What this means is even if we find some means of restoration that is 100 times as potent at cooling the planet as CO2 is in warming it, the task is incomprehensibly huge.