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.

Yes. Next question.

The Tesla S is a luxury car and a very unique one at that. It's not remotely certain that Tesla will succeed and what sort of sales to expect. Outselling some very nice vehicles from MUCH better funded and established companies is very much a positive for Tesla.

Let me know when Lincoln manages to do that. When Ford can't do it, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect Tesla to do it as well.

I have family in the Research Triangle area. Believe me when I say that the presence of some smart people and high tech companies hasn't reduced the dumb redneck population in the area very much. As my uncle puts it "there is a high Bubba factor around here".

For the same reason your money shouldn't go (solely) to a candidate *I* agree with. Because the debate should be about ideas and leadership, not who has the biggest bankroll. It is well established that special interest funding causes politicians to listen disproportionately to certain parties. If you fund a specific candidate then he is (potentially) obligated to you but he has to govern everyone. Why should he listen to your needs more than any other constituent just because you happened to fund the winning candidate?

Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.

I've always been mildly surprised that no one has argued that channel bundling violates Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. Basically the networks and cable companies are engaged in tying which can in some circumstances be illegal. While it may be legal in this case it seems to exist right on the edge of legality. I've never been convinced of the argument that channel bundling is in the best interest of the consumers and it certainly is only possible due to the market power of the companies involved.

Pretty much. They're pretty much getting their asses handed to them by Amazon, Apple and Google. I'm not sure I know anyone who actually owns a Nook though obviously they have been selling a fair number. When people think technology, Barnes & Noble isn't exactly the first name that springs to mind. Though the Nook seems to be a decent product it has the vague scent of desperation about it. Given what happened with Borders one has to wonder if they are buying a product that is going to be abandoned by B&N down the road.

Let's say we have a cruise missile traveling at roughly mach 1 or about 1,150 kph - actually pretty slow compared to many missiles. That means that the missile would cover the 2 kilometers in about 6.25 seconds. Better have a hell of a good target tracking system...