He got "punished" by not achieving more success.

He's a whiney baby that can't accept that he did something wrong.

If a civil engineer said that marshmallows were what we should build bridges out of, he would get similarly "punished." And unless he retracted it, that civil engineer would probably never get hired again and would lose any significant academic positions he held.

Try it yourself. If you hold any position of responsibility, say something stupid that proves you're incapable of performing your job and see how long you hold on to your job while insisting you're right.

Pfft. People going on about PC bullying and censoring have little concept of how serious censoring actually gets, and how common it is even in current times.

People coming out in outrage at a popular guy saying something blatently offensive and ignorant is not censorship.

The government making it illegal to say certain things is censorship.

The fact that it's not illegal to say things is why everyone is free to criticize Watson.

And before you call that de facto bullying or some other nonsense that demonstrates how little you know about bullying, consider that Watson saying something so unpopular might be an indication that he's wrong! How else do you think we are supposed to respond to people who are wrong? And especially to someone disguising his personal bigotry as science.

No one is getting offended by his use of "science", and this is severely tangential to his more important point.

And regardless, his point that more current studies that demonstrate differences between races are largely biased, untrustworthy studies is true.

IQ is not intelligence, nor capacity for intelligence. There are plenty of studies that show that you can increase IQ with training and preparation, which goes against what people are using IQ to measure in the first place: genetically "gifted" intelligence.

In your example, the IQ to economics correlation (1) has far too small a sample size, and (2) is the result, not the cause. Poor areas tend to have lower IQs because when you don't have enough money to live, much less to get schooling, you have a lower IQ.

Also, North America is incredibly rich in natural resources, something which much of Africa is not.

My neighbor's dog will eat plastic if you don't stop her. Dogs aren't as picky as you are.

Hm... So I take it you're a coder as well?

The article gives a rate of 1 drop per minute when it "starts to work". This means a standard 1/2 liter bottle would take over 2.5 hours to fill in 68 degree weather at 50% humidity, which doesn't seem that practical.

In idea conditions, it still take an hour to fill that bottle. 0.5 L is not a lot in 100% humidity, and whatever hot temperature the maker considers ideal.

I don't doubt there are somewhat self-cleaning windows, but I am criticizing GP's sentiment of "why don't we just invent something to clean itself?" as the equivalent of "why don't we use magic?" or "why don't we use cyborgs?"

You're vastly underestimating the difficulties of material science.

"Why don't we just create a material that does the work itself" is the perfect idea of theorycrafting without any idea of what you're talking about.

If you designed that sort of building (and went through that cost), I'd imagine you could do something cool like flip the windows 180 degrees so someone inside could wash them.

Or you'd do just windows with no seam or edges for robots to miss.

The roots of Linux really don't matter to the discussion. Linux is much more widely distributed than it has ever been in the past, and while it's important to respect and understand how it got where it is, there is no particular reason one needs to "stay true to its roots" when Linux is now on phones, tablets, desktops, servers, embedded systems, and more. You want to fight that "derailment", but that train left a long time ago. Using that as a reason to fight systemd is the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la. I'm not listening."

And anyway, this is FOSS we're talking about. You can't stop people from forking and shaping things to suit their purposes, so what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

No. Stop spreading FUD.

Nobody in the legal system things that copying an image is "creating." People in the system may be misinformed or overly zealous, but what you're suggesting would be deliberate misinterpretation.

Not really. Emails are as private as postcards, and have been since the beginning. Nobody is allowed to spy on your mailbox, but don't put "Hey Jim, how did that bank robbery go?" on a postcard and expect that nobody read it on the way to you.

Also known as "Images with a single pixel changed." That's how hashes work. And, no, it won't create a new market. Anyone tech saavy enough to understand image recognition hashes would not store their stuff in email.

Yes, it does.

The act of viewing child pornography is illegal because it creates a market for producing it. It has nothing to do with sexuality being treated differently from murder and everything to do with discouraging people from doing the act in the first place.

Restricting viewing of killing children (or anyone for that matter) will do didly squat for preventing killings.