How likely is it that the NSA or whoever already uses this? It seems to me that with many science fields, the agencies are more than happy to sit back and let someone else spend time and money to develop the tech, then they steal it, copy it, or as a last resort, buy it with taxpayer money. But then obviously, we wouldn't know if they ARE actually coming up with innovation, since they'd obviously keep it secret.

In general though, it seems like the best and brightest scientists have strong disincentives to work in secret government labs. Working and publishing your results openly gets you known for your accomplishments and helps advance technology, and the private sector pays more if that doesn't interest you. What can the NSA or CIA offer you besides uncertainty about whether they're going to kill you and make it look like a suicide after they're done with you?

You say these are scare tactics to push regulation one direction, but I think this is at worst scare tactics to prevent it being pushed in the OPPOSITE direction. It seems to me that we're at a happy balance between ISPs and google, in other words, regulations seem good balancing us between one group of greedy corporations and another group of greedy corporations. I see your point that some net neutrality proposals could push it toward google, but the current court case appears to still be pushing it off balance, just in the other direction.

If you're a decent ISP operator, good for you, but you're not MY ISP provider, and you're not my mobile provider. You're arguing on the side of AT&T and Verizon, whom I have constant problems with. You're arguing specifically against google. From my perspective, they give me free e-mail that works better than anything else, a free search engine that works better than anything else, and a free mobile phone operating system that works better than anything else. YOUR SIDE has done nothing but take my money and give me nothing. Google's side has done nothing but give me stuff for free (aside from my privacy, which the NSA stole anyway.)

You mentioned fearmongering? And the government is already doing both of those things a lot already.

If Verizon allows this to happen, people might actually start voting on it. Like, for REALS voting. They'll avoid that possibility at all costs. Even dictators do need to make their citizens like them somewhat: if enough people dislike you, they'll make other options happen, no matter what.

One wonders how they can get away, in any forum, by claiming "We invested in this, we need to make a profit" without literally being punched in the face.

... There's probably a reason I don't work in government.

This would be funny if weren't so likely to be taken seriously by the regulatory agencies which SHOULD currently be waterboarding Verizon's CEO for even suggesting this. With boiling hot oil.

I wish we'd go back to medical names that are whimsical and memorable like that rather than boring and forgettable. H1N1, for example, we could have done better. We could have called it "Tiger Woods Flu" or something.

Gene names, they're working on replacing the ones with memorable names as well. Catch22 and sonic hedgehog, for example.

Good parody up until the last line. I don't think anyone who actually uses "Scientists are always changing their minds" are confused about anything ever. It takes like a microsecond for cognitive dissonance to kick in. Have you ever confronted someone with data that runs contrary to their established worldview? Usually not even a flicker of doubt crosses their face. Any "deep in thought" processes that go on are searching for a reason to throw out the new, unwelcome bit of data rather than considering it.

It's not specific to climate change deniers or conservatives obviously. I had a similar reaction last night to a deeply catholic friend's saying that natural family planning was the most effective form of birth control. I caught myself immediately going to wiki, which backed up his statement, and then I immediately decided no, they were both definitely wrong, I just needed to dig deeper to establish the truth, that NPF was a catholic conspiracy to make more catholic babies. So, we all suffer from it, or at least I do and so do other closed minded idiots. Don't try to prove me wrong on this point!

I'd be fine with free market economics if they showed any sign of solving such a huge externalized cost or self-regulating, but they never have and never will.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying Russia's motivations for keeping the UN from intervening or getting rid of Assad had to do with their natural gas monopoly. The civil war itself, you're right, not fossil fuel related.

The UN would have become involved once Assad started killing civilians. So I wouldn't want the UN to replace Obama, unless he started ordering the army to start bombing us, in which case yes, I definitely would want the UN to replace the government.

Oh, darn, I accidentally revealed that it's a massive economic conspiracy rather than real science. Shoot. Well, the shadowy board of nefarious figures I work for isn't going to be happy about this...

While I'm concerned about privacy, there are tradeoffs as with any technology. Facebook, obviously, the transaction of your data for social networking is worth it to many people.

The fingerprinting thing too, may be worth it. Muggers target apple device users. Making sure they can't sell stolen phones isn't without benefit to the user. I think it's a lot more likely that some meth head would stab me for my phone than the government trying to do something similar. Fingerprinting could make the first less likely, and that might make it worth it even if it makes the second slightly more likely. At the very least, I'd like the meth head to not get anything, while the government likely already has my fingerprints, and doesn't really need them anyway to ruin my life.

Not that I'm going to get an iPhone ever again. I'd almost rather be stabbed by a meth head than have to use itunes again.

You assume my source was making an appeal to authority, and that it was on TV. Neither one of those things are true. I know I was convinced at one point, and admitted I could be wrong.

If you think admitting you don't know everything is a weakness then please, don't vote in any elections ever.

Compared to how much CO2 we're adding? Citation needed.

Show me evidence that CO2 levels changed as rapidly as we are changing them and I'll conclude we have nothing to worry about. Evolution takes time, longer than we're giving it. Even punctuated equilibrium models, the rate of change is still measured in centuries, not years.

The reaction of carbon dioxide plus H2O is reversible. When you ship them back to the lab, the pH would change.

You might want real-time monitoring of large areas to see how or if currents and tides are changing to fit into the model, they're unlikely to be linear changes in most areas. Plus, you compare changes in pH to observations of organisms and you can have better graphs to show to politicians who are just going to fucking ignore it anyway and leave future generations without seafood if it means a thousand dollars in their pockets now.