"Robotics' professionals are understandably skeptical" They forgot to ask professional chefs? They are probably even more skeptical.

If they openly collected telephone data they would not be called the SECRET service.

Huh? My point is exactly the opposite. I don't care about the clock at all, so it makes sense to synchronise the clock (and thus the time when I am expected to be at work) more closely to the sun.

It is not "Energy saving time", it is "Daylight saving time". To save daylight. The most natural way would be to get up at dawn and go to sleep at sunset (or when you feel tired). Daylight saving time gets us a little bit closer to that, which is good.

Except for London, everywhere in Europe I have been:
1. Taxi drivers are incompetent and rude.
2. Taxi's are way to expensive.

In London however:
1. Black cab drivers can find the quickest way to the smallest street in a complex city.
2. Taxi's are very reasonably priced.
3. Private car hire is allowed, for those long trips where taxi's would be too expensive.

London does not need Uber. But mainland Europe needs it. Badly!

If they ever bother me about this when I just go there to relax and watch a movie I will immediately demand my money back and never visit that movie theatre again.

I work in academia. Half of the things we use are old, and it all works great! Old network analysers, old oscilloscopes, coaxial cables, computers running MS-DOS (not sure what version, but older than 6.2), expansion cards in ISA slots to control said equipment, dot matrix printers, FORTRAN programs, computers with 3.5" floppy disks as their only way to get to data, ...

Agreed. But maybe they should have changed the law before that happened. There is absolutely no reason why I (or Uber) would need a license to transport people in my car.

My point is that it would be better the other way round: If the courts would wait for the lawmakers to update the laws.

What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.

So if I understand correctly they are going to sell "medicine" that: 1. does not work 2. is not what it says on the bottle 3. is claimed to come from endangered animals So cheating is allowed now? I understand their good intentions, but everything about this is wrong. There are so many problems with this. Oh but wait, this is slashdot and it has "3D printing" in the title.

The government (regardless of which one) never misses a good opportunity to waste money. This needs to be investigated in-depth by a large committee of overpaid political and legislative experts who know nothing about robots.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with gene testing. And it is not "gene testing" who gets it wrong. The second part of the sentence explains it all: "... with different labs giving different interpretations." It is some of the interpretations that are wrong or in other words: bad science by incompetent "researchers".

Indeed if you take my reaction and that sentence out of its context it sounds stupid. But you can also try to understand the point I am making here. The first post talks about this being an "irresponsible" push of software, and an interesting reply follows about *who* is responsible, and *criminal* liability. So my (logical, I think) reaction is simply to say "who even cares about criminal liability at this stage, let's find the problem and solve it". It is also very well possible that nobody made mistakes or can be held responsible.