I hope that someone will be able to frame that theory in a more rational light, perhaps not directly associating it with any grisly details of such a tragedy. I think that the theory is so possibly dangerous, on any angle, the discussion of it should brook no sensationalism.

I think it just makes for a nice conversation piece - intriguing news, at that, honestly. Certainly, an economic change in any area may serve to create some related cultural shifts, in that area and surrounding areas. Whether in the abstract, or in any more pragmatic details, why should we be so concerned about it, at that?

Do we want the city to stop developing a stronger technological entrepreneurship base? Probably not the best of goals.

Do we want real estate agents to stop increasing prices, if that trend continues? "Good luck with that."

Or do we simply not want to replace all the struggling artists with entrepreneurs? Is that the expected outcome? Maybe some of those new businesses will support the local arts communities - "problem solved," lol.

I'm certain that the city of San Francisco, and of her neighboring metropolitan areas, can constructively adapt to such change, in however it goes.

I understand that the matter of students' performance on standardized tests could serve to produce some statistical basis for discussion. It's my impression that for some points of view in which it would be held that national science education is lacking, those points of view may not be based so much on results of standardized tests, however, as much as on opinion and, perhaps, also experience - namely experience outside of the context of any predictable, standardized test.

Then again, I'm also no fan of the idea, "We're doing good enough.* Let's do even worse, 'cos we can relax now, after all."

* or well enough either.

Google is the infamous search giant:
1) to which Microsoft now presents some competition, in the search engine industry, with Bing
2) already competing with Microsoft, in mobile operating systems industry
3) rumored to have lots of user data, as in some relation to Google AdSense(tm) technology.
4) which allows users to voluntarily opt in to browser history tracking, with such as Google Web History and the Google toolbar - and to my understanding, that feature is not enabled by default, the user actually has to opt into it, just as I've had to, for so much as search history tracking.
5) all of the above

It sounds to me like Microsoft may be suggesting some doubt towards companies collecting data about user browsing habits. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, then, if Google may be the main FUD target they could have in mind, at that. Fortunately, though, no one company owns the discussion.

n/t

...but not suggest that a troll comment should launch a thread. It's all the same political FUD, to me.

Lol omniprsident. Omnipresident is on the ___ watching ___ ___ ;)

I'd meant that in reply to this other article, but it seems I had clicked the wrong link for that. My mistake.

(FTFY)

I like the humanist side of the argument, but I find that I'm compelled to ask: Who thought Tesla was a "god-hero" or Edison "the devil," to begin with?

"The mathematics of obesity" doesn't parse, unless we're talking about statistical analysis.

Mathematics is a matter of number systems and mathematical operations. Obeisity is a matter of anatomy - and I doubt there's any one special cause to it. If we would be concerned, rather, about how to address it as individual persons responsible for our own health - it being rather a personal matter - then I doubt that the discussion would continue to be relevant in the technical Slashdot forum. Dr. Phil is there for baggage, health scientists for dietary concerns, fitness instructors for recreational exercise, and one's own coworkers, family, and community are there for ... whatever they're there for, maybe for community.

Me, I'm not one to try to judge my family, friends, and neighbors in terms of statistics. DNRTA.

I'm still confused by the phrase, "Skunkworks," in that context. Clearly, it's not about aerospace engineering. I think that the term has been better applied, elsewhere.

One presumes that it would naturally come *up* in consideration of the prospect of long-term habitation - up, like the stock the prices of successful NewSpace firms, for instance.

in astrogeology: Understanding the processes of erosion on the surface of a foreign planet. One presumes that it would naturally come if in consideration of the prospect of long-term habitation. Well, there is more to it than robots and photos after all, huh?

There's a commentary on the Constitutional support of right to privacy at U Missouri KC (and that, I had not expected, but hey, score one for democratic discourse)

There is a huge difference between scientific truth and, alternately, popular perception. I don't even want to try to explain that, it's so obvious - and there may some be more pertinent matters to address, in this.

I think we can accept that comments sections do not make much of a forum for development of scientific anything. Comments are comments. Comments are not journal articles. Comments can be said to be peer reviewed, to some extent, but then again, comments are not journal articles, comments need not follow any specific format for reporting of questions and results, comments are just comments.

I'm afraid that that all may be beside any points raised in the linked article, however. What the article looks like to me, in all my sense of bias: It looks like a way of trying to excuse a lack of significant content in articles, in lieu of some kind of perceptual bias about comments. It think it's just as well for the birds, though I know it's been said, "It's the thought that counts."