(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."

I guess that a proof-of-concept boat might seem - at some levels - as though it was about as silly looking, in comparison to conventional boats, as silly looking as most concept cars, in comparison to the common consumer models.

I think I understand, just from the summary, that it demonstrates the viability of solar power, in ocean vessels. Were I a boat designer aware of the matter, I might endeavor to give it some thought.

It's hard to overturn the massive bulk of legal precedents supporting the recording industry's claims to intellectual property - and not much easier, out here, to gain popular attention about anything not accompanied by a sensational presentation - regardless of the actual content of an argument, quite frankly.

To respond to the second matter: Myself, I don't suppose we'll see any coups at any time soon. Plenty of gun sales, I know, but no coups I think - quite.

Though I don't feel any particular warm fuzzies about it, I understand that the recording industry is simply endeavoring to protect its collective assets, in so far as legal precedent may define its collective assets to be.

I'm sure that there may also be a certain side to it, in which they're simply endeavoring to impress shareholders. The main issue seems to be the matter of legal precedent, however.

...the main basis of my argument, which I did not fully present in that one comment, I notice. My apologies.

I think we should be careful to keep the matter in proportion.

My statement that it's innovative was presented, I should say, with a lot of tongue in cheek.

Though I understand there is the typical argument of "car becomes a weapon", but I notice that cars are not assault rifles. The matter of the driver's sense of personal responsibility remains the main basis of my argument.

Sounds like a fair argument for the appeal. In appealing any verdicts to the contrary, hopefully they'll think of that ... hopefully.

In discussing governmental regulations in regards to such matters, I'm afraid that we overlook the angle on which the matter boils down to a concern of personal responsibility. Not to suggest that we should give up the ghost, but government truly cannot enforce such a thing. Community leaders may themselves be able to inspire sense of personal responsibility in a community - but only if the community leaders, themselves, represent personal responsibility themselves, and then only if it's understood as such.

Granted, there is the concern in regards to public safety, I understand, in the motivation of laws regulating such things as cel phone use on the roads. I can understand that, I simply wish to note that no regulation is a suitable substitute for plain sense of reason.