I can give you two simple indicators right now.

First, every adult knows there is more than just academic careers in life but the life of "little girls" does not simply progress from an early interest towards a PhD. People go through many different phases in their life and "the road" we take is full of choices. To think it would be this simple and to make a straight connection from childhood to adulthood is quite naive. It is the same as to believe one only needs to teach a child to play the violin and it will automatically become a musician later in life.

Second, there are "little boys", too. In fact, one speaks of "little children" and does not to distinguish between the genders unless it is necessary. And for someone who wants to get children closer to science should their gender certainly not matter.

Being an adult and seeing how someone goes in a single sentence from "little girls" to "sexual advances [on women]" is certainly alarming. This is an entirely imaginary connection created by Mr. Johnson and for who knows what purpose. It comes across like he is driving with his "science van" to schools, to lure little girls into it with promises of academic careers, but sees his efforts threatened by male colleges who make advances on women.

I would like to know from Dr. Chun in which areas of life can AIs be used right now (are most beneficial), which areas are too difficult (for now) and in which areas should AIs never be used.

It looks pretty much like a tank on flip-flops.

While I can certainly recognize the seriousness of the topic can I only gasp at a statement such as the following:

“How can we encourage little girls to study science if their future academic careers will be marked by not only the normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe, but also fending off professors who make unwelcome sexual advances?” (John Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts)

It might be a good idea for some scientists to learn about life and nature before anything else. Men, or rather the male gender in general, have made sexual advances onto the female gender throughout the entire history of evolution. One cannot go through life being a woman, and only dream of science and have all men arrested, because they made an advance. Maybe the man was not the right one, or maybe the woman send out the wrong signals, but there are plenty of women who do like it when men make an advance. And do not get me wrong. I am not trying to defend stalkers, perverts and rapists here. Only the struggle between men and women is a completely normal struggle, always has been a part of life, and came long before the "normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe". Mr. Johnson even manages to talk of "little girls" and "sexual advances" in a single sentence. Why does he bring little girls into the discussion? Does this not seem wrong on its own? ...

Whatever Mr. Johnson really was trying to say in his statement does it come across like the plot of a mad scientist, who in his ivory tower dreams of being a white knight and basically wants to live out his sociopathic tendencies by avoiding all human contact.

Just saying... One needs to be careful here and not generalize everything as sexual harassment.

Hey, yo, why do two experiments? We all know dark matter. I thought we left that racism shit behind.

No, you are not depressed any more, but why suddenly so jealous? Building carrier rockets is no cutting-edge science any more. Quantum physics is the new rocket science.

Why so depressed? Every pioneer who has every lived took on risks others were not willing to take. Not every pioneer succeeded, some failed, but it never meant that those who succeeded were wrong or that their efforts were of no value. Instead, we are grateful for what pioneers did. And you should be, too. Only because of pioneers who are pushing the limits further and who are giving us new knowledge do we also know what we are truly capable of.

You now make it sound like there is still a need for a debate, but where is your explanation for it? Where is the debate? I do not see you coming up with an explanation as to why there is still a need for a debate. All you really seem to be doing is to express your fear over being called an idiot, but I am fairly certain you will be clever enough to know that insults can never replace a good explanation. The only explanation you are giving is in fact that you are not a scientist.

And yes, it does not only "sound like" as if this is the answer, but it is given as the answer. Quite purposely, consciously, deliberately and intentionally so. It is the f-ing point of a scientist's efforts.

Did you at least read the scientists' explanation of it?

I believe you are wrong. The mass of objects will certainly play a role in both effects. The Brazil Nut Effect will likely have something to do with the inertia of objects.

The difference when compared to buoyancy will be that with buoyancy you have a calm system, without any energy coming in from the outside, where objects come to a rest. Here the objects will order themselves merely based on their density - their size-to-mass ratio.

While in the Brazil Nuts Effect its the opposite and objects will find themselves exposed to vibrations and shocks. Here the objects with a higher mass also have a higher inertia. The smaller objects will bounce between the more inert objects on fast-changing trajectories, while the more inert and massive objects will have more stable trajectories, because these will only change their trajectory when they hit other massive objects. As a result will the larger, more massive objects travel further than the smaller objects and so end up further out. Therefore will mass and density play a role in the Brazil Nut Effect, too.

The difference will be that one system (buoyancy) is calm without external energy coming in and allowing objects to come together, while the other system (Brazil Nut Effect) sees energy coming in, which shakes up the order of objects and drives objects apart.

So basically what researchers are saying is that the trail a person leaves on the Internet, and the phone networks, is not much different from our body odour, which also stems more or less from bacteria. This is a rather fascinating if not a bizarre analogy. If so then we can only hope our trails drive of competitors and attracts the opposite sex. Somebody please pass me the soap.

I do wonder what Napoleon would have made of it. Would he have told his women before returning from battles not only not to wash, but also not to clear their browsing history?!? ...

Wow, the World Cup of Brazil really left a mark all the way into space! Now all I need for today is a scientific article, which explain complex physics by using the Mexican Wave!!

Well, Socrates put it nicely, "I know that I know nothing." However, the article is there and it is about valid warrants. If the warrant turns out to be invalid then this changes it of course, but I am going to assume for now the discussion is about valid warrants. If they believe it is invalid then I will just stand by what I have already said above and that the defendant should go for an appeal...

"Well they were doing that when I was a kid in the UK 40 years ago."

Sure, but this is hardly the point. There is always someone somewhere brewing, distilling or fermenting something into a drink. It is however becoming a growing industry and people are getting excited about it.

Fact is people in the South of England have already started growing grapes in order to produce wine. Global warming could turn England into a wine producing country such as France currently is. Researchers predict the British Isles will turn from a cold and rainy island into a tropic zone and become a holiday paradise. With such an outlook on global warming who in their right mind wants to do something against global warming?! I do not believe too many Brits still care about global warming.

No. You are arguing a lost case. Again, the problem is not that the data is outside the country. The problem is that the judge has ordered them to produce the information. This is not some silly request by the judge asking them with a "pretty please". They are to present the information to the court (aka judge and jury) as a result of a ruling by the judge. This is what is meant by "obligated by law".

Now you can tell the court No, but it will be held against you. Yet, this is what they are trying to do. They had their chance to deny the information before the judge order them to provide it. They did not successfully fight it and lost at this particular stage. Now they are trying to twist it and to throw the court off, or, perhaps these e-mails contain information that is going to put them into much deeper trouble than they are already in. There is certainly a reason why they are not following the law here.

Think of it as a murder suspect who is being charged with murder and who claims to have an alibi, perhaps a witness who is now living outside the US... The court now orders the suspect to bring the witness into the trail or else will the alleged alibi be of no use.
Another example is a missing murder weapon... The attorney may have the dead body and they have witnesses, but they are missing the murder weapon and are now demanding of the suspect to provide information about the weapon's location. Could be the suspect is innocent, knows about the location of the weapon, but does not want people to know where to find it. Maybe the weapon is a 25kg gold bar, or the weapon was used in another murder case, etc..
To give a third example, think of a criminal who committed a crime in the US and now flees the country. It may save the criminal from being sentenced to prison by a US court, but it is not going to prove the criminal's innocence and make the charges go away.

In this case, with the e-mails, does it very much depend on what these are needed for. Their content, if provided, may or may not change the course of the trial. It all depends. Not following a judge's ruling is however always a bad idea. Maybe they have something to hide, maybe they do not and the companies' lawyers only want to stretch the trial to make more money, etc.. For the judge and jury will it make no difference if these e-mails are within the US or outside the US. Only their content will be of importance, not their location.

Whatever, when you are obligated by law to produce the information then it means you have to, or a refusal to do so will be used against you. For all it matters could the missing information have been lost. It will not make the judge or the jury happy, and you do want them to vote and rule in your favour, right?