Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common haplorhini ancestor which was neither monkey nor human, around 40 million years ago. Your typical random monkey has undergone as much evolution since then as the typical human has.

Journeys to other solar system would take an enormous amount of years. So much so that it probably won't happen with live crews. Sending DNA records and reconstructing life at the destination might be the best bet. But even if we used the same blueprint for seeding millions of stars, evolution would occur on all of them, and by the time any of the descendants could meet (but why would they?), they would have evolved so much in different directions that meeting a cousin from the stars might be like meeting a trout.

But what's the short term reward that would prevent the migration-friendly to be selected against, as they undoubtedly will have to sink resources into their long term goals before even leaving? What makes us think they'd be favoured enough to be allowed to leave before going extinct?

Not to the point of being factually incorrect, especially in a context where the difference between understanding it correctly or not is statistically significant.
The "since there are two rockets, this must be doubled" text implies that adding is the correct approach. That would mean that if launching shuttles 25 times with an 1:50 risk, there's a cumulative 100% risk of failure. That's obviously not the case, and the error is significant (the risk of failure would be around 63.6%, not 100%)

I find it much more likely that a proofreading well-meaning middle management guy struck out a word like "approximately".

VxWorks is hardly "modern".

One thing is certain - by that time, it would not be mankind, any more than what we are today can be called fishkind.

But I highly doubt that we'll get there. Evolution does not favour long term strategies unless those picking short term strategies die off.

I have a hard time believing that Feynman wrote it, or that it wasn't re-written by someone else before it was published. Read this (emphasis mine):

"A more reasonable figure for the mature rockets might be 1 in 50. With special care in the selection of parts and in inspection, a figure of below 1 in 100 might be achieved but 1 in 1,000 is probably not attainable with today's technology. (Since there are two rockets on the Shuttle, these rocket failure rates must be doubled to get Shuttle failure rates from Solid Rocket Booster failure.)"

I just can't believe that Feynman of all people would make an elementary mistake like this. You don't get the risk of failure with two risks by doubling. You multiply the inverses. For the reasonable figure of 2% failure rate, the risk with two engines would be 3.96%, not 4%.

Feynman of all people would know this, and if simplifying it for the unwashed masses, I have a hard time believing he would claim that you get the result by doubling, but more likely use words like "in this case, approximately double".

It shouldn't be that hard. One e-mail program could start by sending e-mail with a couple of X-headers that shows what methods of encryption the sender accepts and a public key, and if receiving said header from anyone, defaulting to replying with encryption.

The down side is for people who use multiple e-mail programs, or read their e-mail on multiple machines. They might get e-mail they can't read until they're on the same account and e-mail program that they sent their previous e-mail from.
Even if the e-mail stated "this e-mail is encrypted - if you cannot read this, please try opening the e-mail in the same program you used for earlier correspondence", it might alienate some users, like the majority who prefer convenience over security.
If they can't be arsed to trim off megabytes of quoted text or think before hitting "reply all", they won't copy their private key to another machine either.
So, even if the solution is simple, it won't happen.

The use of Chomolungma as the name is increasing in popularity, and the days of Mt Everest are probably numbered. Just like most people don't say Ayer's Rock any more, but call it Uluru.

You can trust them as much as you can trust CEOs and board members. I.e. not a lot.
The main difference is that while a politician may not have your best interest in mind, you know that the corporatist only cares about the welfare of his stocks and bonuses.

So the game is whether you support the guy who may stab you in the back, or the guy who will stab you and then charge you for it.

Or they did not agree that the ends justifies the means, and abhorred the murder whether they thought Mr. Lincoln was a bad apple or not.

This government, which started in 2001, seems to hold the belief that the end justifies the means. Not just the end, but the journey, it appears. That's what scares me.

... unless thy start selling data to advertisers.

And that's the problem - common sense goes out the window when faced with a opportunity to use the law against others. Pilots are told to report laser light even when it's nowhere near their planes. The hobby astronomer who points out stars with his laser pointer becomes the target, not the plane. Valid uses suffer because of potentially invalid uses.
My telescope can be used to start a fire too - why not arrest me as an arsonist in potentia while at it?
Not to mention how it could be used to look at children!

In my opinion, the laws are created the wrong way around. Instead of targeting laser pointers, make willful interference with operations of vessels a crime, with the punishment varying based on the interference and possible effect of it. I.e. a civil law approach, where the law can be interpreted based on the actual circumstances and common sense, not applying one situation to other unrelated situations because of ill fitting precedents and language having no leeway.