I won't react.

Do we work for the same company?

From TFA: "In early 2010, more than 20 mobile apps popped up for college basketball's March Madness tournament, 'so why not have similar apps to track campaigns?' asked Bill Dudley, group director of product management at Sybase365" The reason is that more people actually care about March Madness than care about the presidential election. I bet you can prove it too by viewership and attendance of games vs debates/rallies. Does this nugget of insight make me an analyst?

Punch 'em in the troat.

It's not as explicit in the Constitution, but if you read the Declaration of Independence, you will notice that the states are free and independent states.

I can still innovate all I want. The US's obsession with IP shows me that the US doesn't want new products to be manufactured or sold here. There are plenty of people that aren't Americans, and they like jobs and products just as much as we do.

We are already all criminals anyway in one way or another. Why not just ignore these patents and keep living life? We're the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Perhaps, but it is politicians and a misinformed public that believe that we should get rid of nuclear power altogether because of a couple of fuckups. A more scientific way to react would be to figure out what went wrong and institute steps to prevent the same failures. Science is not a religion, because there is actually proof in science as opposed to faith.

Yes, that part contains an error, the second scientific in that quote should be "democratic". One part of peer review should be and usually is answering the question of whether your methods are explained such that your experiment can be reproduced.

Thank you US Federal Government, for this awesome economic boost! Just a few more of these and we'll be in the black in no time.

The main point of my previous comment was that our current mode of government is not ideal for teaching or understanding science. Perhaps having more experts in charge would help, but I think that maybe government isn't the answer for every problem. In the case of having more scientifically literate representation, I see the major downside of that being that the majority of the electorate are not scientifically literate themselves and would not appreciate a stance on issues that is actually based on facts. Government is emotional territory. As a scientist, I believe that I should do what I can to help future generations of scientists---not necessarily my own children either. Science works and has given us some amazing insight into our world. Even if the jobs we do in the future are not the ones we do now, I'd be willing to bet that science will play a big part in the majority of industry. I'd also be willing to bet that it won't be government that determines what jobs are taken over by "robots"( or maybe more realistically called automation.)

I would agree with you, but American government probably wouldn't want chemistry sets to wind up into more people's hands. Think of how many potential terrorists we would have! Joking aside, I am an industrial chemist and I truly support more science education. But as we have all seen in the aftermath of Fukushima, politicos do not understand science. They think it is something that is democratically worked on, but science isn't democratic...nature is nature. Now vetting of scientific theories is somewhat scientific in terms of peer review and replication, but understanding that would require actual work and research on the part of our representatives. I wouldn't count on public school teachers to understand science enough to be able to teach it well to future generations. I think we, as nerds/scientists, should do more to educate young'uns to become our replacements.

If it was really autonomous, wouldn't it unveil itself?

better than Zappa Plays Zappa. Seriously, I'm surprised Gail Zappa hasn't tried to sue anybody who's trying to call their applesauce product "Zapplesauce".

"It's also been found that most people have more mercury in their blood than is normal". Normal? Do you mean average? If you do, I would say that it's a pretty safe bet that of a random group of people tested for mercury in their blood, about 50% would have above average levels and about 50% would have lower than average levels. Am I missing something here?