What a myopic view. You have a lot to learn about evolution, and even more so about dogma and religion. "Science" an esteemed science journal would unlikely stoop to sensationalize. Where do you get your bias -- FOX?

I think al0ha's point is that people are responsible for the behavior of corporations. The buck doesn't stop with corporations. In this case it seems senior execs at google (maybe not the founders themselves) have a very conservative bias. Similarly, if we elect George Bush, or for that matter Obama, then WE have to take some ownership of that person's decisions.

Let's live in ignorance. Why don't we, it's such bliss. Point out constructive suggestions, try to be proactive, try to go through the right channels -- only to get shot down. "Shut up", "You're disrupting", "You are a nuisance", "Go away", they say... Go the only way you know how to get recognized (sadly, a last recourse), and get incarcerated. Justice in a dogmatic world.

The problem with genetic engineering crop is no different than the problem of the cheetah. You take away from a species it ability to environmentally adjust (minimize its genetic diversity) to climate change, disease and pathogens, and other forces of nature, you potentially destroy the species. Fundamentally we are playing at a level we don't understand. Whether we are endangering our health or our planets, it is just too early to tell, and as a result we need to be wary and cautious.

His argument reeks nostalgic, i.e. a return to the Greek philosophical ways. And I would guess he started off with a vague hypothesis and found facts to support his claim. Some arguments say agriculture and plentiful food allowed brains to get larger... go figure. Whatever the conclusion, I do think that mutations have allowed for a greater genetic diversity of brain types, and that is a good thing.

Some Comcast Xfinity routers have WiFi SSID and WPA encryption key hardcoded. It can be changed via software interface only to be reset when Comcast sends a firmware upgrade.

And guess what, no VC is going to give you money. They are more eager in fly-by-night operations that can sell hype over product -- I mean which is easier and less risky? I feel your pain, as I'm also a startup with large capital costs. Your best strategy is to find someone higher up on the vertical chain that is your customer investor.

The only thing you have wrong is the definition of success. We as a society (or I should say those of good humanitarian nature) value things that deliver overall wealth to a populous. VC's value a 10X ROI in 2 years. It's important to keep that distinction clear.

Exactly. And when you are driven to a 2 year exit, volatility (up or down) can be your friend. Heck, find investment strategies that short the economy in 2 year stretches, and you are back in the game.

AC has more wisdom in his tiny little pinky fingernail than you BS have gained in your meager lifetime of experience. If we limit to just VC's, remarkably VC's have done no better than the stock market since they proliferated and mushroomed in the early '90s. VC's feed the hopes of the greedy few investors, for hope and greed spring eternal and have nothing to do with providing value to society. And to think they want exit in 2 years after seeding a company after taking over more than 75% of its equity. What worthwhile venture in real-world do you think provides value in that manner?

In a society with safety nets, both the poor and rich get something for free, handouts and bailouts. The middle class pays and suffers. Too bad that middle class is eroding.