We have the technology to adjust clocks by seconds every day, automatically. Why not have our clocks adjust a fraction of a minute every night at midnight, so that we get optimal sunlight exposure (according to the sleep docs).

You're right. It's not abuse unless it's real photos. I think of those YouTube videos where these amazing artists draw photorealistic images by hand. If this horny kid had such a talent would they arrest him and ruin his life for putting to paper what was in his mind?

Funny how they did an old Romeo and Juliet movie which had underage nudity in it and at the time everyone thought it was tasteful, but now the actors are suing and people are calling it child porn.

Same here with the now mandatory disclaimer. Also, not pro-child porn or pedo, but people defending free speech are going to get grouped in with them, just like those defending LGBTQ library books being called groomers.

I’m in academia and I can attest to the corporate take-over. Much like how the NFL has compelled high schools and colleges to propagate a brain damaging sport as part of education, it is the case that research is mostly geared to producing the low hanging fruit that big-tech feeds upon. The solution is to mandate some federal standards that are tied to accreditation whereby donors have to support the principles of higher education through some slice of their “largess” going to furthering things like humanities and empowering the academics to decide what is worthy. The alternate ideology is Randian bullshit.

This! I’m still amazed that democratic socialists haven’t clearly detailed a plan to handle all the endless bailouts with government stock buy ins. Don’t other countries recognize that when companies reach a certain size they become systemic risks and automatically require some worker shares be distributed at a certain point. This is Merica so we would have to wait for things to break first, but when they do the first response should be, “Ok, you weren’t responsible enough to steer this big ship anymore, so if you want help you have to give up some power.”

So if he has all these British supporters why didn't they do a Thomas Crown Affair flash mob outside the embassy with a bunch of white-haired, suited guys?

He coulda just walked out and disappeared into the crowd.

But seriously, I instructed physics in a public school setting for a couple years and I agree that lectures are almost useless, but that is just one small part of what is wrong with our education system. If you have cultivated genuine interest in a student, either by media or hands on exercises, they will listen to a lecture (but most likely turn it into a discussion, which is better).

Two situations to track in use of smart guns:

A. Someone dies because a cop's gun doesn't work when used by cop.
B. Someone (not cop) dies when cop's gun is wrestled away from him.

If A is less than B then it is a good idea.

Also, curious as to whether there might be situations where smart guns might be more effective because you don't have to shut off a safety. Don't know if cop's guns have safeties or if there is any data on how many times someone has been hurt when they were trying to defend themselves and forgot to switch off a safety.

Isn't this the same process developed a while ago by academic material scientists who, most likely, were funded by government grants? Not exactly the Randian ideal.

It could also mean that someone could propose something that everyone should be against (a gun that can only kills kids) and expect people to use rhetorical devices (attacking the motivation of the person proposing the extreme example) instead of conceding that maybe someone could rightfully oppose the legality of such a weapon. But thanks for proving my point.

Just use some facial recognition algorithm that recognizes juvenile features. Then sell the hacked version as the "Kinder Killer" and wait for the NRA to come to your defense as various evil, gun hating liberals try to have it banned. Enjoy the political spectacle that inevitably ensues because in Murica we are incapable of having reasonable discussion regarding guns.

Carl Sagan once commented (can't recall where) on the general aversion people hold toward the government conducting experiments in public policy. He then detailed how every change of law was an experiment of sorts, although often without proper controls.

If Facebook should be required to inform consumers of how they experimentally manipulate them then should Kellogg's reveal the details of how they use marketing to manipulate kids into buying Fruit Loops?

I think there was a Big Bang Theory ep where Sheldon tried to solve the "Isreal Problem" or however it is put. Since this is slashdot I wish someone would really explore some possible tech solutions being proposed. I've always wanted someone to put the problem in monetary terms. If it were possible to give every resident of gaza a million dollars to move to another country you could just buy them out. Obviously that is not possible, but there might be a number below that which would buy out enough of the population to be effective.

Not saying money is all that is at play here, but it certainly seems like something a bit more objective than all these fuzzy arguments about human rights or religious mandate.

IANAL, but I believe the FBI (and law enforcement in general) is free to try and crack encrypted hard drives obtained with warrant, they just can't make you give up a password (until now).

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is an entire different topic of discussion, that I do not want to get dragged into, but I think an honest person will admit that it is not entirely clear how to interpret it whether you come from the pro-gun or anti-gun side. On the anti-gun side someone could highlight the issue of what it means to be a "well regulated militia" and also that a strict reading of firearm means whatever a firearm was at the time. On the pro-gun side someone could argue that surface to air missiles should be legal. I don't mean to argue either of these points, just that enough ambiguity exists that there is an incentive for those who profit from guns to spend capital on keeping their product legal. I seem to remember the tobacco industry making constitutional arguments for use of their product as well and I've met more than one smoker that asserts that their right to make others suck down their carcinogens is part of living in a free country. And I generally agree with them that if you were to present the issue to someone living in 1791 they would laugh at the idea of banning smoking in any context.

Ok, so you do believe that the gun industry is the one exception among all other businesses in that they are not making explicit efforts for people to buy their product. I don't know how to respond to that, so we will have to disagree. Regarding the origins of gun lust/interest/fascination I don't dismiss the possibility that guns are intrinsically interesting devices. I play FPS games and I think everyone likes the basic idea of projecting force. But just like when I find the remote out of reach and I momentarily try to use the force to summon it to my hand Skywalker style, I suspect that media might have something to do with my son running around making shooting sounds as he points at things. Now, do I think the gun industry pays everyone who promotes guns, no, not anymore than I think the tobacco industry pays everyone to smoke a cigarette in a film. But where we disagree, apparently, is that I believe that the gun industry, like the tobacco industry, works to influence the culture so that their product is still desired even though, statistically, it's not good for you.

You mentioned advertising for cigarettes. When I suspect marketing is at work in promoting the gun culture in our country I would cite the efforts of big tobacco as an analogous example. Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom. Making sure use of their product is featured in movies. And generally putting money in the right places to maintain a culture that is friendly to a product that is statistically harmful for most people to purchase and use.

Do I believe that big tobacco ever once placed an add telling kids that smoking is cool? No, nothing so blatant. But there is abundant evidence that they worked to promote that message in the culture using far more crafty marketing tactics. Do I think the gun industry is above doing the same? Do you? Does anyone?

Not sure what your point is about owning old guns. I don't see much argument about old guns coming from either camp in the gun debate. The gun industry has little concern if you have old guns as long as you feel compelled to buy those new ones which still represent (in your case at least) 20% of thousands of dollars of potential sales. Promoting a collecting mentality among consumers seems like a smart marketing model for gun manufacturers, baseball card manufacturers, comic book publishers, etc...