This is a video of a person driving into some other people. The car was not "trying to park itself" nor under any other sort of autonomous control. It is speculated in TFA that the driver mistakenly thought the car would automatically stop him from ramming the people he was intentionally accelerating towards. There is further speculation about why it didn't work, including that the car may not have had that functionality installed, and that maybe it did, but even if so the way he was driving (i.e. significant acceleration) would override the pedestrian-avoidance function. Sometimes it seems like there is a faction with an agenda against self-driving cars spreading as much misinformation as possible.

2 out of 48 were under computer control when the accident occurred. That does not mean the computer systems were at fault. That just means the other two cases shouldn't even be included in the tally. It's not a self-driving car accident if a human is driving.

Right. And while I'm sure that depends in part on the operational definitions being used for "rampant," "disrespect," and "cheating," I find it plausible that the professor was the main problem. Maybe the only problem.

No, the 350m mentioned in TFA is the depth limit of the detection system they were using, not the depth of the briny aquifer. For the depth of the brine, they say it's deeper than 100 meters: "Deep (>100m) low-resistivity zones that we interpret to represent brine-bearing materials were detected throughout the lower Taylor Valley subsurface."

The "coming entitlement generation" has been on its way since at least the late 1980s when it was supposedly my cohort...and probably much, much longer. Although you can always find a few examples of entitled brats--and that's nothing new, of course--the whole "kids these days" thing appears to me to still be as much of a myth as it always has been. From https://www.insidehighered.com... : "Asked if the decision to fail every one of the 30-plus enrollees was fair to every student, Horwitz said that "a few" students had not engaged in misbehavior, and he said that those students were also the best academic performers. Horwitz said he offered to the university that he would continue to teach just those students, but was told that wasn't possible, so he felt he had no choice but to fail everyone and leave the course." "A spokesman for the university said via email that 'all accusations made by the professor about the students' behavior in class are also being investigated and disciplinary action will be taken' against students found to have behaved inappropriately. The spokesman said that one cheating allegation referenced by Horwitz has already been investigated and that a student committee cleared the student of cheating." It looks to me like the instructor had a melt-down and attempted to combine rage quitting and collective punishment. I'm sure some of the kids were a-holes, but not all of them were, by the instructor's own admission.

citation?

What constitutes an image of Muhammad? I mean, no one really knows what he looked like, right? And even if they did know, people have look-alikes...so it seems for something to be an "image of the Prophet" requires it to be labeled as such. But how far does that go? If I drew a stick figure, and wrote "Muhammad" under it, would that count? What if I drew a very detailed and accurate sketch of someone presently alive, let's say my friend Bill, but labelled it "the Prophet Muhammad," would that count? How are these things decided?

Find me one of these activists for cold, dark homes and hyper-expensive energy. One that's not made out of straw.

As mentioned in the article and elsewhere, in climate science like any other science, genuine skepticism is *welcome*! Strongly encouraged, even! There is no parallel here to calling someone who does not share your beliefs a "heretic." This is more a case of looking at someone who *claims* to share your beliefs (skepticism, evidence-based decision making, etc.), noticing that they're behaving in the opposite way (repeating information that has been demonstrated to be wrong, ignoring evidence, and showing extreme credulity towards ideas consistent with their preconceived notions), and suggesting that we stop calling them "one of us" (i.e., someone acting in good faith to follow the evidence wherever it leads).

Oh I see, when person A observes that person B is not making evidence-based arguments, and suggests that they not be labelled with a term that implies they are making evidence-based arguments, that's similar to person A suggesting that person B be murdered with fire, is it?

Climate models (i.e., formal models used by climate scientists) have done pretty well, actually. Better than any other means of predicting how the climate will evolve. OTOH, I've heard about how "Global Warming is BS" and that we're entering a cooling phase that's going to prove it for about a decade now; a decade that has seen the record for hottest year broken at least twice, and it looks like 2014 is going to be number three. So yeah, the models continue to need improvement, but they are the best game in town. I challenge you to find a better way to anticipate the changes in the climate over time.

Yes! FFS! Yes, we have excluded those possibilities, or at least found the boundaries of the plausible effect sizes, and determined that they are not where the action is! Stop assuming that climate scientists haven't been thinking about the forces that might plausibly affect climate! That is what climate scientists do!

Which of course it does. Google "temperature CO2 graph." It's glaringly obvious, if you don't truncate the graphs to only show a few years. Or does the AC believe that if the CO2 in the atmosphere disappeared, there would be no impact? (without the greenhouse effect of CO2, the current surface temperature would be about 30C lower)

"Trend for more than a decade" = statistical and signal detection illiteracy, or attempted deception. At all time scales at which a *statistically significant trend is detectable*, the trend is exactly as would be expected given the scientific consensus as expressed by, for example, the IPCC. Which means warming at the surface, warming in the upper and middle layers of the oceans, warming in the lower atmosphere, and cooling in the stratosphere. On shorter time scales, the signal is too noisy to say anything meaningful. Also, as you either don't know or don't want others to know, there are lags of differing intervals in the temperature response to CO2, determined by the efficiency of various climate components (like the oceans) as heat-sinks. Your suggestion that you should be able to see an instantaneous and simple effect, obvious to your naked eye in the 3 charts you generated at wood for trees would suggest that you are deeply ignorant of how climate works and what climate scientists are saying is happening. However, I don't think that's the whole story. The fact that you chose the specific start dates that you did..2001 for hadcrut, 2002 for UAH, 1998 (!) for RSS...suggests that you are deliberately cherry-picking start dates to give a visual impression that your (statistically meaningless) statements are accurate. Make the plots again with the whole available data sets, and it becomes obvious that we are looking at a noisy system trending upward on a multi-decadal scale.

Hear, hear. This is exciting stuff in my book. I'm very happy Kepler is gathering data again, though still slightly frustrated that it didn't last longer with its full capabilities.