Value and cost simply won't equate in a hybrid-capitalist economy like the US. This is why my electric bill is a fraction of my cable bill each month. Electricity is far more valuable but it isn't allowed to be priced as such because of reasons I can't still quite comprehend. If the market was able to set trust costs electricity would cost much more but silly entertainment choices would be the fractional cost.

Government intervention requires pursuing hackers as if they physically broke into a location. That requires international treaties and a strong leader that won't let foreign States sponsor such nonsense without punishment. Our government is decades behind on this. The reason we don't have to build our houses like vaults is we have local authorities that will seek and prosecute those that invade our private property.

Your house is protecting YOU first and foremost. Personal security is a great comparison with corporate security. We all do reasonable measures to protect ourselves but are hardly spending a large portion of our income to do so. We all know anyone that violates our property will be dealt with by authorities. We can only ask for reasonable security and a justice system that punishes those that go beyond that. Our justice system is AWOL on hacking.

Accurate information would be of value to a marketplace. It's effectively a trust issue and trust is at the center of trade. Those who are untrustworthy will fail in a free market. Security is a non-issue if you believe failing at it can be so easily manipulated away. The argument defeats itself.

That's like saying humans wouldn't be interested in an insect. Science and curiosity would certainly be traits of a civilization that existed long enough to travel among the stars. As production grows exponential, the arts and entertainment seem to grow with it. Studying the basic philosophy of existence could also become the primary reason for exploration for powerful beings that have mastered the physical sciences. In other words, there would be a lot to be gained in communicating with other intelligent beings for art and perspective, if not far more than that. Your viewpoint is heavily influenced by the pop culture view of what alien life would/could be. I do believe Hawking is a bit crazy on this subject though. I don't think we have anything to fear from intelligent beings because as intelligence and rationality grow, war and violence decrease. A violent culture would likely destroy itself before becoming advanced enough to travel anywhere distant.

Yes but this is because those things aren't being regulated and controlled by the government. They are cheap and accessible because Capitalism works. That which they really need such as health care and employment, are regulated by those that are more interested in their vote than welfare. No system of wealth distribution will make irrational economics work.

Why do we have to have price control? That is one of the biggest economic flubs we have today. People are lemmings on this way too often. Why is it everything that isn't deemed a public need gets cheaper and better, think TVs, DVD players, computers, phones, etc. While things that "have" to be controlled for the public good, energy, telecom, health care, etc. get more expensive? Stop and think about that and really ask yourself why the LAWS of economic work fine for most things but suddenly break for others? It's hard to get millions of political contributions from an industry if you aren't controlling it.

You will never be able to argue with someone that believes money is a cause of wealth rather than the result of work. Simply give up. There are a lot of people out there that believe taking your rewards from hard work and giving it to someone else will magically make them work hard.

One could argue we had tax cuts but that hasn't translated to spending cuts. There is more money being paid in social welfare programs today than there was in 2000. If you subsidize something you are doing so to help prop it up. Subsidizing being poor simply keeps poor people poor. I'm all for a simplified social welfare system like this because it puts the responsibility on those getting the aid, but I want to see it include the middle class. If climbing the ladder into the middle class didn't cause you to "lose" a benefit, it would be more worthwhile to climb the ladder. (i.e. Why work for $300/week when you get unemployment of $400/week?) Most social welfare programs have simply made the ladder steps further apart. This economic conservative is willing to humor basic income if it includes most people. If it only props up the poor it will fail.

Simply brilliant. The other angle I see is: why on Earth would you want your party controlling the White House the next four years? A recession is coming, health care cost is a debacle, terrorism is actually creeping back up, and either major candidate will take office with a record setting disapproval rating. The next President sits for one term and their party will take a beating over that term.

I hate the term "laws of physics" because it is terribly misleading. What we understand is a mathematical model in specific frames of reference. The laws of math do not change, but our understanding of the why/what of our Universe is probably minuscule and is likely to radically change over time.

It will be impossible to statistically link weather events to climate for centuries. Even that assumes massive advances in simulating climate. It's complete scientific nonsense to try to link the two right now. Nye should have known better than to even talk about this.

It is a bit of a Catch-22 for sure, but it would help greatly if the political spinning was removed from the discourse. Climate Change is real but it has both positive and negative side effects for various peoples. It also doesn't necessitate a reversal since adaptation could be more practical and moral. I find people are far more receptive to the science if you frame it as a purely scientific observation and then discuss what options we have before us as a consequence of it rather than simply demand we try to reverse it. (Which is a purely political stance since there is no "right" climate.)

Why? Russia would want the world to know that nobody's information is safe from them. Even if they weren't involved in this attack at all, there is utility in the rest of the world believing they were. There is a lot of power in having your adversaries think you are capable of something even if you really aren't.

If Putin was somehow pulling for Trump to win, he's not doing much to do that. If anything is alarming about this is how much "information" is being released on a possible hostile act by another major nation without the major players involved squashing rumors or speculation. It's not exactly a prime example of secret keeping nor investigative professionalism.