Sadly we struggle a lot as a society when it comes to being careful with things that hold a chance of destroying us all. Disease research, bacteria research, anti-biotic misuse, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, climate change, genetic manipulation, religion, cults, conspiracy theories, EMP, overconsumption, crop manipulation, pesticides, and more! The number of things that hold any, even small, potential to wipe us out as a species is staggering. Especially when you consider the combinations and interactions across them and the potential for even greater destruction.

... He wasn't charged with hacking for changing a desktop background. He was charged with hacking for discovering and then using the teacher's password to log into the computer and THEN change the background. He's being charged for a crime for doing what he did prior to changing the background.

If I break into someone's home and then proceed to just move their stuff around, I'm not charged with Breaking and Entering for moving their stuff around. I'm charged with breaking and entering for BREAKING AND ENTERING.

"why negotiating even exists at all"

In part it's also because most companies keep the salary they intend to pay for the position hidden until the last minute. Having sought out a job in the last few years and watched my wife do so, the experience has been that companies don't seem open to being honest about what they intend to pay until after you've devoted your time and energy to interviews. Therefore, since I am shown the real "intended" pay at the end of the process, why the hell shouldn't I be able to negotiate? I know what I want to be paid ... I'm just giving you the option to meet it.

What this is saying is that as a prospective employee, I get to have zero input into what I feel I should be paid. Most jobs you apply for, you're not even provided with a pay estimate by the employer until you get the offer, apart from either a very wide range or a guesstimate from a salary website.

Maybe if the practice is to say "if we make you an offer it will be between these two numbers" PRIOR TO calling me in for an interview, that is one thing. Otherwise these reeks of a veiled way to keep salaries down. Which I guess, in essence, this is what they are saying anyway.

And I certainly have to wonder if this will be their policy with ALL employees, or whether it will still not apply to the upper echelon staff. Not to mention vendors, since allowing "negotiations" would also discriminate for the same reasons against women owned vendors versus male owned vendors.

No one in their right mind near the top of the hierarchy is going to limit their future by exposing and/or going up against a political family like the Clintons in this situation. Protections or not, you stand a good chance to relegating yourself to lower level jobs for the foreseeable future.

Same no doubt would go for Republican dynasties.

I think the implication is that much like CO2 back in the day, we don't really understand the long term ramifications of harnessing wind power over a large scale comparable with the burning of fossil fuels. It is certainly intriguing to think that 100 years from now history might look back on people charging forward with renewables with rose tinted glasses and think them idiots for the destruction they wrought on the environment. Or a humorous idea at least.

We probably don't fully understand the ramifications of our pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, given the ever changing and learning that goes on with scientific study. And we certainly don't know everything about our climate. That's not to say you don't go forward with renewables. It just makes you wonder if we will one day rue the day.

"I don't think the time is yet right for him to come home, the government isn't any friendlier now than when he left and the people are only slightly less apathetic."

Although consider this: the longer that he is away from the United States, the more that the overall population forgets about him, forgets about the concerns he brought up and more likely that they are willing to listen to the government's narrative if/when he does come back. As the furor dies down more and more, people aren't going to support him more, but rather less. If he needs to come back 10 years from now, I would imagine that the likelihood of him getting a "fair" trial is much lower than if he returned today.

If he is going to come back at all, it needs to be before he's been largely forgotten. And the longer he stays, the more he risks being traded back to the United States by Russia. Or Russia simply decides he's no longer worth the trouble and doesn't provide him residency anymore. Then he gets no deal.

There is a point where broadening your definition of something makes the definition next to worthless. If there are a couple dozen planets in the solar system, many of which are just big asteroids that act like asteroids and not planets, then you're having to create a new definition for "real" planets because of all the garbage collected in the broader definition.

The word "Planet" should mean something apart from a round object that orbits a star. It should mean something that makes you understand basically what it is and what it isn't and the ramifications of it's existence. I should be able to look at one planet, and a second planet and go "yeah, those are planets". Since I was a kid, Pluto has always been the "weird" planet, the one that didn't operate like the others. So when it lost it's "planet" status, it seemed natural to me on some level.

Who cares if it's called a "dwarf planet"? Who does this harm other than the discoverer of the planet, or those that are obsessed with the idea that it MUST be a planet? Whether it's called a planet, a dwarf planet or a bagoglifunkle, it's still a large object in the Kuiper belt that should be known of and studied. Most people didn't even know are Ceres, but it's got a mission going to it, even though it was never called a "planet".

Seems like a lot of wasted energy on both sides of the argument.

"But, if you just need a couple packages of paper, are you really going to order that online?"

The brick and mortar stores can't stay in business because of the occasional need to pick something up like that same day, especially when there is competition from own market AND from the likes of Walmart. Most businesses, the bread and butter of their revenues, are getting deliveries in bulk. Stores like Walmart, Target and similar can often cover the one time needs of stuff that may run out. It would probably be more profitable for a place like Staples to allow you to stop by their distribution warehouse in an emergency, or just allow same-day for a premium or X number of same day "emergency" drop offs as part of a contract.

With continued competition, these stores are going to get worse and worse and they eat away at each other while both are getting needled by the mega-store chains. I'd rather have one store that is maybe more expensive (I doubt it though, given the other secondary competition they face both physical and online) and has a decent selection, then two stores that are tiny and worthless.

Although don't forget, it's a government agency providing the right to control that chunk of property on the moon. All the FAA has to do is rescind that "license" and the government can lay claim to kicking you out.

"Facebook and other social networking services put their resources into tagging content (religiously offensive, sexually explicit, drug use and other types of content that users often find unpleasant)"

This is an excellent idea. The problem is though that it's not that people don't want to see it themselves. They simply don't want it to exist at all where others might see it. Or the argument used with pornography, "where are innocent youth might stumble upon it".

So although yes, this is a great idea and would help keep offensive things from being seen by those who don't want to see them, it misses a major portion of that group which is offended. It's not that they don't want to see it, it's that they don't want it to exist. And just like with pornography or homosexuality in the United States, I'm sure it's not just the crazy fanatics that think this way, it's many of the middle of the road types as well. It's wrong. They don't want to just not see it. They want it to be gone entirely.

Most of the links I was able to find stated that event the NHTSA felt that their were major weaknesses in their study. First, it was done in only 12 states. Second, it is only since 2000 so that sample set is drastically reduced compared to other accident studies which can typically go back much farther. Though you can start to use this sort of data to think ahead, you can't use it to make broad statements and force change in the automotive industry. It also doesn't use the more tried and true method of accident studies which is based on distances traveled. It's more of a "wow, something to think about and consider" versus a "hey, this is a fact, shut up and get used to it" kind of study.

On a side note, for pedestrian accidents the increased rate is primarily due to backing up, something you can easily attribute more to noise but I thought we were going to solve with backup camera mandates?

But overall, those looking at the study and performing it agree that the data set is too small to make large scale conclusions. And unless we want to just be alarmist, it's probably not a good idea to take this and run with it. Instead, use it to commission some larger and more detailed studies. Who knows, maybe the people who drive hybrids tend to not pay as close attention to what they are doing? I could make a latte sipping, enjoying the smell of their own farts joke here, but I'll refrain. Oops, I guess I already did. ;-)

http://www.greencarreports.com...
http://www.treehugger.com/cars...

If only someone had invented a Jump to Conclusions mat, this process would be so much simpler! Instead, I'll just ask my pet rock.

"In our society, there should be nothing that stops someone from getting a job"

Other than qualifications and competition, obviously. If there is someone more qualified than me, I expect I won't get the job. Teasing out this from true discrimination can be difficult and we usually have to just trade types of discrimination in an effort to defeat one type.

Theoretically, I shouldn't be prevented from getting a job because of my gender, as much as a woman should not be prevented due to her's. A 20% quota on female hires could accomplish that as a by-product.

Of course, I work in a tech field where as the male I am in the minority, surrounded by a strong majority of female analysts and developers. So does it have something to do with the field, the need, the qualifications, or the gender? Simply looking at a percentage doesn't tell you 100% of the story. And seeking to hit a particular percentage doesn't really address the root. Maybe it's a start? Or maybe it's taking you down the wrong path. Who am I to say.

"So Elon Musk and worldwide-famous physicist Stephen Hawking spread FUD in your opinion?"

So being an expert in one field means that I've got to listen to you in all others? Last I checked, Stephen Hawking was a physicist and Elon Musk was an entrepreneur. Do you believe everything that Bill Gates tells you about particle physics?

Being an acclaimed scientist and genius in a field does not make you an expert in all things everywhere. And does not exempt you from the ability to make biased or incorrect statements.