Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

yes and no. This has been coming for awhile, ever since his last leave of absence. Its sudden in that the tech world hadn't heard rumors, but the timing makes sense, as Apple is more profitable than ever and Jobs will still be involved with the company at a high level--he's phasing himself out. It's very sad to see him go out this way (because of health). Say what you will about his approaches to software, the man was a brilliant product designer.

You are hating on SpaceX for 'taking advantage' of NASA in precisely the way it is supposed to; by commercializing research. Personally, I think this is great, but the current implementation is flawed if it allows any one group to monopolize a patent (like I think Bigelow is doing by more or less buying transhab? not sure if he owns the patents now or what...)

NASA should exist as a research organization and its results should be freely shared with US corporations (ALL of them, not just whoever has the best senator) so they can take the technological discoveries and commercialize them. Launch vehicles have been a commodity for some time now, so there is no reason for NASA to maintain its own launch capabilities unless it relates to fundamental research, and Constellation is certainly not for research purposes. This goes in hand with retiring the shuttle. All of the funding that went to the shuttle can now be spread around to other programs that provide a drastically higher scientific ROI than putting humans in LEO. Constellation/Ares/etc have been and will be nothing but pork--those programs are not even designed or built by NASA, but by the contractors anyway!

Not at all. I was just making a sarcastic comment about the artistic value and aims of most of popular culture.

I'm a little unclear as to why you separate ethical behaviors and ethical concepts--the concepts arise from culture, and people either behave ethically or they don't. And I disagree that ethics are intrinsic to the human nervous system. Our minds are controlled, at the most fundamental level, by "instincts" (hence the urge to protect a significant other, to seek food, to fight to protect territory, etc). However, our minds are also pliable and susceptible to training (just like a dog or monkey), which is provided by culture. Culture is not intrinsic to the human psyche, it is an external set of trained responses to certain stimuli--so ethics IS external, but unique to our species (using ethics as a broad term; I'm not saying that dolphins can't have their own set of ethics). The argument that "we are not the center of the universe" is a bit disingenuous; of course we are at the center of our universe. Just like any other individual animal is the center of its own existence as well. You do not contextualize your surroundings based on the experiences of a mouse or your next door neighbor. Finally, I will concede that ethics as I understand it is more or less subjective in the context of life the universe and everything. But so is pretty much everything else so that doesn't really disprove the validity of ethical frameworks.

It is helpful to realize that societal constructs (in essence, "culture") arise from the evolutionary advantage of cooperation. Individualistic as we are, the majority gains more by cooperating than by competing. So if you start with the idea of single humans where the strong dominate the weak, but are only able to accrue X resources, you can proceed to a situation where groups can band together and accrue Y resources per Z population with Y/Z > X. So individuals see a net benefit from cooperation. What is this cooperation? It is society/culture/civilization: an agreed upon set of rules (implicit or explicit) by which individuals cooperate. Various cultures all have their own quirks, but starting with this framework you can see why there are commonalities across cultures in what is considered a "good" or "moral" action. So these things (ethics, natural rights, etc) are "good" in the sense that they provide a net benefit greater than simple individual initiative but require participation in society and certain sacrifices/behaviors to achieve. That's my own little way of rationalizing. I'd be very interested to know if you agree or disagree and how you reached your own principles on what is "good"?

So you must not read much or see any movies?

What exactly has Wikipedia done for mankind? I've seen this claim made throughout this thread, and while I agree with the idea of it, the fact of the matter is that this is a very nebulous claim. As a general reference it is unparalleled, and always one of the best places to start a search for information, but the only difference between it and a google search are the curation of links/references and the topic overview. It doesn't really do much more than aggregate information. For comparison: Wikileaks has brought to light government secrets/abuses that the normal news media has disregarded or refused to cover. The internet itself has enabled entirely new ways of disseminating information and connecting to other people. Freerice.com donates food to needy people. Crap, even facebook/twitter/social networks have enabled revolutions. But I just don't see a monumental contribution to the human condition coming from Wikipedia.

I think the problem that many people have with Wikipedia is that the pedantic discussions on scientific information are undertaken by people who have zero qualifications or training in the subjects. Another problem is that expert opinions are disregarded in favor of the leading editors and/or the rigid and sometimes arcane rules. Basically, many people see a dichotomy in how the editors act: they profess to be seeking truth or facts, but their actions often conflict with these stated aims.

Do you honestly think that the landowners have any choice in the matter? Poor rural farmers vs. a large energy corporation...hm I wonder who would win the lawsuit? I wonder who the government (with its lovely eminent domain powers) will support? These people are from coal country. They know how these companies operate. They take the money because their water is going to be poisoned no matter what. Maybe if they were all able to band together they could do something, but its not too likely. And then again all it takes is one bit of land to set up a drill site and the whole area goes to shit. The solution is to end regulatory capture and actually make these corporations liable for the damage they cause.

How many human-designed pieces of software do you know of that function better than the designers?

Lawyers sue people because they're PAID to, but how many malpractice (or any other) lawyers take on cases they think or know they're going to lose??

Unless of course the doctor also owns a share of the testing center, in which case he has an incentive to order more testing.

This has actually created a huge problem that many lawyers and judges are starting to take note of, namely that the viewing public treat all DNA-related evidence as solid fact despite the many errors that can occur in it. Conversely, the absence of DNA tests (even in cases where there were no samples in evidence to test) causes juries to be biased against the side that lacks the DNA. I sure as hell don't want to be judged by the CSI-viewing public on DNA evidence when the known statistics for the loci used to ID a person have a statistically significant chance of mistaken identity.

...of course, the discovery of steam power predated James Watt by 1700 years, and there have been plenty of people who worked on steam engines, at least doing research. I doubt the world would have been set back by two millenia if no one realized the implications of Hero's invention.