Slashdot Mirror

Fanatics are always the early adopters in everything.

The drones will be used for several things, but first consider the cost of maintaining a single drone much less a fleet of them and then it becomes easier to determine us owns and operates them.
The primary target for these drones are American citizens, in several cases to keep a close eye on the militias training in the back woods and deserts of the US
Armed Militias samples. (samples there are plenty more)
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/militia_m.asp?xpicked=4&item=19

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2022636,00.html

Training for what? If you asked that you're naive, now consider all the laws that have been passed or attempting to be passed (such as the current NDAA) there is no real threat from foreign terrorist in this country, the threat as perceived by "those that are in power" are the US people.
That is what the drones are for, that is what the new laws are for, that is what HLS is for, so stock up on cheetos fatties it's going to be a wild ride.
"May you live in interesting times"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/05/sopa-what-if-google-facebook-and-twitter-went-offline-in-protest/ It's actually being seriously talked about.

Okay, I read into their statement incorrectly about the opposing it. However, my statement regarding them supporting the next SOPA-clone is still in line with their own statement. http://techland.time.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-reverses-position-on-sopa-yanks-support/

Similarly, if you say "wolf" when referring to "pulpits", there isn't much communication.

The "wolf" comes from a parable in the bible. Christ said he was the good shepherd who laid down his life for his flock, and warned of "wolves in sheep's clothing." If we're discussing a book you obviously haven't read, there can be little communication as well.

The eyeball just happened? Illogical!
The moon happened; then the dog/cat/eyeball did. All, very logical

The moon is logical; it's just a big pile of boulders that gravity pulled together. Any three year old can make a snowball. But an eyeball just happening by chance? Pretty unbelievable.

As they say in wikipedia, "Citation needed".

As of the early 21st century, Christianity has around 2.2 billion adherents.[1][2][3] The faith represents nearly one-third of the world's population

Another third are Muslim.

I overestimated the number of Jews; 13 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the seven billion people alive today. But Muslims, Jews, and Christians share the old testament and worship the same God. A quick google shows that only about a third of the world's population are athiests, agnostics, Hindus, Wiccans, Bhuddists, Confucionists, etc. combined.

Your deity seems to worship death; at least, as is evidenced by the idolatry (crosses and thorn tiaras).

The death of that one man, God's own son, resulted in the life of all men. And note that the one man who was executed to save you also healed the sick who would otherwise die, and raised ones who were already dead. And what's more, he didn't stay dead! Also note that death comes to all of us, although people today seem to think they're somehow immune.

Very much similar; they all reject each other.

On the contrary, the Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, and he is revered in their religion. The Jews consider him "a Jewish boy who did well" (no citation, a Jew told me that). It isn't the religions that reject each other, it's the people practicing those religions. And even non-Abrahamic religions, such as Bhuddism, hold the same moral values that say stealing, killing, slandering, adultery, are wrong.

I can formulate predictions

So can a computer, but a computer isn't sentient. And note that computer predictions are often better than human predictions. Note that the computer in the linked story was a 1952 Univac, and as the text notes, "a musical Hallmark greeting card has more computing power."

heya,

I like your post, bar one thing.

The idea that the Chinese people are somehow "uneducated", or "retarded", and hence they need a "strong" government to control them.

That same line has been used by tyrants, dictators and bullies since the beginning of time. I'm probably Godwinning this, but Hitler used the same line to justify exterminating the Jews. And Stalin, Kim Il Jong and Burma's junta also used it - for the "good" of society

I know it's some weird Asian cultural thing, that the government somehow needs to "manage" it's people, for the "harmony" of society, but I think that's absolutely bollocks, and smacks of cowardice on the part of the people.

We've moved beyond that time, when warlords and tyrants held power by simple brutality, or how many henchmen they had. Modern China, in some ways has not:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2097372,00.html

However, this is simply how things right now. Ultimately, I hope that the Chinese people man-up, and try and take responsibility for their own choices.

Cheers,
Victor

No longer are they just an obscure cult most people have barely heard of - after the Anonymous-ran campaign on social media, everyone knows to avoid them.

Bull.

Scientology Exposed [May 6, 1991]. [cover art]
  The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power [full text and illustration]

The Apostate: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology [Feb 14, 2001]

Anonymous is the a geek's carnival Wheel of Fortune. Each week it gets another spin. More often if the crowd gets bored.

Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch did more to harm Scientology's reputation than anything Anonymous did. Google clambake or xenu to find exposures that have been happening for literally decades.

No longer are they just an obscure cult most people have barely heard of - after the Anonymous-ran campaign on social media, everyone knows to avoid them.

Bull.

Scientology Exposed [May 6, 1991]. [cover art]
The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power [full text and illustration]

The Apostate: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology [Feb 14, 2001]

Anonymous is the a geek's carnival Wheel of Fortune. Each week it gets another spin. More often if the crowd gets bored.

But Mendel never cross bred a pea with a firefly.

Genetic engineering doesn't splice food with animals either. Try and find a reliable source for your idiotic hysteria.

"Idiotic"?

It sounds like a child's riddle: What do you get when you cross a firefly with a tobacco plant? Answer: tobacco that lights itself. That is essentially what a team of scientists at the University of California at San Diego has done.

I saw it originally in Scientific American in the 1980s and that was what I was alluding to in the parent.

I expected Slashdotters to be a bit more educated and informed ....

What about the Ford Pinto? http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1658027,00.html

There are several modern fields that are dominated by women, that used to be dominated by males. Has there been a shift in biology?

No biological shift is required, just the removal of boundaries. You can force similar poles of a magnet together, but that doesn't mean they'll maintain that arrangement when you let go. Similarly, with decreased social stigma against women in the workplace, women may likewise be going where they want to go. I'm not saying this is definitely true, just that it's a possibility. There's no question that there are measurable differences in both the brains and the brain-regulating chemicals of each gender, and while it may not affect aptitude, it may affect how that aptitude is applied. Or it may not. That's all I'm saying.

As for equality of pay, that's improving, especially when measured by age, which is quite possibly an indication that misogynists are a dying breed.

Explain how people learning math would put the lottery out of business. People are gambling for an adrenaline rush, not to satisfy some mathematical equation. Guess what, some people posion their bodies with alcohol on occasion to enjoy the side effects. Some of them even have extensive education in biology and medicine.

People who drink alcohol live longer than people who don't. It's a fact: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html

And this this study includes heavy drinkers that pull down the average life span of general alcohol consumers...

...1938. These good, old "XY-Of The Year"-stories just never get boring.

lmgtfy:

Research:
1: Babiak P, Neumann CS, Hare RD. Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behav
Sci Law. 2010 Mar-Apr;28(2):174-93. PubMed PMID: 20422644.

and the summarizing article from Time.

Tons of schools use Google as their email provider. Here's a quote from a Time article from 2009:

Google now manages e-mail for more than 2,000 colleges and universities, enabling students to transform accounts capped at 100 mb into Google-managed inboxes that allow for 70 times as much mail. Microsoft also provides free Web-based mail for thousands of schools, including colleges in 86 countries.

Here's the article: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1915112,00.html. Now, a specific school? Sure, my daughter and I just toured California State Sonoma and they use Google services.

Actually, your point about drunk drivers is a big reason to support legalizing marijuana: People substitute marijuana for alcohol and end up causing less problems because of it. This has recently been shown in a study of traffic deaths in states where medical marijuana is legal (see http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/).

I'm curious if the effect would be even larger with full legalization, although as the article notes, part of the reason marijuana use causes less issues with driving may be that people are more likely to use it at home and thus have no need to drive. That might not be the case if weed was legalized completely, but then again it would be entirely possible to legalize it without allowing the sort of public use and consumption at businesses that we allow with alcohol.

I doubt anyone in China who wants a car would buy the Aptera. This is what they buy:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/01/chinas-best-selling-cars-of-2010/
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1909818,00.html

As for elsewhere, who (other than car collectors like Jay Leno) would buy an Aptera? And why? If I had USD20K to spend on a vehicle I'd certainly buy something else. More range, more seating capacity.

If I was rich and was going to buy an electric vehicle just for "cool factor", I'd buy something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5xf1zWSuWc :)

The Chinese use electric powered bikes. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

I doubt they'd spend tens of kilobux they don't have on an electric powered trike

You see electric powered bikes all over New York City as well, but one thing has nothing to do with another. An electric bike isn't intended as a car replacement, whereas the Aptera is.

The Chinese use electric powered bikes. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

I doubt they'd spend tens of kilobux they don't have on an electric powered trike

I wish it were not true but lets see how long your wife or gf will stay with you if you have no job? Give it a try?

That's a stupid fucking statement. Of course people need money to live. Doesn't mean that someone should have to work for 10-12 hours a day to make it happen.

but she has a right to want what her exhusband made

No, she doesn't. If she wanted to continue that standard of living, maybe she shouldn't have left him.

It is true after a certain amount money wont make you happy anymore but that amount is close to $100,000 a year.

Actually, it's closer to $75k. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html

Americans are lazy and wont pick vegatables in Alabama despite a 9% unemployment rate and a wage of up to a whole $10/hr!

Care to point out how that proves anything about laziness? $10/hour isn't a lot of money, and that's back-breaking work. Sounds more like the farmers are bitching that they can't exploit cheap labor anymore.

That is a lot of money coming from someone making just $7.50 at McDonalds. I would be happy to pick vegetables to pay off my student loans as I am broke now and I am not too good for these jobs.

Then go take one. No one is stopping you.

There are plenty of jobs but no one wants to do them as they are embarrasing for people with higher goals in life. But they still can't get filled as accountants, graduates, and others prefer to watch TV and collect unemployment than to mow lawns and stock shelves.

Maybe if you actually stopped to think once in a while, you wouldn't be stuck in a McDonald's job. You do realize that a lot of those "jobs" you say are plentifully available quite simply aren't, right? McDonald's held a "hiring fair" over the summer. Most locations had several hundred applicants, for only a handful of jobs. Does that say "plenty of jobs" to you? Furthermore, have you ever examined the cost of taking some of those jobs? For many people, those jobs quite simply DO NOT PAY ENOUGH to live on and support a family. And don't give me any bullshit about "Should have made sure you had money before breeding." Most of those people had solid jobs before Wall Street decided to shit all over the economy.

FYI, here's an informative/interesting article from Time magazine: What's Behind Thailand's Lèse Majesté Crackdown?

tl;dr: it's used as a political tool to silence/jail one's enemies--while the law has been around forever, prosecutions skyrocketed after the 2006 coup that ousted the prime minister as the different political parties fight for power. The king himself has publically stated that he doesn't support the lese majeste law, and no member of the royal family has ever filed a lese majeste charge.

"Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really."

A new study out this week from Columbia University reports that the "massive amount of damage" caused by meth is actually totally overblown, basically a "myth", and in fact counter-productive for the purpose of treating meth addicts. Very much in the same scare-mongering tradition of claims that (a) marijuana causes instant insanity, (b) crack babies are crippled for life, etc.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/21/why-the-myth-of-the-meth-damaged-brain-may-hinder-recovery/

What do they call an 'incident'? A crash? 10 seconds of Googling found a report of 75 incidents, including some where the malfunction stopped when the flight crew found devices that were on and had them turned off.

Also, there is a difference between a single, properly functioning device, and the many hundreds of devices that are likely to be found on a real flight. And those several hundred probably include at least a few devices which are not functioning properly.

When dealing with a life-safety issue, the proper course of action is 'irrefutably prove that a problem does not exist', not 'verifiable evidence that a problem does exist'. This would of course include testimony from the designers and manufacturers of the avionics as to exactly why there is not a problem, and what would happen if there were a problem. And no, a couple of TV guys who are not experts in avionics, electronics, or EMI doing some simple experiments and trying to gather anecdotal evidence is not irrefutable proof.

reported west coast cases http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/30/qa-with-a-superbug-expert-how-dangerous-is-crkp/

You don't have to do what he did - sequence his entire genome if all you want it do determine paternity. At least in the normal sense of paternity.

If he wanted to see where he branched off the evolutionary tree from Homo sapiens, well, then it's a reasonable approach.

heya,

Yup, I'll have to agree 100% with the parent.

What really irks me is stupid, affluent, middle-class suburbanites, sitting around sipping their latte decafs, bemoaning the awful, awful state of affairs and how they're "oppressed", and the "Man has them down"...*sigh*.

Really? Why don't you get off your a*ses and maybe do some travelling and see what the world is really like. In places like China, the CCP can have it's local thugs come and beat you up if you try and stand for election:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2097372,00.html

Heck, in Singapore, supposedly a bastion of "democracy" in Asia - you get hauled in front of a court on trumped up "anti-sedition" laws if you try and start a protest march without a "license".

I don't know if it's something to do with our Chinese culture or whatever, but it seems we're just not very compatible with democracy. Or if we do, we try to implement it with a "Chinese twist" *rolls eyes*, which basically means that whichever incumbent party is in power wields a iron fist of power and quashes opposition, all in the name of "promoting harmony and social well-being". What a farce.

And I'm sure many countries in Africa, the Middle-East, you name it, are the same.

I live in Australia, and I count myself very lucky and very fortunate that our society is open, and respects the rule of law. Sure, I don't agree with everything my government does - and I can vote, protest and file petitions accordingly (or just call our PM a tosser in public), but I never try to erect some ridiculous straw-man argument or spout hyperbole about how my government is "oppressive and tyrannical" and "destroying democracy".

To generalise, you silly Americans don't actually know how good you have it *sigh*. I'm not saying that you shouldn't protest or challenge your government (in fact, that's my whole point), but you seriously need to get some perspective and open up your eyes to the real world, and countries outside yourselves.

Cheers,
Victor

On the contrary - the British never used VIFF in combat.

TIME says you're wrong: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951776,00.html

I get my information from naval historians, pilots who took part in the war, actual books, etc... Not thirty year old mass media accounts. Despite the urban legends that have circulated since the Falklands war, not one reliable source has ever confirmed the use of VIFF in combat and several have specifically denied it.

On the contrary - the British never used VIFF in combat.

TIME says you're wrong: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951776,00.html

On the other hand, while it was never used in combat, STOVL was and is used on a daily basis to land and take off from LHA's and Brit's baby flattops.

STOVL never used in combat? What do the Brits do with their tiny aircraft carriers, then? Particularly during the Falklands war?

Genes causing people, especially children, to fall over and die when exposed to nuts cannot possibly be widespread in humanity. That is completely insane. It's like being allergic to water.(1) It's clearly some sort of genetic mutation or defect or outside disease, and not actually a normal combination of genes from their ancestors.

I'm talking actual nuts, not peanuts. Peanuts just make a microscopic amount more sense, as they are 'new world' only and thus the vast majority of the planet's ancestors have only been eating them for 300 years or so. But, still, peanut allergies don't make a lot of sense either.

What you say makes sense if the allergies are genetically related. I don't think they are though. Look at the third world countries. They have almost no nut allergies. Their immune systems are busy fighting off actual diseases so they don't develop allergies to basic things. Even in our hyper-sanitized USA, kids who grew up with a dog or cat can go off to college and come back with a new allergy to the animals. They had it before, but didn't show symptoms as they were exposed all the time. Once they are away from the dander, it gets more noticible when they are exposed again. One article I found talked about people who grow up on a farm and exposed to lots of poop have no allergies.

It does not sound to me that there is much of a genetic cause. Perhaps there is some genetic link to your suseptibility. But the expression of the allergies seems more to be due to your immune system needing to find things to attack to stay in shape. If it can't find real nasties to fight off, it will find something else to work on.

Not to mention lightning strikes last year here in Ohio...

Stop using reasoning based on folk-behaviorism,, longitudinal study of 2,500 children, "those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were much more likely to be aggressive by age 5." Follow the link, it sums up what ever study testing your theory of child rearing has found for 50 years: corporal punishment only aggravates behavioral problems.

Children whom experience physical punishment incorporate it as a socially acceptable reaction when they themselves want to settle the moral books. This has knock-on effects in adult-hood: neurons that fire together wire together. When the older self is overcome with anger over a moral wrong-doing, the networks connecting fear/anger/moral outrage will more strongly fire off with the networks involved with physical punishment -making it harder to hold back. Fights hurt, they are expensive, and they will show up on a background check whether or not the charges are dropped. Other than when one is physically endangered, it is never worth the costs associated with physical violence against another adult.

Furthermore, parents whom engage their children in examination of the child's feelings are making the child cognizant of their emotions and are thus better able to modify them. You can't just stop all discipline and give the child fee license to do as they please, but corporal punishment doesn't do anything to help the child learn to control their own behavior.

or that people have run out of valid things to complain and now they are complaining of free games with OPTIONAL in game items which cost money.

While spending real money is optional to simply play the game, it's not always optional if you want to actually finish the game. I've played some games like Pumpkins vs Monsters where you'd have to play hundreds of hours to beat the game unless you pay real $$$ because a level will only give you ~100-300 gold but a single upgrade is 10,000+ gold.

It's not impossible to win but almost. Imagine playing Half Life but health, additional lives and weapons cost real money, you're left to run around with whatever health you start with and a crowbar. Could you win? Highly unlikely.

Then you have games like Smurfs' Village and Order & Chaos who have $99 in app purchases (here's another example)

I agree something should be done since these games don't really fall in the "free" category.

I wonder why they use the past tense, since Chernobyl is still an ongoing problem.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2067562,00.html

The fall of the USSR couldn't have happened at a worse time for the people of the Ukraine...

He does have a point. We declared the war on drugs. No one else. And barring the war drugs, legit pharmaceutical companies would be who provided the dugs (of a much higher quality) - NOT cartels. Cartels wouldn't have a chance at even competing with big business
Add to that both the Netherlands and Portugal who have (basically) stopped the war on drugs, and have found that their drug problems drastically decreased. (You can start here if you aren't already aware of what i'm trying to explain: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html) and it should be clear that we are definitely partly to blame for these problems. i suppose human nature and greed would be where the rest of the blame falls....

For piecing together shredded East Germany Secret Police (Stasi) documents: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1983287,00.html

Maybe DARPA needs to take a trip to Germany . . .

You will create disasters worse than that of any communist dictator if you think that you can just remove all regulation and have the free market spring into existence, like a maiden from the lake.

I was ready to take exception to this comment, until I decided to check my theory with Google...:

Time's Top 10 Environmental Disasters
Lenntech.com's Top 10 Anthropogenic Environmental Disasters
Business Pundit's "World's Worst Environmental Disasters Caused by Companies

Just off the cuff, it looks like most of these were caused by corporations operating in nominally democratic countries rather than by communist states. I guess maybe you're right on this one...

They only say that vaccinations against STDs will decrease abstinence, what they really think is that STD's are Punishment from God for promiscuous fornication and a vaccine would therefore be interference with The Wrath of God. That's why they had apoplexy when Pastor Rob Bell said there is no Hell, no burning lake of sulfur and brimstone for unrepentant sinners; and therefore no wrathfulness to God today.

To add a footnote to my post on a prescriptive bent: The best thing America could do in the short term is return the vote to convicted felons.

Why Can't Felons Vote?

In 1800, no state prohibited felons from voting. On the eve of the Civil War, 80% of the states did, largely to block African Americans, who though rarely allowed to vote were disproportionately represented among felons.

Disenfranchisement amplifies the wedge. Winners tend to vote for more losers, don't they? America could potentially turn into a nation where a great mass of people have their backs against the chasm.

The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United

But hey, it doesn't kill men.....I dunno if we should mandate it on men.

Yeah, just because men are the carriers that, in most cases, give it to women doesn't mean we should actually *do* anything about it. Fuck'em, why should we go through the terrible agony of a simple injection to help protect them from cervical cancer. Wait though....something is nagging at me here....

But hey, it doesn't kill men.....

Oh yeah, it's this. SHIT! IT KILLS MEN TOO! WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!

Then again, I don't think it should be mandated for women either, at least not without parental consent to opt in.

Yeah, that makes sense. "Sorry lady, but due to the fact that your parents had some kind of reservation about giving you this vaccine, you get to die of cancer now that otherwise was easily preventable. I know, I know, it's rough, but your parents were afraid you'd be a slut if you got the vaccine". Great.

Some points to consider:

Total outstanding student loan debt recently topped $1 trillion (e.g. see link).

Student loan debt now exceeds household credit card debt (see link).

It isn't possible to escape student loans via bankruptcy - they will follow you your whole life, no matter what. This puts them in a class by themselves.

Obviously, the current system is badly broken. Why should the federal govt be in the business of hooking young adults on these onerous loans? If the goal is social leveling (a goal I can get behind), then we should be talking about grants, not loans. What we're doing is creating a new class of indentured servants.

Tadaa!!! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2071147,00.html

You're just bitter that I don't want to pay your college loans....

Let me give you a small bit of advice.

First, go to a community college for your first two years. Live with your parents. Work part time at any job. You won't be a CEO and it won't be glamorous, but college isn't about making you feel special.

Second, go to an instate college. Preferably go to a college in the city your family lives in.

Third, go into a field that you can legitimately say will improve your earning ability.

And as far as making shit up...

I live in Seattle, here are the facts for this area:

Seattle Central Community College, quarterly tuition for in state student with 16 credits: $1224.00. (From here: http://seattlecentral.edu/registration/tuition.php)

University of Washington, total annual tuition for transfer students: $11,340. (From: http://admit.washington.edu/Paying/Cost#freshmen-transfer)

Top ten college majors: (From: http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-ten-majors.aspx)

6) English Language and Literature
8) Communications Studies/Speech Communication and Rhetoric
9) Political Science and Government

Sorry, but the demand for English Language and Literature does not justify even $10,000/yr in debt, let alone $20,000+/yr. Compare the list of top majors with this list of top earning majors http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2073703,00.html and tell me again that I'm making shit up.

And there are lots of jobs out there, they're just jobs that you apparently think you are above. Stop being such an elitist asshole and recognize that any work is better than no work and that no one is above doing any type of job.

Derp! And don't forget...before Klimate Change...before Global Warming...it was The Coming Ice Age they were warning us about. You're right. Sounds like rock-solid conclusive inarguable science to me. Who am I to doubt the shifting predictions of the charlatans at the IPCC? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

This is kind of off topic, but this reminds me of an article I read (maybe in time magazine) that was about how in the next 40 years or so we will have computers powerful enough to emulate a human brain. The point of the article was that once we reach that capability, humans will basically become immortal because we would just copy our brains onto a computer and not have to worry about our fragile organic bodies failing on us.

It's very interesting to think about all the effects a breakthrough like that would have on humanity, but I also wonder if something like that is even possible. Just because we can emulate the human brain doesn't mean we can transfer information off of our current brains. Even if we can transfer the information, will our consciousness with a computer brain be the same as our consciousness with an organic brain or will we experience the world completely different than we do now? Once we have eternal life as computers do we even bother reproducing anymore? If our only existence becomes as pieces of data in a computer are we even humans at that point? And is the real way humans wind up going extinct just the result of a power outage at the datacenter where we keep our brains?

Like I said, this was pretty off topic. But the title reminded me of that article I read. This might be it, I'm not sure though.

Not only would it have "slipped under the radar", it was on the government books as "expended". According to official records it was left on the moon with no intention of ever recovering it. If this was an item that was supposed to be brought back to the earth as part of the mission, I would say that the government has a point, even if all they would have done with it is stick it in a box in a warehouse somewhere. However, until he tried to sell it, the government thought it was gone forever.

It wouldn't have "slipped under the radar". NASA must have known about this camera all along. When astronauts returned from the moon, they were kept in quarantine for 21 days. Apparently, the astronauts seal themselves in bio-hazard suits before getting out of the command module. He would have had to have kept the camera with him, or it would have had to have been separately quarantined/decontaminated and returned to him. Now, you can't hide a camera the size of a brick in a bio-hazard suit, nor could you hide it from the three doctors who were quarantined with you. One of the articles states that NASA made multiple requests that the camera be returned.

I can see NASA's point. If an object is earmarked for destruction and it gets diverted by the person or persons overseeing that destruction, then it is considered stolen merchandise. If I worked for a company that shredded hard drives, and a shipment of 320GB solid state drives came in to be shredded, and I took one or two home, I'd be charged with theft. Same principle here.

40 years ago, Mitchell was allowed to keep the camera. Today he is required to return it. There must have been something that triggered the change in policy.

Raising the minimum wage tends to both increase unemployment (since it cost more to hire people, businesses tend to hire fewer people), and increase the general cost of living across the board (again, logical if you think about it for just a moment).

Taking away 80% of investment income is insane. Investments are largely about providing capital to companies that wish to expand operations. This is a critical part of our economy, and disincentivizing a monetary return on already risky investments mean our economy will tank even further.

If simple solutions like these would actually fix the problems, I'd be all for it. The law of unintended consequences means you'd probably hurt working-class people more than the rich by doing this. Case example: The failure of the luxury tax.

Some people is scared that developing nations are getting access to education tech while in some places (USA, France and others) government is about to pay students to go to school and make good grades.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929454,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/nyregion/19schools.html

"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"

It's not a normal conditions, they can't keep up with the throngs of angry customers closing their bank accounts.

Yes it does. It also bothers me that common sense is so rare it's a goddamn superpower.

But what use is basic logic and common sense when you have political parties campaigning on "God wants me to be prezidunt 2 git that uppity nigger outta our white house"? When you have a group of people who can get revved up into a foaming, frothing-mouthed frenzy by some boob publishing an entirely dishonest book claiming "OMG Obama was at a Black Panther rally in 2007" (the actual event was a commemoration of the 1965 voting rights march in Selma, Alabama, attended by a host of dignitaries that included both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton).

The reality is, an entire political party has decided that horrific lies and appeals to anything but sanity are their way to get elected. It's saddening and maddening at once, because there was a time I agreed with many of their positions on logical grounds - but they've become so extreme and hate-filled today that finding a sensible, sane compromise and actually fixing any problems has become impossible.

In other words... a total lack of both logic and common sense.

No, global cooling was the rage in the 70s:

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
Another Ice Age?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html