For what it is worth, my father in law is a physician and he specifically worked in a Coronavirus vaccination facility. While he says it saved countless seniors and wanted the government to mandate the vaccine to every adult, even he said that vaccines for children were not necessary and discouraged us to vaccinate ours. (We did it anyway) On top of that, researchers with all credentials have expressed skepticism in broad mandates issued without enough proof. Disclaimer: I got all my 4 coronavirus vaccines. I am merely saying that vaccines and medical treatments should not be a religion. Giving out the nobel prize seems to soon as these vaccines are not the panacea they were initially thought to be: kind of easy to get sick anyway, poor performance to prevent transmission.

We only drive manual transmissions in our household. I hope future engines will have this option.

Would somebody let me understand how a Playstation has any value in a prison, how it helps rehabilitation or going back into society at the end of the sentence? Why is it even remotely allowed. Am I not even talking about how some games might be considered violent.

When computers are not networked, is it really relevant?

Yes by definition government agencies enforce laws with a set of regulations. However regulations have to work in a framework created by laws (congress), and laws must work in the framework set by the constitution (have you read it?). It's not too difficult to understand that regulations cannot be arbitrary in scope and that separation of powers is a very basic concept used by all advanced nations.

They do not. They just apply the law in stating that it's up to congress to legislate and not an agency. If congress (or individual states) want to protect the wetlands, they can legislate so. But a government agency must ENFORCE existing laws, not make them up.

No, it does not work that way. It is up to CONGRESS to make those laws, elected officials, not an agency to come up with arbitrary rules that have large impacts. It is the basis of the separation of powers and checks and balances, an extremely reasonable set of concepts that have worked very well.

I believe that we must use all energy, nuclear and petroleum. Only relying on one type of energy that is perceived to be "better" will lead to a worse overall attention to environment. I am however optimistic that not all kids are like the ones that created this lawsuit. When I give a ride to kids whose parents drive electric cars or even work for electric car manufacturers, and see that I drive a manual transmission (obviously endothermic engine), they are immediately fascinated and tell me they really want to learn how to drive stick. I hope they fulfill their dreams.

Yes they should shutdown Siri and Alexa, and not replace them with anything. Why people feel the urge to talk to computers with their voice?

There are legitimate concerns about this tech and you cannot write them off because you never "need to cross southwest the desert". I'd always take a more durable product versus one that has an (alleged) initial lower footprint but likely needs replacement sooner. People that buy a V6 that will last them a minimum of 20 years and possibly into the 30s, are greener than who leases an electric car and replaces it every three years. Leaving the infamous but classic Slashdot car analogy, datacenters are the last place where you want less reliable tech, because cost of failure directly impacts revenue. They spend a lot for ECC memory and redundant PSUs, it'd be crazy to use materials that dissolve. Rugged outdoors electronics, which obviously include phones and laptops, are also not candidates. What remains is cheap junk that if one cares about the environment should not buy in the first place.

OK we have determined that this service uses around 3% of a notable section of the radio spectrum. I find that plenty reasonable as there is a huge amount of radios out there that can receive it (hundreds of millions?). Electric cars have received immense subsidies from the government, and some say the government will ban other types of cars. I find it very reasonable that they should put a bit of an effort to provide access to this legacy but still valuable mechanism. I agree that it'd be theoretically better to use side band or even some more advanced fancy digital mode, but it would require to deploy immense numbers of devices all around. Unfortunately, this is a common problem with legacy tech. This said, what other service is competing in the HF band that could use that part of the spectrum? Is it in high demand? I am not aware

I typically agree with not having government mandates, but first the government should NOT mandate electric cars of distort the market to incentivize them, and then we can talk about the minutia of what modulation radios must have

My kids have the same excellent grasp of the subjects and are three grades ahead in Math and English according to the tests. I *require* them to bring their smartphone (a cheaper samsung device (along with the Part 97 VHF handheld as a backup)). Guess what, there are no problems. Phone is used to communicate before and after school while they are on route or if I have a delay when picking them up so I can tell them to go to the library or something. If I understand correctly, it seems I have an experience analogous to yours. Maybe it's up to the individual child, some kids will abuse the instrument and others will use it responsibly, and now UNESCO (and sadly the majority of the /. mob) want to punish them.

Hello. In your first message you say that courts have helped Uber and keep gig economy stay in place; but now that a Prop 22 is approved by popular vote to keep gig economy in place the judicial system is used to repeal it and say that voters have no power on this? So which one is it, the judicial system and courts are for or against the gig economy?