Actually, bank robber is yet another profession and they are getting less dangerous. Irrelevant, but true

It would likely take $400+ to fly (per person) and about 6 hours, which would make the break even point about $30/hour for a single person (national average is $20). How does this support your argument?

(Not the original poster)

The primary defense against hijacking is a plane filled with people that aren't willing to be hijacked. 9/11 already did that.

Actually the difference is that coal plants kill people when they are working as they are supposed to.

I think it just changes the stupid jokes to "Why does his router have a hinge? Don't they know that 'gateway' is more of a abstract thing?"

And this is the flaw in the argument. Just because something is incredibly unlikely doesn't mean that it requires a design. Everything is incredibly unlikely because if you go to enough detail, there are so many variables that the odds of any given thing happening is almost zero. The odds of you winning the lottery are massively better than the odds of the last two drawings coming out with the numbers they did in the order they did, but that doesn't mean it wasn't random.

Science claims ignorance because it doesn't know. Religion claims certainty because it doesn't know. Claiming ignorance and trying to figure it out IS what science is all about.

My core problem with religion is that it is arrogant. The thought that an all-powerful all-knowing being that created the entire cosmos cares what you do seems the height of hubris to me. Not to mention that an all-knowing all-powerful being that created the universe is to blame for everything that goes wrong, since if they were all-knowing they knew it was going to happen and if they were all-powerful they could make the universe so it didn't have to.

My aunt in law is a cop. She's told a story about a newbie on a drug raid who walked up to the door and knocked, saying "Police". The raidee was so non-plussed that they assumed it was a joke and opened the door, getting busted.

I'm reminded of taking an AI class in college. The first class the instructor described AI as the A version of whatever I is. Still the best description I've heard...

Ad hominem is ad hominem, even when it is true. Me being a mass murderer, does not mean that you are not a jaywalker.

Or just tax tires.

If you redefine both "art" and "games" to mean a exclusive set of properties, it makes perfect sense to not call games art. It just isn't a very useful argument.

My steak is art because it is fish and your broccoli is not because it is a gnome (for specific definitions of "art", "fish" and "gnome").

How about the millions of people in the American South, who use Coke to refer to any carbonated beverage no matter the type. "I'd like a Coke", "What kind?", "Orange"...

Or the guys who produced a language map of the US, showing where people use the word "Coke" to refer to any carbonated beverage...

Not the vast majority of the time. Which is what people see and what they care about, until the moment that it is too late.

Why would anyone produce ANYTHING in that case. When it turns out in 10 years that the paint I used on the CDs I sold caused cancer (which I had no way to know about) and I can be sued into non-existence. Or that distilled water leeches out vital nutrients and kills people, or that adding minerals to water causes some sort of allergic reaction and kills people, or not adding minerals to water causes some sort of allergic reaction and kills people (or all 3), and I get sued into oblivion?

With unlimited liability to individuals based on actions of someone else in the company, why would anyone in their right mind own a company?

But they aren't copying Google's results. They are spying on the user and finding out where they go. Your outrage is pointed the wrong way. If they searched for a junk phrase and clicked on a link on the 12th page, I suspect that would come up on Bing as the first result.

They are not spying on Google, they are spying on YOU!