If anything Internet is *less* anonymous than regular life in the 18th century.

But it's really irrelevant, because we don't have to continue using the best compromise a handful of rich colonists could come up with in 300 years ago -- we get to choose our own laws, including the constitution, just like they did.

I know. The most important way in which we're not all the same is race -- which has an undisputed scientific basis and causal relationship to observed behavior -- which makes it the logical point of division for social problems.

Or it could be that race is merely a dynamic social construct with no clear or stable definition or inherent relationship to behavior and therefore probably not a particularly useful way to frame most social problems.

If we're going to deal with "facts" you first have to make race a "fact" and not just some arbitrary statistical division rooted in historical prejudices. Race isn't a property we can test for scientifically, it's not an inherently part of a person, and studies have shown that neither self-report nor externally-obsereved race are stable over time -- for example, people who have been imprisoned are more likely to identify themselves as black, as are other observers who are aware the subject has been imprisoned, even if they previously identified as another race.

None of which is to say that our individual and shared conceptions of race are unimportant, or uncorrelated with certain behaviors -- just like religion, social constructs can be very important in our lives and can greatly influence our behavior. But the idea that we can "find real answers" by treating violence as a racial problem is as ridiculous as the idea that we can bring peace to Palestine by treating the conflict as a religious problem.

Converting electricity to liquid fuel, and in particular to a liquid fuel compatible with existing infrastructure, is potentially a big win. We're working on more sustainable electricity production, but no matter how much progress we make on the front there are still lots of applications where "throw some batteries at it" isn't a viable option for power storage -- being able to produce fuel from electricity and seawater is a way to bridge that gap in energy delivery without also requiring a breakthrough in electrical storage.

The idea that somehow God is doing us a favor by putting us on the losing side of a rigged game is the sort of explanation you hear from battered spouses.

There are lots of other alternatives. God could have let us have free will but not created evil, for example. In your universe God is in control of literally everything, so he's being a dick just by creating a scenario where negative outcomes are *possible*. The idea that choosing good over evil is good assumes that evil is necessary (and a real thing) in the first place. We don't need bad things to exist to make choices -- we could choose between two good things and it would be just as meaningful.

And he's a double dick for blaming us his behavior, just like domestic abusers.

They're talking about additional, side-view cameras, plus the recently-mandatory rear-view, as an alternative to side view mirrors, which have a number of downsides. No one is talking about taking away the ability to see beside your car.

The efficiency savings differs from car to car. In smaller vehicles it can be something like 1.3 MPG, which is fairly significant. But even if it's only 0.2 MPG, over the life of the car that's still a lot of gas.

Also bear in mind that many modern mirrors are motorized, and sometimes heated -- they're already fairly complex and expensive. And they're a frequently damaged component.

If you're worried about replacing a failed camera system with a physical mirror, I don't understand why that needs to be engineered into the OEM product -- couldn't you just stick an aftermarket mirror on your door panel if you decided you wanted one? It could glue on, or stick into your window frame, without any significant interference to normal operation of the vehicle.

Why would I need to? The only reason mirrors are adjustable is because people's eyes aren't all in the same place while driving. Cameras don't have that problem, and could be engineered to cover the entire relevant area.

The camera could look sideways from the top middle of your car, rather than back from some point out in front of the driver's waist. There could be multiple cameras providing full volumetric coverage of the area. And of course it could just tell you how far away things are with an $0.80 ultrasonic rangefinder.

You don't have to point the camera back. That's a limitation of the mirror. You can have the camera (or a second camera) mounted on the roofline in the middle of your vehicle to provide a clear side view with no need to guess at the distance to the reflection.

Plus there are plenty of us with really bad depth perception that have learned to use other methods to estimate distance; presumably that's a skill others could learn.

The change in view with the change in angle of incidence is one the *problems* with existing mirrors. A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area, whereas mirrors need to be properly adjusted for each driver, and don't work correctly if you move your head even a little.

Plus it's video -- you can take multiple images and stitch them together (or display multiple views in a single location, as is common in side mirrors in larger vehicles) and you're not limited to the vantage point of the traditional mirror. For example, a combination of a side-rear looking camera from near the driver's position and a side-looking camera from near the back of the car -- and both could be mounted up high, rather than below the window line -- would provide better field-of-view than virtually any existing side view mirror.

Plus no reflected headlights/sun. Heck, with high camera mounting points you can significantly reduce the possibility even of shining a headlight into the camera, let alone blinding the driver.

And of course once you've put a sensor pod on the side of the car and a display in the dash, adding things like ultrasonic proximity detection become much cheaper and easier to integrate into existing driving methodologies.

And pretending the UK doesn't still use it is even more inaccurate.

A reasonable and prudent person is the typical standard when the court is asked to make judgements about expected behavior.

Regardless, you can't reasonably compare "the entire body of registered trademarks" to "codified law". They're not even close to the same size, not bound by the same restrictions in specificity or presumption of innocence, and not founded in the same principals of civil society.

Age is no more reasonable as basis to determine pay than gender or race. If you accumulate skills and knowledge that make you able to produce more value, that's worth more money. If you produce at the same level for 20 years you should expect to make the same money.

If you want household income to be tied to household size and factors like that you need to stop pretending that job-specific wages are a reasonable way to accomplish that sort of economic distribution.

Are you seriously claiming that it's easier from a UI standpoint to buy things on eBay than Amazon? There are certainly complaints to be made about Amazon's UI, but "hard to get from a product page to a completed sale" is not one of them.

Your Target delivers same-day? For free? If not you're comparing apples to orchards.