High Speed Rail would have the EXACT same security measures as airplanes, except they would be even less safe as blowing up track is easy, especially when you have hundreds of miles to choose from.
How do you explain that, in the countries that have high speed rail, the airport security is the same as in the US but there's no such thing for trains?
Bombing a plane is already not the most effective way to kill people, it's mostly for show. Attacking a subway would still work better than attacking a high speed rail (or low speed rail for that matter, I don't see why that would make a difference except for popularity, I guess)

Like in the good old 19th century.

> That weird concept of "throwing away your vote" when the person you voted for doesn't win is probably one of the biggest things wrong with our voting system
In technical terms it's called "independence of irrelevant alternatives". It doesn't work in most voting systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

Playing games with ambiguity of the language I used?
Not exactly. I was using the same language that the OP used, proving his point that the claim didn't imply P = NP. Also, in maths, "a" usually means "at least one", not "all".

In fact it does suffice to show that the algorithm determines satisfiability of a 3-SAT instance in polynomial time.
Really? I have an algorithm that can solve a 3-SAT instance in constant time.
Algorithm:
if(problem == "true") then "satisfiable" else "failure of classification"
"true" is a 3-SAT instance with no variables

France has had a ban on driving with a cell phone in hand for a while now.

I'd LOVE to store entire large XML blocks in databases sometimes, and we decide not to because of space issues.
Wait, do you mean that XML takes *less* space than a database? What kind of data do you have in there? I find that a binary format gzipped in a DB is way more efficient (time and space-wise) than XML.

I don't see anything wrong with old school redirects though.
Well, they only work for http, for one thing.

why not just buy ready-made radio chips from people with the fabs to make them and do all the R&D on them?
Gee, I wonder why not. Maybe because they're already doing it.

I guess you don't mind if someone kills you now then.

The vast majority of CO2 emissions from cars come from driving them, not manufacturing them.
See for instance page 4 of this report:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Thats a great example
It also seems like a complete fabrication.
"Uzvekia" returns 4 google hits, "Uzvekia Waterloo" only returning this post.

You have simply moved the combustion for energy from your engine to the power plant down the street.
That's already a big deal. The plant down the street is way more efficient than a car.
The only true answer to our car emissions problem is hydrogen fuel.
Ah, yes, because generating/storing hydrogen is soooo efficient.

> nothing in the law forbids any of both cases, even if there is an exploit to the system in the second one.
Actually, there is a law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities