Part of the problem is that most restaurants and stores would rather serve farm-raise game animals than wild-killed game. So if you manage to develop a taste for a particular type of meat, people will often start farm raising them.

I let Google Autocomplete it for me to try to figure out. Most were mundane, like "Take the money and run", but I have to say, I was pretty boggled by Google's suggestion of "Take the skinheads bowling". ;)

The best solution is actually monorails.

Were you sent here by the devil???

Tilbit is absolutely correct, though. Nicholai Tesla did some great work, mainly in his early years, but he increasingly started making claims without any serious experimental or theoretical backing whatsoever to drum up public interest, many of which are in complete violations of the laws of physics. A lot of his claims were based on "evidence" along the lines of "It was 30 degrees yesterday and it's 40 degrees today, therefore next year Earth will be vaporized." And in a lot of cases he appears to have outright just made stuff up.

This isn't to diminish his earlier work. He was an excellent tinkerer and ran across some really useful concepts and worked out equations to describe and utilize them. But he increasingly abandoned that for hype as time went on.

That makes absolutely no sense, and I fail to see what relevance it has to my comment.

It makes perfect sense, so you clearly have no conception of what the person is proposing.

You're talking about flying where someone holds onto a stick and manipulates control surfaces, They're talking about flying where they punch in "123 Maple Street" and the computer flies them there. One could of course allow both modes of flight, but the latter is what most people envision (or at least what I thought most people envision) when they hear "flying car".

Beyond that, I would like to add that while flying introduces new risks for manual piloting, it also removes a lot of them. Both commercial pilots and long-haul truckers in remote locations have similar roles in terms of spacing between vehicles and time behind the wheel, but only one's job is easy enough that they can have an autopilot do it for them for 90% of the trip. Yeah, someone cruising at 20.000 feet might be doing their makeup or texting on their phone, but at least they're not going to hit a tree while doing it.

(and yes, I know that if you replace all cars with planes, the skies get a lot more crowded, which is why I compared to a remote-location trucker, just to point out that the basic situation is easier in 3 dimensions where one's "lane" is much wider, there are no ground obstacles to hit, no hills, no bends in the road, etc, and traffic is split up among many well-spaced layers that are easy for a plane to maintain... no, millions of drivers cannot fit into our ATC system as-is, and I'm not claiming that, it requires a new system with greater automation)

Also, I'll add that you missed the obvious criticism of flying cars - the "dropping out of the sky upon failure" one ;) Any realistic "flying car" is going to have to have some really dang good failsafe mechanisms not only to protect its occupants in such a case, but people on the ground as well.

Disagree. A good car doesn't have down force (beyond gravity), downforce means aerodynamic drag, a good car should rely only on the force of gravity for its grip. The things that help a plane also make a car more fuel efficient - streamlining and lightweight construction. Cars have slightly different streamlining reqs due to operating near the ground, but the general principles are the same. Of course you've got wheels out there, but so do many light planes. Lightweight construction is often described as the opposite of crash safety, which is very important in cars, but with foam core composites you can have both.

As for the GP's comments: I don't think anyone really expects your average driver of a flying car to be behind the stick controlling flight surfaces; I think most people envision something more like a good quadcopter where everything is managed for you by control software that maintains position and attitude (despite changes in balance, wind, etc) or even fly preset routes / automated traffic management. People don't envision runways, they envision VTOL. They envision not a helicopter (non-roadworthy, giant exposed spinning prop), but something roadworthy with nacelles.

One big former problem with flying cars was the weight, size, cost and complexity of the sort of high power engines you needed for them, and if you needed multiple engines (quadcopter-style), then all the more problem. It pretty much ensured that your flying car would have a supercar price tag. But electrification of transportation looks to be solving that one - high power outrunner electric motors are very simple and have just ridiculous power to weight ratios. Battery energy density is still a problem (and would be even more of a problem if your lifting surface area is limited and you lose a little efficiency to your prop geometry), but it's constantly improving, the percentage rate of growth on electric passenger airplanes is even faster than that of electric cars (although starting from a much smaller starting point, mind you).

No, I'm not saying I envision the world suddenly switching over to flying cars - far from it. I'm just pointing out that the problems aren't as intractable as folk often make them out to be.

As I said, IPS and DLP devices are routinely used to MITM SSL connections. There's not much point having some stupidly expensive firewall setup at the edge of your corporate network if all its takes for malware to get in is Joe from Accounts opening his GMail and running cute_kitty_photoz.exe.

Typically, the volume of data transmitted through these kinds of links makes comprehensive long-term recording and storage prohibitively expensive. However, logging everything normally sent over plain-text, human-speed communications channels such as e-mail or IM is quite achievable, as is logging a complete traffic stream identified by some trigger.

Incidentally, these devices are often used precisely because they allow you to control and limit your liability. For example, it's easier to argue you're in compliance with regulations like HIPAA or PCI-DSS if you can demonstrate reliably that traffic leaving your network was scanned and nothing fitting certain suspicious patterns was sent. A simpler but no less significant consideration is the damage any large organisation could suffer if malware did somehow get into their network.

They don't have to block SSL, they just have to MITM the connection if they need to analyse or log the traffic. IPS and DLP devices that can do this for all the major protocols have been available to professional sysadmins for some time. If you access the Internet from a company device at an organisation that is either very large or working in a particularly sensitive field, there is a good chance your traffic is already being processed in this way.

If you want some communications to be private from your employer, use your own device, not a company-administered one. It's really as simple as that these days.

Not by default, but I know of no legal reason an admission contract couldn't include a clause transferring copyright in any recordings made to the organisers.

Trust me, you don't want to get spanked by them.

And their christmas gifts are terrible.

You live somewhere where daily highs in your garage below -30C are "normal" (implying highs of -40 to -50 outside)? Where do you live, the freaking moon? And you'd store your car suchly without plugging it in?

That is correct. There are some specific exceptions, commonly referred to as "fair dealing" over here, and there have been some recent developments that will expand the scope of the exceptions, but there is no generic limitation on copyright determined by a set of qualitative tests like the Fair Use rules in the US. However, if we're talking about someone's own footage of the goals, the more important issue might be what the contract was when they bought their admission ticket.

If the conditions of entry clearly say no recording is allowed and that if any recordings are made anyway then all rights are assigned to the organisers, then my expectation is that the uploaders won't have a leg to stand on here. It would be very surprising in this day and age if such terms weren't routinely included, and I fully expect that this is how any debate about legality will wind up being resolved.

On the other hand, if there's nothing prohibiting the use of recording devices and nothing claiming any rights over recordings made by spectators, it might be tough to argue successfully in court along the lines that someone's personal recording was a copy or derivative work of some official recording that the organisers sell to TV networks. It's not an unprecedented idea: publishing photos of major public landmarks like the Hollywood sign or Eiffel Tower can be legally hazardous, particularly if commercial use is involved. However, those restrictions tend to result from some carefully contrived/created edge cases in the legal position for specific places, and it's hard to see how anything similar applies to a football match.

(IANAL so obviously you shouldn't trust anything you just read if it actually matters to you.)

You seem to be conflating several issues, as well as setting up some straw men, neither of which encourages constructive debate.

One issue is statutory licensing, which may artificially limit the number of people who can drive for-hire vehicles in a given area. It is true that such regimes are vulnerable to local politics and regulatory capture, pushing expenses up for drivers and reducing competition. There are also some arguments in favour of reasonable licensing regimes, not least because there is only so much road space and so much demand for hire vehicles. There is certainly room for debate about how this side of the industry works and whether newer alternative models might be better.

Another issue is safety regulations, which typically restrict things like permitted time behind the wheel without a break or how often vehicles must be maintained and tested. This is quite a different thing from licensing to limit supply in the market, though clearly some method of identifying who is subject to the safety regulations is needed. Here it is common, at least in my country, for professional drivers who spend many hours behind the wheel to be regulated. For example, lorry drivers and coach drivers also have to comply with regulations that don't apply to individuals driving private vehicles for their own purposes. Here, there is much less room for debate. Normal people don't spend the equivalent of an entire working day behind the wheel, day in and day out, with relatively little to keep their attention focused on driving. Even when private individuals make long journeys by car, they rarely spend as long behind the wheel as lorry drivers do daily. And of course the service and mandatory testing intervals for private cars are set with private driving in mind, while vehicles used commercially tend to do much higher mileage.

As a third related issue there is insurance. It is a legal requirement in my country for every driver to have proper insurance to certain minimum standards. Note that this is primarily for the protection of others: as far as I know, you can still drive a personal car without insurance to cover wrapping it around a tree and writing it off, but you may not legally drive it without "third party" insurance that would cover any damage you do if you wrap it around someone else's car and write off both vehicles. Insurance policies typically specify things like the type of vehicle and how it will be used and are priced accordingly, and the insurance industry probably has a better understand of the true risks of different types of driving than anyone else. So letting people drive commercially when their insurance doesn't cover it would just be a loophole and a clear risk to other road users who won't be protected as the law requires in the event of an accident.

I don't think the people who question services like Uber on regulatory grounds are necessarily against competition or innovation in the marketplace. I'm certainly not; I write software every day for businesses that do stuff no-one has done before that is only possible because of that software, so why would I want to hold back progress? But some of those regulations really are there for good, sensible, practical reasons, and I don't think a new entrant into the market should get a free pass on breaking the rules that apply to everyone else just because they're new.

Unless you're the person in the lane next to the Uber car when its high-mileage, improperly-maintained components break, or the person crossing the road in front when the Uber driver falls asleep, and then you get to be in the accident too.

Regulations on commercial drivers exist for a reason, and it's not just for the benefit of the passengers inside a commercial vehicle.

Providing an alternative that is competitive merely by virtue of not following the same rules as everyone else isn't an improvement. Compete on the same basis as everyone else, and then if your service is otherwise better you can enjoy all the well-deserved support you like. Otherwise, you should expect regulators to close you down.