I've yet to see a textbook that successfully teaches intellectual curiosity, so I assume that even if you convinced them to spend years reading text books, they wouldn't retain anything beyond what they memorized temporarily to pass a test.

If they at least became engaged in civic process, then they might be exposed to the basics of which levers of power they can influence, and be taught some tactics for effective public debate and advocacy. As it is now the debate is so weak, it doesn't even require response from the Government.

I didn't defend you, so go away.

Do you have permission from all mathematicians to speak for them? No? Then all of my statements stand. (of course)

Being a member of a group doesn't give you a special right to talk about them.

I never said I was defending you, and anybody who thinks I said that should really re-read what I said.

Gosh, that would be rather insulting and patronizing to think you needed defending. That would be just as patronizing as deciding on your behalf what your moral dilemmas should be.

No. Nonono. "We're doing it just as well as the way we're supposed to, that's why we refuse to follow the rules." That just doesn't fly.

It is totally dishonest to both not be in compliance with the rules, and to claim to be in compliance with them because... "gosh our way is just as good."

Generally you have to have been harmed as least $20 to get into small claims court (varies by state, YMMV) so depending on surge pricing you may or may not be able to sue and attempt to prove your damages in court. Unfortunately for you, being late to meet your friends is unlikely to be something that can be made whole by money, so you're not going to be able to ask for more than the return of the fare. If you had been late to work and lost your job, you could conceivably sue for up to 6 months of wages. You'd lose, of course, because a reasonable person taking a cab or "rideshare that is just people sharing a ride not a real taxi" would know they might arrive late.

What you'd need would be a video of the driver later laughing at you for complaining about the flat tire, and sarcastically saying, "yeah, I got the flat on purpose." Then if he had an accent, and the sarcasm wasn't clear enough, you might even win.

If you don't know how "standing" works in law, how can you be in a position to argue that there is a problem with it in this case? It seems to me the farthest reasonable position in the direction you're going would be, "golly gee, I have no idea how that stuff works, I wonder if her lawyer got legal advice first?"

Right, directly responsible gets you charged with "rape" and placed in jail, indirectly responsible gets you a lawsuit. Nobody is claiming it is the same.

If they refuse to play by the same rules, then they have a hard time claiming their process is even better than the legal process they're supposed to use, without actually doing an almost perfect job.

Once they start following the same rules and checks as taxis, then if there is a problem all we have to ask is, "are they any worse than taxis?"

When it is a group that is in ongoing violation of the regulations, I just don't see why they qualify for the protection offered by having complied with the process. After all, that is the taxi company's excuse; background checks are regulated, and they did the checks that are supposed to work.

They brag about their super-awesome insurance, one real thing this case will do is test that.

If the insurance is so great, they'll pay her claim without going to trial.

If they fight it, or the insurance won't cover it, then they can shut up about that one.

Wrong. They're carbon neutral, because of the way decomposition works. Only certain types of ecosystems store large amounts of carbon. In biofuels, all of the carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the plants, and will be released either through decomposition, or burning as fuel.

Some people assume that it takes a bunch of gasoline to make biofuel, because they don't realize that you can also use the biofuel to run the factory and transportation equipment.

It is true though that E85 is only 85% carbon neutral. If that is what you meant by "truly" then I admit the non biofuel part of the mix is not carbon neutral, and it still does have that 15%.

However the B99 biodiesel is 99.999%

The anti-biofuel propaganda is funny. For example the WSJ did a story claiming biofuels aren't carbon neutral... because they think you have to clear forests in order to get plant waste! lol

In my state biofuels are big business right now. Most of the restaurant grease is being used. The processed fruit factories have largely gone to selling the "waste" for fuel production. Test factories are converting landscape waste, and corn stalks. We don't have surplus corn production here, so no food corn is diverted to fuel. It is also mostly unsubsidized in this region. I can hardly go a block without a new subaru with a "flex fuel" logo. The only time I see a string of cars without at least one flex fuel logo is when it is all electric hybrids. They're doing trial runs of using kitchen food waste, too. In restaurants to start, but with the plan of having the residential garbage haulers pick up food waste.

By the way, electric cars do have fuel tanks, they're called "batteries." The majority of new cars I see are either electric hybrids, or flex fuel. That is true of all categories, too; SUVs, cars, trucks, whatever. In 15 years most vehicles will either be electric or flex fuel. The old cars will be hybrids.

There is no escaping the fact that flex fuel and electric are both here to stay. Gasoline will be around for a long time too, but most of the cars that run it will be "flex fuel" cars that can also run E85. Real progress is happening, on multiple fronts. There is no silver bullet, and the time when people were waiting around for the perfect solution already passed. The future is here now, and vehicle emissions are starting a downwards trend. Unfortunately, cars are a small part of the carbon problem.

I certainly concede that is a talking point of one side, but every time the people involved talk about it, they oversell it substantially. I don't think the case has actually been made that it is true. I think instead it is simply asserted to be true, and anybody who disagrees is shouted down as anti-science, or a "hippie."

Even your own statement, it is very strongly worded including a bunch of absolutes that ensure that the claims are not literally true, as stated. It is rather trivial to name safer energy sources. You need a whole pile of caveats to make it true, and if you state it with those required elements, then it will no longer just be some triumphant sort of, "we're right, we're 110% right, 120% right, we're the most right of anybody ever," etc.

You even find it necessary to disown real disasters, to suggest that Chernobyl doesn't count, somehow.

The reality is that you have to support those claims. You're saying it is super-safe, I'm saying that is contested and unclear. It is known to be a contested point. That it is not agreed on scientifically is a known known. You want to prove that it is not in dispute, that it is some sort of agreed fact that it is "safe," it is up to you to go into the weeds and prove that.

And the reality is that you'll end up making a bunch of value judgements about non-energy-related perils in the world, and balance them all, and assign blame, and apply geopolitical theories about resource access, before you can even make a claim for one position or the other. And you'll be sitting on a giant pile of contested points.

It is not going to become uncontested merely by handwaving or body language.

Suggesting somebody might be "off their rocker" somewhat precludes your complaint about a lack of politeness. It certain makes it unlikely that the person address thusly will be concerned.

As for the semantics, they are as written and it shouldn't be ambiguous. If you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense to you, that is fine. As with other things that you don't understand, you can parse it until you find a way of doing so where it makes sense, in which case you probably understood the intended meaning. Or you can just call it names and move on.

You offered a substantial insult to a set of people, "mathematicians in the direct employ of NSA" who are probably very intelligent people who have no doubt already thought about the implications of their work. They are certainly more capable of such analysis than pundits. You seem to be completely unaware how patronizing and presumptuous your analysis was, even while getting particularly sensitive of your own feelings simply from somebody defending the ability of mathematicians to exercise free will successfully.

Government funding of things is everybody's business. People's moral codes are personal. And [worked with a group whose civics and/or politics I am opposed to] does not in any way imply they have a moral deficiency. Any more than you disliking a group approved of by mathematicians would mean they should question your morality.

The words "won't crack open the cases" implies zero risk. "Won't." In the context of unknown future disasters, even. It shows a complete disregard for probability, and for safety analysis based on facts.

How would you get it there without risk? There will be great risk in moving it. It is not obvious that the risk is less, even if the final storage is perfect.

It is obvious that for many of the people on the transportation route the risk will vastly go up, especially for people who have chosen collectively not to have any nuclear plants in their region. I've yet to hear of any transportation plan other than, "too bad."

With on-site storage, at least the risk is distributed according to an area having already accepted that exact risk.

The closest you can come to no risk is a nuclear industry press release, or a magic pony.

No, it is not obvious at all that somebody being demonized is automatically evil, or that somebody being revered is good.

Haven't you read Job?!

You lost me at "infinitely more expensive."

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.