Works poorly because of operator limitations?

There's a band of error to all operations; I would expect a suitable band could be chosen for automated flight. For non-automated flight, a list of requirements to provide an experienced pilot a reasonable chance of success. And fail safes for problems - such as automatic recovery deployment in the event of an critical flight sustainability error. There are no perfect methods, but there are acceptable risks.

I should add - it's not illegal to decrypt your own media for personal uses which are allowed under fair use and other laws, but it's not legal for anyone else to help you do so. It's like locking you in a cell and saying that you may leave any time, which is your right, if you choose to unlock the door. But you can't hire anyone to unlock it for you, give you a key, or even teach you locksmithing. It's a fucked up world.

Code can be a weapon (stuxnet, et al.). It isn't, in this case, of course - but it can be.

There are several tacks to take on this particular file. From the point of view of the State Dept, it looks like they are regulating this similar to encryption and weaponizable technologies which are regularly embargoed. For example, it's not unusual to be restricted from selling a project which contains encryption technology the NSA can't break. It's also illegal to sell - or even give away - a program which removes encryption from encrypted media (DVDs, BluRay discs).

Of course, he still has to show he has been harmed in order to have standing. It will be interesting to see this play out.

If it were all about money, they'd hire all women and only have to pay them 78c on the dollar. Amiright?

Wouldn't these be considered trade secrets and under the responsibility of the sorority to guard against disclosure? If the physical pieces are not trademarked, nor the written contents or acts copyrighted as a performance. Note that a quick Google shows they were founded in 1913, which would make all of their original text public domain.

(Oh, and Streisand Effect, of course)

If they do (and it's unlikely as there's a *lot* of legacy that stays in the tax code regardless of changes for future options), having a Roth is no worse than having a regular savings account. Actually, its better because all of the gains and dividends are tax free while they're in the account. Worst case is you roll it into a non-retirement account and pay taxes on the gains, probably on an extended time frame for capture.

Specifically, I am referring to a return to federalism, with the vast majority of citizens' government coming from the state and local levels. You know, the way this system was intended to work.

Or any soy product that has not been fermented...

Most of the time that's correct, but I see it with surprising frequency on level terrain. I think most of them are simply not paying full attention to the road; perhaps they're fiddling with a cell phone.

It's the same reason people sometimes fail to notice that the light has turned green. I mean, why should they pay attention, it's not like they're *driving* or anything...

Yeah, but it always happened when they were gone...it was like those god damned aliens *waited* until lunch time to pull their stunt, and no matter how fast the scientists rushed to get back - sometimes not even waiting until the food was done - it always happened right before they got back. ;-)

(btw - I naturally didn't rtfa, but if they worked odd shifts from time to time it would have show up occasionally during non-work hours, throwing them off.)

Apparently this is confusing some of you. So I'll explain how it works in the USA.

Hypothetically, let's say you cause a car accident, as in this imaginary accident is 100% your fault. As a result of this accident, another person is injured and requires medical care. Your own car insurance policy has a line item called Bodily Injury Coverage. That coverage would pay for the injured person's medical expenses.

The injured person would not file a claim with their health insurance company (assuming they have one) because you, as the person who caused the accident, are held responsible for any expenses you caused to the injured person.

I was simply asking if car insurance works that way overseas. Instead of a private insurance company that you may or may not have, you have NHS. While the NHS is provided as a public service, the care they provide does have a cost. I wanted to know if NHS bears that cost even when there is an at-fault party who caused the problem, or whether in those specific cases, the at-fault party (via their car insurance liability policy) was expected to cover it.

You could ask me that, yes. Or you could put just a slight bit of thought into it and consider that there is a more reasonable alternative, which is that the drunk driver's insurance would cover this as part of liability coverage. Perhaps NHS could kick in if that's unavailable?

There's loads of ways this could be done, and since I am not knowledgable about the nuances of laws governing nations across the Atlantic, I ask questions instead of making assumptions. That's all.

"One would need to start with a giant wrecking ball and remove everything ever built there and then set a population cap on an entirely new city to be built in its place.

Your proposal is acceptable.

I asked about a procedure with my ENT a while back. He actually didn't know the total cost (though it was fairly common). He thought his fees would be in the 2k range, but he didn't know what the hospital would charge for a few hours of a room, operating theater, and support. So I called the hospital - and they didn't know either.

MSAs (medical savings accounts) already exist, but are limited to people who choose HDHPs (high deductable health plans, with special limits) and to about $3k/yr for singles and $6k/yr for families. It's your money, going pre-tax into your savings/investment account and able to be withdrawn for medical uses tax free. It's not federal government.

What we need is a way to ensure that services are not billed to private clients (individuals) for more than large corporate clients (insurers). If I pay cash for a procedure, I shouldn't be charged 5-10X what I would be charged if I were insured.