Lots of states have laws that state you can't hold up traffic behind you in the left lane, no matter what speed you are going at.

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. ...in America.

Nuclear energy is the most ecologically viable option in existence. The problems with not being able to build shiny, reliable new ones is a governmental and societal problem, not a nuclear one.

Or do you think pumping radioactive coal ash in the air is more ecologically viable?

Anti-life suffers from the same problems. Let's say I want 3 children. If the first one is born with some disability that costs more time, energy, and resources than I can afford for the next two children I wanted, you've now prevented the birth of two healthy children so that one disabled one can live. One child that I do not want. Who now is anti-life? I could spin it as pro-prevent-healthy-babies-from-ever-being-born.

I have to admit, the trolling possibilities are tempting...

No, it's very easy, and humans are terrible at it--but as usual every driver thinks they are "better than average". Programming a car to not run into anything is easy.

I don't think by joyride he means the teenager type of joyride. He means cruising and enjoying driving. You know, obeying the law and all. Classic car drivers are one of the most responsible groups, which is why classic car insurance is considerably cheaper.

Not likely in your lifetime, probably not your kids either. There will only be immediate benefits for us. I'm all for less cars on the road due to improved efficiency, and the cars that are automated on the road are going to be much, much safer. So, you can enjoy driving your classic with less fear of some teen in an air cushioned behemoth killing you and your car.

Taxi's without the taxi driver, which costs money.

In a bizarre collision of the two, a school I used to go to had some students that wanted to protest some gun control measure or something. They were to wear empty holsters and shirts with guns on them or something.

So, the school responded to their declared intent by saying they could only protest in the designated "Free Speech Zone", couldn't wear holsters, nor could they wear any shirts that were "threatening", (iow, "Had guns pictured on them").

Law suit comes, sees, conquers.

Ignoring the gun control part for the moment... what the hell? Free Speech Zone... at a school? What perversion of culture is this crap?

Where they there to see it trapped? Then how do they know!?

I find it not a surprise. Because NPR. .50 ant-materiel rifles, especially bolt-action ones are available in even some of the most restrictive states. Yet there doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Really, there's not much of a problem with "assault weapons" other than sensationalism. Income disparity + handguns are by far the problem if you want to be rational about it.

Right. Because this wasn't possible (or not done before) with hunting rifles?

That's cute and all, but GM crops are the future. You can't feed 70 bazillion people on normal crops.

I can agree. Gun Free Zones were declared unconstitutional the first time around. Then Congress was like, "But our students are scared of guns, and they might work in a different state at some point, therefore commerce clause!" It seems to have worked really well. I mean, you've never heard of any massacres in Gun Free Zones, have you?