How about they actually solve a murder, rape, or kidnapping once in a while? 35% of murders don't get solved .. maybe when they get that number down to like 5% I'll start believing the feds when they say it's gonna rain tomorrow.

In the FBI's defense, it should be noted that they don't investigate murders or rapes, unless they happen on Federal property. Local police handle murders and rapes.

Kidnapping are an FBI thing. Though only since the Lindbergh kidnapping. That was so high profile that J. Edgar thought he could get some great press for the FBI by solving it, so he horned in on what had been just another crime before.

Yeppers.

For me, the biggest attraction of a driverless car is that I could go to work, then send it home. Or send it to pick the kids up from school.

I doubt it's ideal, but I use PasswordSafe and carry it on a USB stick.

And in the end, there are only about three computers I ever access it from.

Hmm, a quick bit of research finds that MOX fuel rods are basically PuO2, which doesn't do the pyrophoric thing - it's stable in dry air, heats up slowly in the presence of water vapor.

Which at least suggests that the panic at the thought of a Pu fire is a bit exaggerated....

Note also that spent fuel rods have rather less Pu in them than you might think, since most of it has been burned in the nuclear reactor before it became "spent".

Btw, how do you distinguish between defamation/slander and critics in the US?

Slander/defamation in the USA require that the statement be a statement of fact, and that the statement be FALSE.

An opinion cannot be slander/defamation.

A TRUE statement cannot be slander.defamation.

i.e. "I did not like the chateau briand" is a statement of opinion, and therefore not slander/defamation.

"the coffee was served cold" could be slander/defamation is the coffee was, in fact, served hot. If, on the other hand, the coffee arrived at your table cold, it would not be slander/defamation.

"the waitress was a stone-cold bitch" is a statement of opinion, hence not defamation.

"the waitress spat in my soup" is slander/defamation if the waitress did NOT spit in your soup, otherwise not.

I am aware that in many countries that "false" part of "false statement of fact" is not part of the definition of slander/defamation", so saying bad things about someone, even if literally true, can be slander/defamation, but that's not the way it works on this side of the pond.

Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.

For what it's worth, "small government" is not synonymous with "local/State government", nor is "big government synonymous with "Federal government".

A city government, within the bounds of the city, can quite easily be "big government" when it tries to micromanage everything in the city.

Likewise, the Federal government can quite easily be labelled "small government" when it avoids trying to micromanage everything (not that that's actually happened since the New Deal).

A cube measuring about 50 centimeters on a side â" about the size of a typical camping cooler â" could be sufficient to fully charge a cellphone in about 12 hours. While that may seem slow, people in remote areas may have few alternatives.

You're not going to be carrying this thing in a backpack, so it's not like you won't have a car to charge your cellphone.

On the other hand, you might be far enough out in the boonies that you can't get a car to where you are. Of course, the question then becomes "how are you using a cellphone when the nearest cell tower is 40 miles away"?

That aside, if my choice reduced to carrying a cube 20 inches on a side to charge my cellphone or eight extra cellphone batteries, I know which I'd pick.

Your sales tax is due in the state that you reside, not the state the purchase takes place in

Interesting theory you have.

When I buy something in Tennessee, I pay sales tax in TN, NOT in my state of residence. Likewise if I buy something in any other State.

Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!"

And every time we have an unusual hurricane, the people who were saying "weather is not climate" point at the hurricane and say "see, proof positive of global warming!".

Guys, weather is NOT climate. Even when the weather supports your side of the argument, it's not climate.

Or maybe they know their electricity comes from a source they're okay with? (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro)

Most of the AGW discussion I see here (and elsewhere) considers nuclear to be even worse than AGW, so it's unlikely that knowing their electricity comes from nuclear would give them a warm fuzzy.

I congratulate you, by the by, for recognizing that nuclear is a good thing from an AGW perspective.

Is a possible interpretation of the data that "people who don't use much energy, don't feel the need to worry about climate change"?

Yes, that's possible. It's always been true that smug people worry less about everything that doesn't increase their excuses to be smug.

Note that using less energy does NOT translate to "climate change isn't going to happen" (haven't seen a single proposal that reduces CO2 emissions to net zero), so, at best, we're talking slowing the process down until we're all dead and leaving it for our grandchildren to deal with....

No, if you'll read TFS more carefully, that's the description of the test in April. I doubt they have much info on the latest test to make public yet.

They would hope to set the course shortly after leaving Pluto.

They would hope to set course shortly before reaching Pluto. A gravity assist from Pluto will significantly increase the size of course change that could be made.

*cheers*

Very astute of you, Fuzzy^2 Fungus....

As opposed to gold, which has never seen the price move.

Generally, when the price of gold moves, it's as a result of a sudden influx in supply (can you say, Forty-Niners? the original ones, not the football team), or a sudden (or not so sudden) change in the money supply.

In other words, gold costs much more now than it did back in the day because we've printed much more money....