I'm trying to think of what is excluded by that, but I can only come up with flounder, which is quite edible.

How can the state of California guarantee that without price controls, then.

I'd like to see some stats on that. I'm sure that the stats agree that driving slower results in fewer injuries when accidents occur, but how does the enforcement itself affect the quantity of those accidents?

All too often I am in freely flowing traffic close to the speed limit and blue & red lights reflect off of something and all of a sudden a wall of brake lights as people slow to well under the posted limit. Frequently traffic was such that the vehicles involved weren't actually speeding before the velocity shift.

I haven't seen statistics on it, but I cannot imagine that the speed changes from "ticket avoidance" are helping accident stats.

I think he has worked out a way to make money on it. Step one is to drum up interest by talking about the one that was lost....

It should be two cocktails by your reckoning, unless the cocktails are being mixed too strong. (which, if the numerous restaurant/bar improvement reality shows are any indication is pretty much a near-certainty...)

And the problem is that if you're going to set a limit based on blood concentration, you have to choose where that limit is. If you choose too high of a limit, there is a chance that some subset of the population will be (even slightly) impaired, and you'll get the blame when one of those people (even a small percentage of the also small percentage of people who drive after drinking will still have a reasonable chance of being non-zero when you multiply by a third of a billion people.) causes injury or death.

There doesn't seem to be a downside to lowering the limit, so it seems it will ever creep downward. I suppose it will finally stop when we reach the level of natural fermentation within our own blood, though. It would be quite a tyranny to assign criminal blame for someone who simply doesn't metabolize the alcohol which has naturally fermented from the sugars in his blood as fast as most people.

One wonders who supports the drug laws most loudly (other than the LEO's who get to play with cool, expensive paramilitary gear). The superior-to-thou teetotalers, or the drug smugglers themselves. An end to prohibition would also be an end to the profit margins of the illegal drug trade.

We went to the moon when space programs were about proving how accurate your missile guidance systems were and gentle on the payload.

All of the threats and proof to back them without actually blowing up something and sparking off round after round of retaliatory fire.

There is plenty of power from hamster wheel generators, it's only a matter of raising enough hamsters and feed.

The question isn't how much energy is available in the form of wind or solar. It is obvious from the size of the disk of the earth, the insolation at sea level, and the energy needs of the current civilization that, even if we raise all people to the consumption level of the average US'er, and use panels whose efficiency is conservatively calculated at our current capability, there is enough solar power for all human activities.

Wind, i have not researched sufficiently, though I suspect the total extractable energy across the entire planet still exceeds our energy needs.

One question of wind and solar is that you don't get to pick where and when you are supplied. For a global system, maybe it averages out, but you still don't get to pick where, so you need to be able to supply everywhere in the world from anywhere in the world. Grid capacity is not sufficient and I'm not sure 40 years of rollout is enough to get it there.

Another is will.

I live in an area that is pretty ideal for wind power. It is not only strong, but also fairly consistent. A recent windmill in my area was, under the retail rules, offsetting electric usage in amounts roughly equivalent to a fifth of its installation cost. That windmill remained in operation for well under three years and is now derelict due to the installing company (I suspect a cut-out for the generator manufacturer.....) going out of business, invalidating the maintenance contract. Unable to find a new maintenance contract, without maintenance, it was allowed to continue operating until the generator was damaged beyond repair.

There are a sprinkling of windmills in my area, but there does not seem to be the will to maintain them, or their maintenance is simply too great an expenditure to justify their continued existence.

Is 30 years enough time to clean up the shenanigans that are currently going on? I hope so. I'd like to see a windmill someone actually cared about. But we can bring on real replacements to base-load plants in closer to decade-scale by going with nuclear. The clock starts whenever we stop holding it back.

Perhaps verboten, but those terms are often unenforceable. Reverse engineering the server protocol from the client for creating a compatible server is almost certainly protected.

That's like what, 1,000 wind turbines? Good luck getting people to let you put them up.

For some species, possibly, although species are going extinct all the time for various reasons and there is little we can do about most of them. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not at risk of extinction in even the direst of CO2-based climate projections.

If you think "it's clear that solar and wind are our future" then you have either a poor understanding of the energy needs of our current civilization, or you have a very long view of "our future." Certainly solar/wind and deep geothermal are in "our" future, but the current energy needs cannot be supplied by them yet. To present them as a viable alternative to fossil fuels at the current time undermines the urgency which you claim halting CO2 emissions requires.

The other problems they had probably weren't interesting to reporters.

It's better to spell out the exceptions than to simply capriciously enforce the existing laws. Poor enforcement leads to contempt for the law.

Speeding enforcement is a good example. It is so poorly enforced that nearly everyone exceeds the speed limit on nearly every stretch of road they travel on. The degree to which people do so, though, varies quite a bit. Is "10 over" ok? If 10 why not 20, you're already breaking the law (*)...

(*) in states where it is illegal to exceed the posted limit. In "prima facie" states, I guess you need to consider what really is safe.

They supplied up in Kuwait on the persian gulf, before setting off for battle in Tripoli, on the Mediterranean sea, 70 years before the suez canal was built?

Plenty of businesses cut hours. Employees aren't too keen on that, though, as for some it means that they need to get a second, possibly lower paying, job to pay for the kids, which they now have even less time to spend with.

Perhaps it's possible for the business to cut hours without cutting pay, and that would be a great benefit for the employees if they could swing that, but if they're in a competitive industry and the other companies cut hours and pay, they might not continue to be competitive. The customers don't really care if the employees are happy, with the possible exception of free trade coffee buyers.