Wrong (almost certainly). The best evidence is that "morning after pill" works by preventing fertilisation, not by inducing abortion, as you'd know if you'd read the RA (though of course this is /, so there wasn't much chance of that).

What have abortions got to do with it? This is about contraception, not abortion.

I suspect the biggest issue isn't technical. At the moment, if a driver drives full speed into a line of kids crossing the road it's the driver who ends up in court. If it's an autonomous self-driving vehicle, it's likely the vehicle manufacturer who ends up in court.

I don't expect the lawyers to allow these vehicles on the road in my lifetime.

I don't think you understand what "a priori" means in the theory of knowledge. And it looks as if you don't understand how science works, either. Try reading some Kant.

In US English, true. But in British English the sentence was correctly punctuated as it stood, and putting the stop inside the quotes would be seen as a blunder (or resented as a creeping Americanism).

Good job she came with me, so I didn't have to calculate the relativistic effect of only one of us making the journey.

It's not by definition the fastest information can travel. It's the fastest according to our current understanding, which might be wrong.. The OP confused a priori with a posteriori truth -- logical certainty with scientific confidence.

Susan Pinker's The Sexual Parodox refers to the observation that as women's rights improve the number of women in traditionally men's professions keeps rising and then goes into reverse, settling at a lower level than the peak (but far higher than in the society with poor women's rights). The effect seems to be tat a desire for "equality" means that women are pushed into jobs they don't want to do because they're assumed to be socialised to the point of being incapable of deciding for themselves (what Pinker calls the "infantilisation of women"). Eventually, women get enough liberty to resist that. So both sides have a measure of truth. Those concerned for women's rights are correct that there can be social factors excluding women from certain professions, but the opponents are right that the search for numerical equality can lead to an overshoot and press individual women into unsuitable jobs. The challenge is to find out which side of that line we're on.

Well, if it automatically sent a rude message to anybody who posted bitstrips and then automatically blocked them, it would save me some work. And there'd be no back and forth.

That's fine. You're welcome to stay in your bunker.

Interesting that you got on well with those with whom you shared a common [1] native language, and didn't with those you didn't, isn't it?

[1] Approximately.

Sure the US Government is obsessed with rule of law. Like most governments in most places and at all times (since "rule of law" took hold), it's obsessed with finding ways to get away with circumventing it.

Well, wouldn't want to make the condition worse, after all,,,

Basically, the lesson they should have learned from Fukushima is not to build reactors in areas prone to tsunamis.

Exactly. I clicked through a few of the questions, and it was one of the few online contexts I can think of where pretending to be a teenage female gaming geek wouldn't get me into trouble.