[citation needed]

Because of the low fleet flight hours, that one accident gave it the worst safety record of that generation of aircraft. It was retired because it would have been too expensive to make it safe.

Trust me -- whatever country you're in, the right side of the road is the opposite one to the oncoming traffic.

You never ride the subway, then? I don't think trains have steering wheels...

If you're going to drive slowly, the left lane is just the place to do it. You did notice that the article is about the UK, right?

(And I hope they do follow the rules of the road. That will include not pulling out at 65 mph into the path of a car doing 75 mph.)

What has any of this got to do with the ontological argument? Or cosmology? And neither dualism nor (most forms of) idealism have anything to do with solipsism. Are you actually reading what I'm writing? Or just responding to what you wish I'd written? You said "materialism is based on physics". Ok, where's the empirical evidence that favours materialism over rival metaphysical positions, and how would materialism be scientifically falsifiable?

Er, no. How can you possibly base materialism (a metaphysical position) on physics? Materialism is (usually) an assumption of physics (some, though not many, physicists assume dualism instead). If you try to use physics to argue for materialism you have a circular argument; the most you can claim from that is that materialism and physics are consistent with each other. Which of course they are, that doesn't make materialism the only metaphysical position consistent with physics.

Dualism is based on nothing, true, but the same can be said for materialism and idealism. You've stepped outside science and into metaphysics, in just the way I described.

Now, it is possible to reason about metaphysics, but trying to argue from science ("based on nothing"), ad-hominem attacks ("don't know shit about "mind" beyond their baseless dogma and refuse to learn about brains") and handwaving ("woo") doesn't make for a coherent case.

Try reading "Aping Humanity" by Raymond Tallis -- prominent atheist, neuroscientist and philosopher -- and you might learn that things are more complex than you think. Assuming you're willing to move beyond baseless dogma, that is.

Much of the rest of the planet (not all) is less polarised between science and religion, and finds ways -- with varying degrees of intellectual credibility -- of accommodating both without significant conflict. Typically that will involve accepting the science where it's pretty definitive (eg, evolution) whilst leaving things open when the science tries to stray into metaphysics (eg, dualism versus materialism).

Actually, there is a good online one-stop-shop available: Google (other search engines are available). If I want a book, DVD or pretty much anything else I Google to see who has it available and at what price. If Amazon don't, hey, I probably won't even notice; I'll be busy comparing price and delivery options for the companies that do.

That's in dispute. It hinges on whether the app that Uber divers use to calculate the fare constitutes a taximeter or not. Uber (and Transport for London) say it doesn't because there's no physical connection required with the vehicle, whereas the black cab and minicab drivers say it does because it's a device that calculates the fare based on measured distance travelled. The case has yet to come to court, and until it does nobody really knows whether it's legal or not (personally I suspect it isn't, but IANAL).

I'd like to see that evidence. Worldwide, that is, not just the USA.

And the time series of gun control and violence -- after all, it couldn't be that the gun control is a response to the violence, could it?

Yes, I spend a lot of my leisure time reading today's "great" literary fiction, and like much of it. I didn't much like Franzen's The Corrections, but then, Franzen's degree is in German, which offers other career opportunities if that writing thing doesn't work out for him. I've not read Don DeLillo, but I note that his degree is in "Communication Arts", but also that he worked as an advertising copywriter before becoming an author, so it looks as if that degree offers other career paths that pay better than waiting at tables.

Still counts as a "liberal art" -- it has general application, rather than being specifically vocational.

They're more likely to your boss (or, more likely given your blinkered attitude, governing the welfare system you depend on) than waiting tables.

Depends. What do you count as "important"? A lot of great books (which do have commercial value, for the Gradgrinds reading this) are written by English Lit graduates, and are likely better for that. Of course, being an author isn't a "tenure-track job", which the OP seems to think is the only sort of job that matters.