Perhaps the moral equivalent, perhaps. But a landmine will remain lethal for decades, if not longer, and as far as I know there are none that have been deployed that can be easily turned off. Nor did those who placed them keep any real record of where they were for retrieval later.

There's little chance of a couple hundred killbots being left in place and active after a conflict ends. And hopefully they won't default into a kill children, puppies, and anything that moves mode. Plus they won't be as cheap an plentiful as mines either.

The truly deplorable part about landmines is that a civilian who wasn't even born before the conflict ended could be killed or injured by one 30 years after a peace treaty was signed.

Baby Godzilla now has a toy to play with.

From TFA:

Perhaps tomorrows episode of Sesame Street will have Godzilla as a guest star.

Brought to you by the letter "I" and the number "3".

Obviously I don't know exactly what they are thinking. But they are fairly intelligent killing machines. If you've ever seen one attack prey, it's rather obvious most attacks on humans are nothing like that. usually they swim up slowly compared to an attack.

They also don't have hands to check things out. They can grab stuff with their mouth to see how squishy it is though. Unfortunately for us, they were designed to be predators and not scientists. So a light bite can cause considerable damage to people. When you see images of survivors with shark bites on their torso, it's obvious that the shark wasn't trying to kill them. Mainly because there are teeth marks there instead of a shark mouth shaped section missing from their abdomen. Unfortunately limbs are not very resistant to these types of bites either.

I'm not saying that this is the case all of the time. But certainly a majority.

But their teeth are composed of calcium. A toothless shark isn't nearly as much of a threat. Especially considering most "shark attacks", on humans, are them just being curious as to what we are.

Well, we do have a lot of wheat here.

I purpose a new EULA for all newborns. They must acknowledge that being born will be hazardous to their health. I just haven't worked out the recourse if they refuse to acknowledge it. I'm pretty sure they can't go back where they came from.

Screw that, it sounds too complicated. I'm just going to buy a bunch of gold, hire some hot looking lesbian pilots to spray sleeping gas on Fort Knox and then set off a nuke in the vault. I'm probably going to need a laser and a large Asian who wears a bowler hat with a chakram brim too.

As opposed to what? Brain dead "Liberals" like Nancy Pelosi? Seriously, what passes for Liberal or Conservative these days is a bad joke. Damn near anyone, on either side, in politics has nothing on their mind other than how to get reelected and have more power. There's damn few issues that you can't find a politician switching opinions on once they're in office long enough.

FTFY. If you're going to go for a cover version, William Shatner covered it six years earlier than Elton John, and Shatner's version was funnier.

It's been a while since I've studied them, but I think they can generate a force equal to a .22 caliber round with those sound waves.

There are two types of Mantis shrimp attacks. The "spearers" and "smashers". The smashers have the fastest known attack of any animal known to us at the moment, and until recently the fastest known voluntary motion of any animal. Their clubbing appendages accelerate over 10,000g. Even if they don't directly strike their prey, the shock wave of the bubbles (created by cavitation) collapsing will kill their prey. If they don't miss, they first get hit by the shrimp and then again by the shock waves.

Mantis shrimp also have the most complex eyes of any known animal. Over all a really cool critter. I've kept them in aquariums, and they adapt well and will learn to recognize you after a short period of time and shed their shy nature. But they can be a nightmare if they end up in an aquarium as an unwanted hitchhiker. They usually kill the most expensive inhabitants first.

And solar, wind and hydroelectric are any different? The materials needed for those also needs to come from somewhere and refined. Then transported to where they'll be used.

Granted, the waste disposal issue needs to be figured out for nuclear. But hydroelectric, solar and wind have their own issues. Hydroelectric has the issue of environmental impact, and catastrophic failures from hydroelectric has killed and displaced more people than the other three combined.

While techniques for solar panel production have been developed to recapture the waste, how much of that is actually being used? Particularly in the Chinese plants? EoL Solar disposal is another issue. At the moment there aren't that many 25+ year old panels to worry about. But if solar becomes a sizable percentage of power generation, then better/easier disposal options are going to become vital. And rather than hundreds of nuclear plant to collect waste from, there will be tens of thousands, or more, residential installations.

Wind probably has the least drawbacks. The last time I looked into it, residential unit were woefully poor. In the commercial units birds and people not wanting to see them are the biggest issues. However, as someone who has worked with fiberglass and carbon fiber, epoxy is not exactly something that you want to be exposed to without proper breathing and protective gear. Still, it's probably the easiest to contain.

You're in the wrong line dumb ass.