Don't know about the cars, but most corporate owned semi-trucks are governed to between 65 to 68 depending on company (and I'm sure a couple have the governor set higher, but that's the usual range).

Of course there will be - in any large pool of people of any calling there's going to be morons - the sort of morons that sniff the OS version string for things like "Windows 9" and then assume it's Windows 95 or 98 and refuse to work; instead of using the proper channels to query for the OS version number.

As a PHP programmer I can testify that morons can indeed program. I'm one of them.

Or they'll switch to angular.js and similar technologies to deliver the content. No js, no content. If adblock interferes, crash the page, log the ip and block the user.

Adblock will of course try to stop this. And the cat & mouse game will have begun.

Apples and Oranges freeloader.

Sharing music doesn't degrade the performance of the artist's servers, and how often you share it doesn't cost them anything directly (indirectly there's a perceived loss of profits, but since when did freeloaders pay for anything so it's a red herring). Besides, the real money for artists is in concerts, not records.

Stripping a site of its ads denies the site owner of the revenue of those ads while still costing him the bandwidth to send you the content. So there is a direct cost. Insignificant in terms of a single freeloader, but if everyone on the net used adblock, the net would collapse because there'd be no revenue to pay for the servers.

So yes, if you use adblock you're a freeloader, and worse, a thief.

Translation: I'm a worthless freeloader.

In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"

We see this in our current political system as well - wingnuts running the show in both parties because reasonable people won't speak up.

Time and again I've seen this on forums I've been on that have been unmoderated, such as the OkCupid forums. After awhile, only the rudest and the crudest remain there along with those willing to tolerate them.

Consider that if California was an independent nation it would rank as the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, then think on that comment some more. It's not too surprising.

Indeed Sony has it up to 185 tb now. Impressive by anyone's count - and why would anyone want to archive on blue ray disks with those baby's around. With archiving, random access to the data is mostly moot.

You suspect wrong. Australia has powerful laws to control what banks can charge for written to protect its citizens. The US has powerful laws to grant authority to banks to charge for anything written to exploit its citizens.

...there will be no automated car. The legal system is so screwed up right now no company, even one 100 times Google's size, could hope to absorb the lawsuit costs.

I was experimenting with these things at the University of Kentucky back in 97 or so, and the professor at that time said a few feet. That accuracy has improved since then doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me to find a unit from '97 or so that was accurate to the inch, but I could believe it. I am not an expert in the technology though - just giving the general reason why ground stations are important.

GPS is normally only accurate to within a few yards, and when the system was opened up to civilian use in the late 90's the military put in a discrepancy to the civilian signals so that they'd be off by a few dozen yards.

Then someone hit upon the idea of checking GPS against a known good reading.

GPS base stations do this. They know where they are, exactly. They listen to the GPS satellites report of where the satellites think they are, then broadcast the margin of error out to nearby GPS receivers. As a result, the accuracy of the readings can be gotten exact down to a few feet.

So successful was this that the military eventually discarded the idea of putting in an intentional margin of error for civilian signals.

Obama should grow a pair. Instruct the FCC commissioners to reclassify, or be dismissed. If they call as if he's bluffing, fire all of them and replace them with commissioners that will do the reclassification. These snots serve at the pleasure of the President and, in turn, the people. It's high time someone blew up their perceived fiefdoms.

Then you know nothing beyond what your prejudice limits you to.

Small minds aren't limited to theists. Gnostic atheists display small minded bigotry all the time, as you have just have.

Personally, I'm agnostic, but unusual in that I am an agnostic theist. The Gnostic question (Can God's existence be proven?) and the Theist question (Does God exist?) are too often conflated by laypeople. To anyone who has done even a cursory study of theology, the conflation is as absurd as confusing RAM for diskspace because both are measured in bytes.

Most people who label themselves agnostic simply don't understand the question or are trying to avoid it. An agnostic (under the correct definition of the term) believes an objective proof of God doesn't exist. This is a separate question from whether God exists. I do believe God exists, but the proofs of his existence are subjective and not verifiable by science. A leap of faith is required. God cannot be objectively proven because he doesn't want to be objectively proven.

Most theists are gnostic theists, and most strident atheists are gnostic atheists -- they believe they can prove their belief in 0. We are all computer scientists here - surely if any group understands null and 0 are not strictly equal it would be us yes? The charge of the government is to proceed upon the religion question as null. Usually, but not always, that will turn out in the atheist's favor - just as after all in most computer programs the course of action for the program for 0 or null is the same. But there are times when they are not - calls to destroy churches or make the propagation of beliefs illegal are just as onerous as any other call to set up a single state religion and just as illegal in the United States under the first amendment.

That's essentially the approach the modern Catholic church takes. Broadly speaking: Religion (overall) attempts to subjectively answer 'why?' Science attempts to objectively answer 'how?'. Objective and subjective reasoning methods are largely incompatible to begin with, and anyone used to thinking objectively at all times should find subjective reasoning infuriating and off-putting at best - but it's at the heart of the logic within theology.

Personally, I see evolution as part of the creation, a mechanism no more consequential to the question of God's existence than the rainfall. Besides, if we are truly made in God's image, it should only be natural that we should attempt to understand how we were made on all levels of that question.

The problem I think is small minds need a small God. Every time science pushes the boundaries of what we know about the size and complexity of the universe, ignorant rats scuttle about to stick their heads in the sand and deny the truth of what is observable in the universe, so that they may preserve their small God. If God did indeed make the universe, then the universe itself is the ultimate testament to truth (whatever that is) - not a book - for the universe alone was authored by the hand of God. To deny it is to call God a liar.