Poor people can't use their wealth to shield themselves from the consequences of their own stupidity, so yes.

I observe this fact every weekend in a nearby wealthy neighborhood where I go to eat at good restaurants. Stupid rich people who don't know how to obey traffic signals (both drivers and pedestrians), don't know how to operate simple machines (soft serve machines shouldn't cause issues for observant adults), and who generally seem to expect everyone to make allowances for their blundering and incompetence.

Car? First sale doctrine. It's yours.

Software? It's not yours, you (most likely) agreed to a license to use it, which may include a fee per feature.

Are click through licenses, after purchase / install valid? Debatable, and untested in the court room.

In Australia ATM, a dodgy deal with the monopoly owners of the grid's "poles and wires" has enabled and encouraged a massive over investment. Causing prices to rise for just about everyone. At the same time, in response to recent economic woes, the government was offering large subsidies to residential investment in solar panels.

As I travel around our suburbs now, solar is everywhere. And there is actually talk about the grid going into a death spiral. Their customers are reacting to rising prices by installing more solar arrays, even though the government subsidies have ended. There's a good chance that some of the over investment in the grid will never be needed at all.

gtall wrote:

Einstein's theory of relativity was theoretical at first. It was only later that scientists were able to devise experiments to test it

Actually, you have that exactly wrong: Einstein's theory of special relativity was a direct attempt to explain a specific experimental result, the negative results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment to verify the existence of the liminiferous aether. The Michelson-Morley results were published in 1887, and Einstein published special relativity in 1905.

When there are poor or no lane markers, especially when there's no double yellow in a two-lane, two-way local highway. Or when construction's shifted the lanes away from their original positions and the old lane markers haven't been erased so cleanly. Or when there are periodic potholes the size of half-basketballs in the most-used tire lanes (tire lanes being the path your car's tires take). Or when the lane is both narrow with inches to spare on either side, and shifts suddenly, and there's a H2 up ahead in the other lane going at half the speed limit. Or when a 45MPH highway has a sudden 20MPH curve, and the lanes are narrow to boot.

This kind of autonomous driving may work when both road and weather conditions are ideal, but something a little smarter would be necessary for even slightly harsher situations. In the extreme case, a lot of driving under extremely limited visibility is basically a high-stakes game of follow the leader. Essentially, it's not enough to be able to perceive the environment; driving under those conditions requires perceiving the actions of other like actors (and relying on the assumption that those actors are sane).

The editors aren't even trying anymore.

No, they're just going put him through the millimeter wave scanner and then claim that it cures ebola afterwards.

They didn't include property in the Declaration because they were seizing the assets of British sympathizers (Tories) at that very time.

The hypocrisy in the government goes way back.

The NSA is run by a four-star admiral and a four-star general before that. It is a branch of the military already.

You're thinking of armed forces intelligence like the Military Intelligence and Naval Intelligence guys. I can't think that they'd be much better if tasked with the same mission.

What needs to change is the mission, not the agency.