If that's all it could offer, then what would be the point?

True... but they have to demonstrate that they are safer by a margin that is large enough to be statistically significant, which is why how much safer they would be actually matters.

So you won't, in other words.

I mean sure... they'll eventually get to that point, but the number of years of statistics they are going to have to collect on millions of driverless cars driving, collectively travelling billions or even trillions of miles to determine exactly how much safer they are than cars that utilize human drivers is going to be enough that most people alive today probably won't see it happen.

Consider that without a price, a person doesn't even have the OPTION of buying one...

And of course, price *IS* important in the real world... most people don't pay more money for something if they do not genuinely believe that it carries a value that is worth the amount of time and energy that it took to earn that amount of money. That's all very well and good if you have infinite amounts of cash, but most of us do not, and have to do menial things like budget. That involves knowing what your expenses are likely to be, and what kind of time frame it would take to pay for things that you do get.

I would suggest that the much bigger problem with a lack of price means that it's currently impossible to get one at all, since the giveaway period has also expired.

There's no price yet because they're giving away the first production run to people who are going to do interesting things with them...

If that were actually the real reason that they don't have a price on it, then that would also imply that they do not want anyone to have one who doesn't already know what they want to do with it, and has an idea that *THEY* approve of.

[nt]

It becomes pitch black. He is liable to eat himself.

*YOU* might not... but your great-great or great-great-great grandchildren might... I am presuming that you'd be living on a generational spaceship where the gravity can be slowly modified so that by the time they arrive, they would be fully acclimated to the higher gravity.

As a larger planet, however, since force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, the surface gravity of a world otherwise equivalent in density to another ends up rises linearly with the diameter of the planet. If it is of similar composition to earth, then 5.4 earth masses would make it cbrt(5.4) times the size of earth, or roughly 1.75g at the planet's surface. Assuming that the atmospheric density is comparable to earth's (possible, even with greater gravity if the atmosphere itself is proportionally thinner), then this is theoretically survivable by human beings for short periods, or even prolonged ones if they were able to acclimate to the increased gravitation pull gradually, over a span of several years, giving time for skeletal tissue to build up and strengthen the body's structure to survive the increased tension.

I'm pretty sure that regardless of what the court or this judge feels, the government will do whatever the heck it wants. And in the end, how would anyone force the US government to comply with the court order?

That's entirely true... my point is that there is no actual legislation that requires the employee to take a break... and that the employee must still be paid for all time worked unless there was an explicit agreement to the contrary in the employment contract which would have been signed by the employee when they started working for that employer. Even then, certain rights to being fully paid for time worked cannot be legally forfeited, regardless of what kinds of agreements were made.

But certainly, yes... an employer is at liberty to discipline an employee who works unauthorized hours, in whatever fashion is commensurate with that company's disciplinary policies. Even if the hours were not authorized, barring any employment contract which explicitly indicates otherwise, as I mentioned above, the employee is still legally required to be paid for the time they worked, and cannot legally deduct time for a lunch break from the employee's pay if it was not actually taken.

Of course, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try and avoid an accident with a car behind me, since the actualy responsibility for that goes to the driver that is behind me. If I feel I need to stop or slow down to assess an unexpected situation, I will do so, because I have a responsibility to not cause an accident ahead of me with my own vehicle.

The Colorado laws regarding meal breaks govern the activities of the employer, not the employee. The employer is entirely free to discipline an employee who has worked more time than was authorized under the company's normal disciplinary policies, but the employee must still be paid for all time that they worked.

"The employer is required to provide" is not actually the same thing as "the employee is required to take". An employer cannot deduct time for a lunch break that was not taken. The employer can, however, discipline an employee for failing to take a lunch break when they were supposed to, and can refuse to honor the time worked during the expected lunch break if this is stipulated in the employment contract. In absence of any such contract, the employee is still required to be paid for all time worked.