Spotify and Pandora would immediately accuse Apple of Dumping (buying the market with low prices to drive the competition out.)

If you need 30 years to be significant then you also need to discount the 30 years of warming prior to 1996 as not significant.

It is also amusing to listen to some news outlets that will have (in the same broadcast) a segment on the failure of peer reviewed science and then later (in the same broadcast) lamenting that the client deniers don't believe in the consensus (of peer reviewed science.)

It appears that the left brain may not know what the right brain does ...

Its not that there are NO examples of civilians (even old ones) killing intruders with guns.

Its just that there are MORE examples of civilians (accidentally or otherwise) killing non-intruders with guns.

Well since www.realclimate.org is an activist website we could assume that they would disagree with anybody that would criticize Mann's work. The entire purpose of that website is to provide backup arguments to any and all climate change denier deniers.

If you want some middle of the road coverage of Mann try judithcurry.com.

Hansen, Mann and Gleick have proved themselves to be (very good) political activists first and scientists a (distant) second.

Or in the case of the last 18 years the worse the fit the (according to the climate change denier deniers) the better.

If it fits its good. If it doesn't fit it is still good. Trust us. The models will work. Even though we used to say 15 years with no temperature increase would invalidate them, we now realize we where wrong. It will take more like 50 years to invalidate them. Really. The science is good. Really really good. Because the models tell us that the science is good.

It is also a more efficient use of capital. Trucking companies invest a large amount of money in their fleet. A 20% more efficient fleet means a corresponding reduction in the amount of money you need to invest in your fleet. If there are other cost reductions as well this becomes compelling.

There are numerous different scenarios. Long haul trucking (for example) may end up being totally autonomous, just having a human driver picked up when close to leaving the freeway system.

Local delivery (Fed Ex, UPS etc) will still have an operator (or perhaps two or more) that can jump out with the package while the delivery truck drives around the block (or drops the second operator at a second location.) While going between locations the operators sort packages. When empty the operators may get dropped off for coffee while the truck heads back to the depot and a second full truck heads out to pick them up.

Its all about effectively managing resources and reducing costs. People will continue to have a place just a different one.

Correct, but for people or cars between 311 and 355 feet they will be alive instead of dead.

This is not a binary solution. Just incrementally better than the current (human drivers) solution.

To be (slightly) fair the 1.1.1 standard was published in 2012. Presumably the first versions where a year or several before that. So most likely this is circa 2008-2010 protocol standard writing.

Doesn't really excuse them. But it wasn't 2015 and not quite as obvious then.

Government official is NOT an accurate description of Goebbels. By that analogy you could say Hitler was just a democratically elected leader following the wishes of his electorate.

Most of the diaries have been available since I believe the 50's or 60's in English translation. They where rescued after the bulk where left to burn in a ditch. So incomplete at best. And chilling to read what is available.

Versus a car chase that injures how many other people and ends with you crashing into a barrier and / or being shot by police as they try to apprehend you.

Not saying its a good idea to have the police control your car... just saying that the current defacto law enforcement is not much better when you get down to it.

Actually for a large group of people (elderly, young, disabled) autonomous cars will provide a remarkable amount of autonomy that they don't have today.

Because one of the first perks that well off people get is to be driven around in cars by other people.

A lot of people like driving, on some roads, for pleasure, some of the time.

That does not describe the vast majority of required driving in most conditions. I.e. to and from work or the mall.

Again, small enough demand that driving clubs will accommodate it. Just like some people own and ride horses, other people will own and drive cars.

The vast majority of people won't own horses or drive their own cars.