It's scary because cars are already deadly and already everywhere. If you give them inadequate security (got) and an internet connection (some have, some are getting) and oh, also make them self-driving (on the way) then their very ubiquity makes the threat realistic. There's not that many people out there with a nice quadcopter capable of long-range flight who also have possession of explosives or even skill to credibly make same without blowing themselves up and you can bet that most of them are being monitored. But self-driving cars will soon be absolutely everywhere...

It's taken us a long time and a lot of energy to fuck up the biosphere this badly. We won't reverse the trend that quickly even if we try. There are other concerns, though. For example, secondary effects from attempts to fix the problem...

That might be true, but if so, that reasoning applies whether or not the charges are true.

What's funny about that? The request to appear was made, then withdrawn, then made again after he had already left the country, having already volunteered to appear and having been declined. Now having let him go, they want him again?

Yes, the anti-nuclear movement told you that would happen, but you ignored them. That was a failure, but it was largely yours.

Riiiiiight. Blaming the victim, real nice. It's not the environmentalists' fault that these old plants are dangerous. That's your fault. You put yourself in the pro-nuclear camp; you want to be there, you can take your share of the responsibility for making this situation possible. Instead, of course, of blaming the people who warned you. Fuck you for that.

Citation needed.

UCLA already proved otherwise. It's obvious why you didn't log in. You only have lies to tell.

Wow, you put all the hypocrisy on one line. That was convenient of you.

Great. It's in no way distinguished from the post which I was addressing, then. Providing a link doesn't mean one has provided meaningful evidence.

Oh no, I'm quite clear that our driving tests are pathetic. But my point is, you're either qualified to drive a car with other people in it, or you aren't.

Nonsense.

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. The available evidence equally supports the assertion that marijuana prevented it from happening earlier.

Ironically, it's the small minds that conclude that they know what's best for everyone else.

Well congrats, you've just completely mischaracterized the situation. Concern about diminishing of a profit center (Big Pharma) sends legislators into a tailspin. This is why we can't have nice things. Also, they can't admit they've been lying to us through their corrupt fucking faces all this time. The legislators know that weed is harmless, that's what the science has always said.

I'm imagining a comparison that does not completely miss the point, as yours does. This is like a house being built to code by a non-contractor, and that non-contractor being told that he can only be paid hourly and that he'll have to have a contractor sign off on the design. I live in a house right now whose design is total shit and which was built sloppy as fuck and it managed to get signed off by a contractor and pass code. It proves absolutely fuck-all except that the state (or county) has managed to collect some lucre, just like a taxi license proves nothing about driving ability that is not already allegedly proven by european driving tests.

The same as every other nation. They have devised a mechanism to extract a pound of flesh from each cab driver, and they are short on dinner. These ghoulish cannibals profit from causing others to suffer. They are motivated to engage in anticompetitive restraint of every aspect of life by profit.

If I get into a car in London, I can be sure that google can get me to my destination blah blah blah. Who gives a shit? What year is it?

1. Yes, please. Every licensed driver should be capable of driving a cab. It is, after all, simply a series of trips.
2. We're already all required to carry insurance.

Personally, I like 3. National health care along with 0. Safer cars for all. We have the first part. The last part would go a long way to reducing the burden of insurance.