The rational reason not to, at least in the case of the man in Kentucky, is that it was illegal to do so. This whole story does little more than to illustrate why shooting at them is a poor solution to the problem, and you're not helping.

Yep, I can remember all the way back to 2013!

Hollow. But I doubt you are that dumb. Seriously, you've been beaten over the head with it. If you need me at this point... well it's your shame, not mine.

His claim was that those are not weddings, but instead are other gatherings reported to be weddings after the fact for propaganda value. He also claims that higher numbers of casualties are reported, again, for propaganda value.

He does not once claim it is OK to ever bomb a Pakistani wedding.

You're paying with long-term data for short-term service. Google will one day shut down GMail yet they will still have all of your data to do with as they please. I doubt you considered that when you committed to it and now you cannot undo it.

I will, however, retract at least part of my statement if you tell me that you didn't start using Google services until after the Snowden revelations.

Heh. I remember a friend of mine over at a Linux-only shop would get mad because I'd send him links to videos often they'd cause his browser to crash.

If these people are as dumb as you say and, presumably, you're well above them, then I don't need to.

Sort of. I'm actually not a fan of Steam, and their fans are ignorantly spreading the word that DRM is okay for permenant purchases. Despite all that, those fans know something you don't. In light of that level of moronism, your original statement was dumb in a painful sort of way.

So it's extra embarrassing for you that they don't see your phantom irony.

That's because the 'Steam fans' know more than you.

I don't see the problem with that.

posted from my Android phone.

Indeed, Titan the easiest large world to explore by drone, so long as they tolerate the cryogenic conditions. A highly efficient version could potentially fly continuously just on RTG power (there have been proposals along these lines), although anything adapted to deal with the added weight / inefficiency of hardware to carefully land, collect samples, carry them, etc would probably have to use flight batteries.

Or you could read the transcript -- while drinking a beer, of course.

I called you daft for not understanding the concept that someone who runs a swapping service station covers all costs related to their business activities and rolls them into what they charge for service, just like every other business does. I fail to see what is hard about this for you to understand. The answer to "who pays for X cost" is *always* "the service provider, with the costs indirectly passed on to their customers via the rate charged".

Really, you think that bad fuel can't damage an engine? It can and does. And it's the supplier who ultimately bears the cost. No, "bad electricity" is not a proper analogy (although your sarcasm in this regard is funny given how many devices are damaged by surges every year); a gas station fuels vehicles by insertung fuel into them, while a swapping station fuels vehicles by inserting pre-charged batteries into them. Batteries correspond to fuel in this context.

In what world do you live where car parts are regularly inspected by the manufacturer after being installed into the vehicle? Cars have hundreds if not thousands of parts more safety critical than a battery pack, and yes, manufacturers *are* liable if their failure modes due to damage pose an unreasonable risk of injury. Think of a famous failure case - say, for example, the Ford Pinto fires. Were the gas tanks defective? Nope. But the cars had an unacceptably bad failure mode in certain types of crashes, and it fell on the manufacturer to fix it - as it always does. A part must meet its use case, and if its use case is "deliver electricity from a swappable system and not burn the vehicle down if damaged", it has to contain the necessary safety systems to do that.

Lastly, you're still stuck in bizarro world where ICE vehicles full of combustible fuel are incombustible, whereas EVs with no combustable fuel and more often than not with batteries less flammable than a block of cheese (once again: *not all li-ions are the same*!) burst into flames left and right. Meanwhile, in the reality that the rest of us live in, the opposite is true. Heck, last summer I saw a flaming hulk of a passenger car with fire crews trying to put it out to extract the burned bodies of the two tourists who had been driving it. Meanwhile, Teslas and Leafs have been in many wrecks - go to Google Images and search for "crash tesla" or "crash leaf". Where are the fires from these oh-so-flammable vehicles? Yes, they have happened, but at a much lower per-vehicle rate than gasoline cars according to NTSB stats. Sorry, but your fire conceptions are just not based in reality.