I think you're off about the Kindle. It's what people who want to read books want.

Yes, there's a Kindle app for other tablets, but the screen on the Kindle is much more pleasant for curling up and reading a book. At the same time, that screen isn't good for a lot of other purposes, so the Kindle can't displace iPads or similar.

So IMO the Kindle will remain, but no one will pretend it's a general-purpose tablet.

I think you're a bit off on China. They've got some huge problems coming.

First, they've built themselves on continuing growth. And they're reaching the point where they can't keep growing - the world only needs so many refrigerators or t-shirts, and so on. That's going to cause some large economic problems - they won't be able to provide enough jobs.

Second, they've built a middle class. Middle classes have time to think about concepts like "why does the government get to control everything I see?" and start to have problems with it.

Third, those two synergize into a larger problem, they have a middle class that's sinking into lower class. The collapse of their growth-based system means getting your PhD might still mean you're working the assembly line. Middle classes will not accept the same lifestyle that lower classes will. That's going to increase the instability.

These aren't unsolvable problems, but there will be some rough times as they figure out how they will solve them.

You mean don't click on the photo of his dead daughter?

It's rather surprising that the point managed to get that far over your head.

The problem is then they would own North Korea.

North Korea still exists because it is a mountainous wasteland that nobody particularly wants. It does not have a rich cache of resources, and can't even grow enough food to feed its people.

China likes the buffer to South Korea. South Korea looks at all the money they'd have to spend to uplift North Korea and says, "We'll pass".

So when two fundamental rights are at play, which one triumphs?

The one that causes the least harm to the least number of people.

If you're going to insist on receiving the benefits of living within a society, you're going to have to pay the tolls that society erects. If you are unwilling to pay those tolls, you don't have to live there.

I refuse to hit the brakes in my car, and as a result I run over you.

Since my non-action can never count as causing harm, that should be perfectly OK, right? The villain is the 3,000 pound hunk of metal that actually hit you.

You need to persuade them to cooperate

You need to persuade the car to not hit you.

Or to move it back to the anti-vaxxers, these are people in the thrall to con artists. It not possible to persuade them. They would have to admit they were duped, and that isn't going to happen.

Yes, such as violating this tenant by allowing the unvaccinated to infect those too young or too ill to receive the vaccine.

If this was a situation where only those refusing the vaccine could be harmed, I'd agree with you. But it isn't. The unvaccinated are killing other people by destroying herd immunity.

Your right to refuse a vaccine does not give you the right to harm others.

Nope, that still gets you shot.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dashc...

Even in places where hurricanes and earthquakes are common they put electric lines on wooden poles with the result that when an earthquake occurs or a hurricane blows through the streets are literally covered with downed power lines. I live in an earthquake prone region where we almost exclusively use underground wiring. We've never had an outage because of an earthquake.

And I lived in Los Angeles and never had an outage because of an earthquake. Had many earthquakes, including some pretty big ones that destroyed a lot of buildings near the epicenter. I now live in a place that sees a major hurricane every 20 years or so, and got to experience that firsthand.

Anyway, we put the wires on wooden poles for three reasons:

1. 1- We have a shitload of wood. That makes the poles very cheap.
2. 2- They're pretty fast and inexpensive to repair.
3. 3- We've got a lot more distance to cover. So we've got a lot more power lines and burying all of them costs a lot more.

The power lines usually have enough slack to deal with the earthquake itself. Something falling on the power line can obviously cause a problem, but that's not likely to happen unless you're very close to the epicenter and it's a big earthquake.

In hurricane prone areas, new construction usually requires the bottom floor to not be living space, and it's usually built in a way to resist flooding. For example, the building is actually on pilings and the bottom floor's walls are built to break away. However, that's new construction. We've got many decades of old buildings still out there. When you've got places that regularly go 60+ years between storms, it's going to take a long time for the old buildings to be "forcefully upgraded".

As for wood construction, that remains popular because we have a shitload of wood. Building out of concrete is vastly more expensive. And when it comes to earthquakes, wood buildings tend to do better. Wood can flex, versus a concrete building cracking under the strain. The main problem becomes sufficiently anchoring the wood to the foundation, and a tough enough foundation to withstand the shaking.

As for your comments about New Orleans reconstruction, many of the areas are so far below sea level that a single "flood safe" level isn't enough. The house would have to be built very high to keep it above all potential flooding, which costs way too much for an event that is unlikely to repeat for a few decades. And in theory the levees are supposed to prevent flooding to begin with.

The stars that are close enough to Earth for a GRB to be dangerous can't produce a GRB. So it's not so much "in between bursts" as being in the right place.

Pssst....Income taxes are not the only taxes.

That bottom 40% is paying lots of other taxes. Those other taxes just aren't as expensive to the top 1%, so people like you pretend they don't exist.

There's two separate gas taxes in California.

The federal gas tax is used only for roads and bridges. That is the subject of this article. Raising that would not give the bozos in Sacramento more money. It would give the Highway Trust Fund more money.

States can add their own gas taxes on top of the federal gas tax. California has, and uses that money in California's general fund.

Wanna fix California's funding problem? Dump the insanity that is Prop 13.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

100% of the federal gas tax goes to roads and bridges via the Highway Trust Fund. 0% goes to the general fund.

Instead, the general fund has been tapped multiple times recently to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent.

Raising the gas tax in California is irrelevant, since the subject at hand is the federal gas tax - you'd be raising it in every state.

If the likes of ESPN and the NFL make stand-alone streaming services (I believe they have the "requires cable subscription" offerings at the moment, like HBO already has) then it could be the death knell of cable subscriptions in our country

Here ya go: https://gamerewind.nfl.com/nfl...

Every single NFL game this season. Downside is you can only watch a game after it ends, but in an era of DVRs that's pretty common anyway.

Mutation doesn't work that way. Putting the two viruses in the same person does not actually mix the viruses. They're each independent organisms.

Can anyone advise why I should not be terrified to be on the same plane with an Ebola carrier regardless of assurances by medical officials that it is not that contagious.

Because the people coming from the area with the epidemic are screened before they get on an airplane. For example, they are checked for fever.

If they have symptoms, they aren't allowed on the plane. If they do not have symptoms, they are not contagious.