>Comparing the disaster to the deaths from the tsunami is meaningless.

Do you even realize that the earthquake was the root cause of every death? From your post, you make it sound like the meltdown, and the earthquake were unrelated. The point being you suck as risk analysis if you don't understand that when a once in a 1000 years tsunami strikes a area, people will die in that area. The added risk to life caused by also having a nuclear plant in this area was a insignificant increase in the average risk to the people living in the area. That is why it is important to consider that a natural disaster that killed 20k people that less than 10 of those deaths are due to nuclear plants. While your correct the rational decision is to try and prevent as many deaths as possible in the future. But resources are limited, so dedicating those resources according to the most preventable paths makes the most sense. Nuclear power was probably the safest option available in 1970, every other option would likely have ended in more death and destruction in this tsunami than the one built. Should they have done more, obviously, was nuclear the correct answer
(IMO) obviously.

>As the tsunami is worse, then the meltdown "doesn't count." Hurray for the amazing logic of pro-nuke fanboy

The point is Japan had a horrible natural disaster, that natural disaster was made no worse by having nuclear power in terms of life lost, despite the Japanese making almost the worst case decisions all along. IE at the time these plants were made, the only other realistic option would have been to build at least 30* more coal plants than nukes, those plants would have caused more people to be in the path of the storm, and would have exposed the local people to more radiation over their lives than the nuclear plant disaster did. If they build nuclear plants to current standards this wouldn't have been a disaster at all. So compared to today's options, nuclear is still realistically as safe of option as any. You would be better putting more effort into what housing building standards caused the 20,000 deaths and rebuilding nuclear, than the other way.

>paper airplane indoors, yes absolutely the FAA has jurisdiction.

True, the FAA take was there are 2 types of flying objects over US soil, manned planes and drones, both under there jurisdiction. They allow drones if they are not for profit..., but you need a permit to fly one professionally.
Lucky Brett Favre retired, because he wasn't throwing footballs he was launching drones, and so his all time passing record should put him on the FAA's most wanted list.

I don't think you read the article. The FAA made it very clear
> "the FAA continued. "Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft-manned or unmanned-in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval."

The article made it very clear, FCC considers every RC plane, regardless if it is solely controlled by a conventional controller or capable of self flight as covered under it's drone guidance. The guidance given allowed for hobbyist use, but it still falls under the FCC's definition of a drone. The FAA position is that all RC plane use is also regulated by them, and the guidance given is there "permission" but the drone laws still apply.

I am curious, can you divide up a bit coin into micro bit coins, etc without first depositing the coin in a Exchange? I have read through much of the protocol on exchanging, but miss the part where portions of a coin exchange can be validated.

> I'm waiting for someone to tell me why US Dollars are such a wonderful idea.

Because it is a stable currency, actively managed to maintain a fairly constant value. If a business needs 2000# of steel to build a car, they build a car and get paid in a currency that gives them the required profit, but if when they go buy the materials for the next car, they can only afford to buy a 1000# of steel, then they are out of business solely because of the currency they choose to use. Everyone using bitcoin currently is more or less used for fun money, if lost they can all feed their family still. Bitcoin is not the money I get paid for working for a week, then use it to feed my family the next.
The other reason you have to have the ability to loan money to have a growing economy. Loaning money creates the need for money growth, and regulation that is enforced. In a economy where 10,000 bitcoin exist and 100 people loan their 100 bitcoin out for 5% return in a year. They have doubled the amount of bitcoin in existence temporary (bank counts that loan as a asset, that loans is spent to buy something, and that person counts it as a asset as well) Then when that bitcoin is paid back, they need to pay back 10500 bitcoin, more than exists. This is why the Fed prints money when banks stop loaning, because money disappeared. This is why the fed enforces reserve limits on anyone doing banking. This is why I can be confident I can retire someday with the money in my bank account... And I realize bitcoin allows for constant growth, but constant doesn't maintain a constant volume, as lending levels, etc change.

Overseas would be OK. Had it not been more about taking advantage of indentured, and child labor than creating good jobs for people in need.

True, but even if you compare that 1991 to a 2001 mustang, they took away all that crap load of cables, and went to a throttle position sensor. Both still have a single stepper motor, granted it is a much quicker stepper motor than was needed for cruise control. If your going to run a car with cruse control, software can still apply the throttle, you might as well have the simpler system without all the cables. I am putting that 91 motor in a kit car currently, and am debating about going to a mega-squirt ECM and switching to the 01 pedal/throttle valve just in case I decide I want cruise someday.

If you want to meet emissions while reducing fuel flow, you will need electronic control of throttle. More the thing is, it is much safer and less complicated to do throttle by wire than a secondary path. Just because one manufacture screwed up throttle by wire doesn't prove that mechanical is safer. Especially since most cars have cruise control. So it truly is much less complicated to have one stepper motor and throttle by wire, than, for example, what my 91 mustang had. It had 3 cables, connected to springs, and a stepper motor for cruise control, then a solenoid controlling a vacuum operated idle control valve (and I still haven't covered the EGR part). Then you have a mass flow meter determining how much flow is going through all of that crap to determine fuel flow, spark advance. Then using Vacuum to determine the throttle position to shift the transmission (however I did remove the auto for a manual.)
Compare that to my current 2006 electronic throttle Diesel, it has a throttle position sensor that it reads to determine how much fuel to inject (and a mag pickup to determine when ton inject.) Done.

It is wrong to claim a 747's software being bug free. More so the complicated parts have at least 3 independent systems, and mechanisms to switch them, and highly trained operators trained to react to any bug. I am guessing the FMEA for the Toyota was more, if the throttle sticks, the operator will shift to park, or stop the car with the brakes, which are more powerful than the engine. That the driver would drag the brakes until they burn up... I do think more automotive standards need to be put in place for drive by wire, but requiring the same level of redundancy for a 4 passenger car as for a 400 passenger plane isn't one of them. It seams obvious (in retrospect) that electronic throttle should have it's own dedicated cpu, and thus a simple control logic (it could be integrated into a shared ECM case, and comms link, but not a shared cpu.) But I am not sure we would need 3 separate ECM's... Also I would like to see more fact based required driver re-education, we got people who either haven't been taught how to drive since carburetors and no ABS, or are being taught by people who teach the same way they were taught. Not the car most are actually driving.

Would work for road tolls as well. I debated doing that when I stopped for fuel and food in one of the overpass McDonalds. They had separate parking lots for each direction, but while walking by a car with the ticket in the window from the other direction, and my ticket in hand. If I just swapped we would have both saved over $5. Most of the toll both funneled both directions into the same both on exit.

I am saying the US has a standard for printing measuring tools, that is more robust. Metric is actually less standardized. IE, people do make less precise, skipping marks... that requires counting marks. The US system has a standard that is more flexible. Similar is true with metric Bolts, they lack a standard. Every manufacture marks bolt hardness differently, the US standard has the marks defined. Similar for head sizes on bolts, every 7/16 bolt has a 5/8 head, and a 5/8" nut. you get a dozen 10mm bolts, it could have 4 different wrench sizes to loosen it. Believe it or not, having 1 country maintain a standard, works better than many.

US ruler is marked in fractions of 1/32, metric in fractions of 10. So metric wins if your dividing by 5, or by 10. US standard wins if your dividing by 4,8,16,32. *they tie if dividing by 2.

Also look at a dual ruler http://www.myonlineruler.com/ What you'll see the US one is much cleaner, this one doesn't go down to 1/16", but you can make one 2* as accurate that you can still easily transpose readings to one 2* denser. All of the lines are a different length on the US side, that is a standard, any carpenter can pick any measurement without counting each mark, despite having 1/16" marks unlabeled.
see http://www.newwoodworker.com/basic/graphics/abttpmsrs/3mrks250.jpg
    The metric one looks ok, but try to pick 13.3cm, you will be counting each line, but also it is too busy in cm to be marked on many woodworking tools, definitely cant stamp into steel anything denser than cm, because you cant do mm, nothing in-between on the metric side.

Not OP, but the US tape measures are much better than the metric equivalent. US has a large mark every half inch, a slightly smaller mark at 1/4 inch, 3/4 inch. then all the remaining marks slightly smaller at 1/8, and then smallest every 1/16". Without any numbers, you can do many many more iterations than divide by than 1/10th can do for framing, building houses, etc it is truly better. Especially that squares can skip the 1/8", and 1/16" marks that can't be so easily stamped into them for endurance, yet you can easily transfer measurements from this device with 1/4 as many marks as the tape measure back and forth, just looking for identical marks. 1/10 just doesn't scale like that, you can't skip half the decimal marks and not be lost, you can't just look at a tape, and no the difference without counting from 0.2 to 0.3.
in your example, 0.25 your going to be approximating on a metric tape, where is half way between .2, and .3, so you will be counting each mark, 1,2,3 ok half way between the 2 and 3. With the US tape, if your a carpenter used to it, you know what a 1/4 mark looks like, so you can just see it and mark it. May not seam like much, but it truly save a second on every measurement. And it works for all the marks, what 15/32", the 1/2" mark is obvious, move up one of the smallest marks, want 9/16", go up by one of the 1/16 marks.

> A tie means
It would also set the precedent for second place to bet 100% every time. Could help on his long term strategy as well, reduces the strategy for second place to bet for him to get the final answer wrong when the score is less than a double.