As long as they, and their insurance company, are willing to accept full liability, I don't see why not.

You don't have to test every car to find faults in the design. You only have to test one.

Faults in manufacturing are not unique to self-driving-cars. So why should only SDCs require testing of every car?

This seems backwards to me. Testing combinations of scenarios happening simultaneously would be far easier in a simulator.

Well, the company belongs to me, so if it is 'trampling my rights' at least I know it's not a mob but myself.

For what this person is accused of (distributing information contrary to censorship laws), even fines and community service would be disproportionately severe. Social responses are fine, up to and including complete ostracism—people have the right to do that anyway without any special justification. He can be barred from the theater, or even all theaters, if they so choose; if he agreed to a deposit or performance bond in exchange for his ticket then that would obviously be forfeit. However, as he has infringed on no one else's legitimate property rights, his own remain inviolate.

The proportional response for a deliberate violation of anothers' rights is that you lose any claim to those specific rights. The murderer forfeits his own right to life; the thief cannot complain when others take "his" property. The proportionate response to copyright infringement is merely that the offender can no longer claim copyright. But unlike self-ownership, and to a lesser extent property rights, copyright is asymmetric, favoring some and harming others. For most, giving up any claim to it is a reasonable price for not being subject to others' claims.

For a long time the idiots would say, "Well who cares if government regulation harms corporations? The government needs to regulate so that the corporations will act in peoples best interest."

Except we find that when you attack a group they don't just sit their and take it. They defend themselves. In this case they first defend themselves by influencing government to not harm them, and then since that influence came so damn easy they leverage that influence for offense as well as defense.

Since a never ending series of honest regulators is impossible (surely you admit it) then each additional regulation has its own chance to be a corrupted regulation. Now even if the probability of a particular regulation being corrupt were quite small (and surely you admit that the probability is higher than you are comfortable with) then the effect of having extremely large numbers of them guarantees that there exists large numbers of corrupted regulations.

15 years ago the official listing of all federal regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes. Thats just federal.

Since the real problem is that not all regulators are honest then clearly we both thus conclude that the problem is not solvable by regulation. The problem is only solvable by identifying and booting corrupt regulators before they can regulate. All these shallow attempts to place the blame on corporations falls short of the problem.

No. China is not going to do that. People in the West often misunderstand the Great Firewall of China (GFoC). It is relatively easy to bypass, and Chinese people are generally better informed about what is going on in the world than people in most other countries. Keeping information out is not really the point. In the West, there are three types of information: 1) Information that the government approves of and promotes, 2) Information that the government prohibits (child porn, holocaust denialism, videos of journalist beheadings, etc), and 3) information that the government tolerates or just doesn't care about. But in China (and many other countries) the third category doesn't exist. If people see something, and the government isn't banning it, then they assume it has the government's approval. So part of the reason for the GFoC is to say "This isn't official information". People can bypass the GFoC, and see the information, but they know the government has disapproved. Chinese people also have a very different view of dissent. in the West, toleration of dissent is a symbol of strength, and being thin skinned about criticism is viewed as weakness. When Obama lashed out at Fox News a few years ago, he was factually correct, but it still made him look small and petty. But in other countries, including China and Russia, if someone in power is criticized, and they don't fight back, they are viewed as weak. The Chinese Communist Party has no democratic mandate, and no legitimacy other than power, so they cannot afford to look weak. So the GFoC is really a symbol of strength and power rather than an attempt to actually block information.

The summary mentions that Triton used to be a dwarf planet, in its own orbit, but was captured by Neptune. The reason we believe this, is because Triton orbits in the wrong direction. No other large moon in the solar system has a retrograde orbit. If it formed from the same dust cloud as the planet it orbits, or formed from other orbiting debris (as Luna did after Earth's collision with Theia), then it would orbit in the same direction. It is also one of the few moons with a detectable atmosphere (mostly nitrogen), and also one of only a few with geologic activity, including liquid nitrogen geysers. About a third of its mass is water, although all is believed to be frozen.

Except that the super luminal inflation of space was over 1e-32 seconds after the big bang. I doubt if many stars were forming in that trillionth of a trillionth of a billionth of a second.

I happen to think a notability test is a good idea, but not after one or more contributors have put significant effort into the page. The test should come when the page is first created; whoever thinks the page is notable should justify it (with references) subject to a general review. Once a topic has been accepted as notable, the contents and history of the page should remain online and open to the public indefinitely.

realclimate makes claims about people and journals that dare publish what their coveted journals reject, which surely are not in the "scientific literature."

..perhaps you didnt notice the bashing because you wanted to do some swinging of the stick yourself...

And this is on top of the for-a-long-time-now well known blatant censorship at realclimate...

The people that run and moderate realclimate are precisely the "high priests" at the center of the issue. Their standard operating procedure when a paper finds its way into a journal they dont control which casts doubt on their own research is to (a) bash the journal, (b) bash the authors, and (c) post a fallacy-filled rebuttal that ultimately declares victory over the straw they constructed.

I appreciate your explanation, but honestly, what you say makes no sense. To be blunt, I don't think you know what you are talking about. You say that the Universe was the size of the Milky Way, and expanding by a light year per second. Since the Milky Way is only 120,000 light years across, if the Universe was really expanding that quickly, it would be bigger than the Milky Way in ONE DAY. You also say that hydrogen fusion was occurring, but according to this graph, fusion stopped three minutes after the big bang. There is nothing that you say that would only apply to H-He-Li and would not apply to heavier elements.

I found the following explanation here:

From TFA:

Can someone please explain this? What would prevent a cloud of primordial elements from cooling?

The problem is that the term "free market" is used to mean two completely different things. It is used by economists to mean a market free of barriers to competition. But the same term is often used by others to mean a market free of regulation, which is often the opposite. In this case, the Republicans are opposed to regulations that would make the market more competitive, so they are using free market rhetoric to oppose free market competition. This is a shameful stance for them to take, and goes against the very principles they claim to stand for.