Basically, the x-rays will ignite the surface of the asteroid instead. If the material in the asteroid is sub-optimal for this purpose, there have been designs of turning a nuclear bomb into a kinetic weapon that should work in this regard. Basically the bomb sits in an x-ray reflective shell, and when the bomb explodes, the x-rays bounce around the shell before the exploded bits of the bomb destroy it and exit an aperture. At the end of the aperture is a large, dense block of x-ray absorbing material. This material is vaporized by the x-rays and is all traveling in a similar direction as the x-rays were all going in that general direction. This plasma moving at relativistic speeds then slams into the target like a nuclear shot gun blast. IIRC, this design was built for using nuclear bombs against space ships and it was estimated that it could direct 95% of the energy of the bomb at the intended target.

Politicians hate freedom. Full story at 11.

I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?

Ah-hah, that means the FBI must admit he has a perfect defense. If he did it, he was insane at the time.

The glove doesn't fit. You must acquit. Why would Chewbacca live on Endor?

Wouldn't it be a simple matter to check the flight data recorder to see if the engine in question actually did what the FIB (intentionally written that way) said it did?

My money is on the FBI flat-out lying. It's what cops do. But of course I'm speculating and haven't seen the evidence. If it gets to court, a jury will make the call, and if they find the FBI's actual evidence convincing, that's what matters. OTOH if the FBI drops the case then we'll know this was all BS.

The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.

And the tobacco companioes of all have gotten this one right. Practically all the advertisements over here display the "smomking may kill you" warning, not a single print ad I've seen has ever shown the "causes impotence" warning (which is just as frequently printed on the real boxes). Death is a long way off, and unlikely, so the average smoker doesn't care. Same with the death penalty.

Well ... people will cherry pick what they want out of stuff, and will NEVER implement it all according to your perfect idea. Reality simply doesn't allow for perfect implementations according to an abstract theoretical model.

That is a 100% true fact. It's true for Agile. It's true for Waterfall. It's true of religions, philosophies, and all other -isms.

At the end of the day, someone says "but you didn't do all of the things I said you should and therefore the failure of my awesomeness must be in how you did it".

Which is convenient and all, but if your system comes down to "my idea is perfect but your execution sucked" ... well, maybe your perfect idea is far too damned reliant on fundamentally unrealistic assumptions which aren't justified?

If your perfect abstraction doesn't hold up to reality, maybe it's not reality which is lacking? Or at the very least that your perfect abstraction is an incomplete theoretical model.