Bomb fallout decays rapidly because it's mostly short-lived isotopes from the explosion. Reactor fallout takes much longer, because it's mostly due to isotopes with much longer half-lives. On the plus side, because of that, the initial radiation level would typically be much lower.

To be fair, both cities were flattened for a large distance around ground zero, and mostly rebuilt since. They were airbursts, so the fallout mostly blew away when it wasn't brought down by rain storms, but probably small enough that many people were killed by the immediate radiation; with a 50MT bomb, anyone close enough to be killed by that radiation would already have been vapourized.

Uh, dude. This was, like, a war. Thousands of people were dying every day. So, no, they didn't worry that a few people might die as a result of developing a bomb that could end the war months earlier than it otherwise might have done, saving hundreds of thousands of lives as a result.

There was a news story in the UK recently about a prisoner who escaped by emailing fake release instructions to the prison from his cell phone.

Just because people are in prison doesn't mean they can't communicate with the outside world.

A better compromise would be for cops to not go in guns blazing, as would be the case in most of the developed world.

That's why I said 'pretty much obsolete'. Obviously some things will still need to be transported, but nothing like the amount that's currently rolling along our highways. People keep talking about how their driverless car will make their commute so much easier, while ignoring the fact that their job probably won't exist in twenty years, and almost certainly won't require them to commute if it does.

But, hey, keep believing the world will be just the same as it is today only with shinier cars, if you like. Doesn't bother me.

True. The real story is that by the time a real, mass-market driverless car with no manual controls is possible, teleprescence and 3D printers will have made trucks and cars pretty much obsolete.

Until kids^H^H^H^Hterrorists move them so all the self-driving cars go driving into a ditch.

Most humans drive fine in 'conditions they're already prepared for'. It's the other fraction of one percent where most of the accidents happen.

Because, as we all know, a computer-controlled car will never have an accident. Even if someone steps out in the road right in front of it, the magic unicorns will save them.

Indeed. The last 1% is likely to be 99% of the work.

Many of the cars we test-drove last year already had systems to detect when the car was leaving the lane on the highway, and some had cruise control that would automatically slow down if the car in front did. Adapting that tech to drive on the highway by itself for a few thousand miles in good conditions shouldn't be particularly hard. It's dealing with the unexpected that's difficult, and that's where most human screwups happen, too.

Authoritarian scumbags usually claim they're only taking over the country for the good of the people.

Guess what? They're lying.

A modern direct-injection gasoline engine gets close to 40% efficiency, and diesels close to 50%. If you're worried about idling, add a stop-start system like many European cars have.

Yes, because I really want to have to rent a car that's capable of long distance travel every time I want to actually travel a long distance... when I could just buy one instead.

You don't actually think this is actually about porn, do you?

This is how they'll get the British people to agree to requiring proof of ID to access the Internet, which is the goal all along. Once they have that, they can cut you off the Internet at any moment.