Not hard, but does it actually make sense to do so? Serious question, since I don't read the reports in question, but if they're so standardized it would seem like it would be easier for everyone involved to just stick with a tabular format of some sort, rather than trying to translate it into a "written" report.

I've got a better idea: how about not requiring me to pay for somebody else's elective health care, regardless of whether it's for contraception or not, and regardless of what my religious beliefs (if any) are?

After going through customs a couple times, I'm pretty sure the US government considers them to be the same thing.

If the price is right, of course they will. Just because you're a lazy bastard doesn't mean everyone is.

It's kind of amusing that your link starts with the assertion: "America is the name of a whole continent."

Which is, of course, incorrect. There is no continent called America.

That's not discrimination. That's Progress.

Nobody uses the term "American" to refer to a resident of one of the two American continents. That would be as dumb as referring to somebody as a "Eurasian", or an "Afro-European." Argentinians aren't "American;" if you insist on referring to them as residents of a continent, then they are "South Americans."
The "USian" name is an attempt by the PC brigade to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. In English, the term "American" when applied to a person always refers to citizens of the United States of America.

Craigslist can get you a great deal on a used car: if you're going to buy one as-is, there's no need to pay the dealership markup. With that said, in my area the Craigslist listings for vehicles is packed mostly with unlicensed dealers who are masquerading as private parties. Some of them are even blatant enough to line up several cars they have for sale and photograph them all at once.

I would be wary of this sort of activity, since there's no telling where these people get their cars. For all I know, they could be buying junkers, putting a coat of paint on them, and flipping them. The best way to avoid these dealers is to:

• Run a search on the phone number / email address and see if it appears in any other for-sale listings
• Look for listings with similar wording
• Check an NVMTIS provider to see how long they have owned the vehicle
• When you call, inquire about "the car" they have for sale—if they ask, "which one?" walk away.

With that said, the existing dealership industry has every incentive to try and block smaller competitors. A major campaign to eliminate these unlicensed dealers is backed by a group which "manages access" to wholesale auctions to shut out buyers who aren't licensed car dealers. Presumably, if a smaller outfit could buy cars from one of these auctions, they'd be just as good as the ones a car dealership would sell.

When you get down to it, a car is a major purchase which carries with it an amount of financial risk that is difficult to quantify, or know, before you buy. They're typically sold by scum of all flavor who don't really care what you get stuck with. After all, why would someone sell a perfectly good car? If I was given a choice, I would rather not own a car.

The article doesn't actually describe anything similar to 3D printing either. The justification for calling it that is pretty much: 3D printing involves assembling a final product from raw materials; the proposal also involves assembling a final product from raw materials; therefore we're talking about 3D printing.

In general the idea is interesting -- although it's hardly new, and we're so far from the technology level required to do it that it's still in the realm of science fiction -- but the 3D printing angle is nonsense.

If people don't want to die a horrid painful death, they should avoid being born in the first place. What do you think most of us have to look forward to in the last couple years of our lives?

Since she's conscious and communicating, presumably they could just ask her.

... and it's really difficult (takes an awful lot of energy) to fly something into the sun. And it's wasting what will in the future be a valuable resource. Not to mention that no matter how safe your rocket design is, strapping your nuclear waste on top of hundreds of tons of explosives is inherently more risky than putting it into a hole in the ground.

The idea is nothing new; I'm sure people have been bandying it about since the first nuclear power plants came online. But it's really not a good idea.

Just because one set of criminals gets off easier than they should, it does not follow that all other criminals should be treated leniently.

You know, I was just going to let this go, chalked up as random Internet stranger being an asshat, but seriously. Are you SO bored or jealous of other people's achievements that you have nothing better to do than to sit around and nitpick the friggin' ad copy of a marketing page that was undoubtedly written not just for people who want to know the technical specifications of the product, but common usage applications for it also? What you're calling a "buzzword" is information that business wonks need to know when faced with the question, "Will this solve my problem/fulfill my needs?"

When you develop your own database system, you can write your own ad copy to say whatever you want it to. Or if you prefer, apply for a job at Postgres as their chief marketing guru, and if they're dumb enough to hire you, you can write its ad copy to be purely technical-oriented until the product is completely irrelevant in an actual production environment. ("Now for OS/2 Warp and BeOS!") Otherwise, forgive me if I don't put much weight into your opinion on the matter over the people who have written a kick-ass enterprise-quality system that is pretty much given away for free.

Seriously, what exactly are you implying by your comment, that PostgreSQL isn't a capable database system? That they just use buzzwords instead of actual technical brainpower and muscle as the basis of their software? Because I can tell you that to people who architect, engineer, administer, and eat database systems for breakfast, you are sadly off-base here, and this comment comes off as extremely pompous and ignorant.

As long as you insist this, then I am completely unmotivated to continue any argument with you, as you have already made up your mind that anyone with a contrary opinion "doesn't know what they're talking about."

That's why ultimately you will lose this battle, because you have exactly zero interest in passing reasonable gun laws based on facts or data. You activities are based solely on a zealous ideological bent driven by beliefs that you cannot back up.

...Says every dumbass whose kid or other innocent victims of deliberate or accidental gun violence ends up dead because "I had no idea that this could ever happen to my family!" Read up on the Sandy Hook massacre. Nancy Lanza thought the same thing. Or just open up your local paper and read about the latest four-year-old kid whose twit of a parent said exactly this before the ensuing tragedy.