Many fewer than Russia, I'm quite sure.

It's a descriptive dictionary. It reflects how people use the word, based on copious surveys of usage. Thus, it reflects the highest probability estimate of how he used the word in question. BTW, I wasn't looking up either "describe" or "prescribe". I looked up the word in question. If the quotations are to be believed, it's overwhelmingly loaded in the direction I hinted at.

Me? "PC"? You'd be surprised. :-p In the region where I live, we don't have these things in an amount that is anywhere close to what is common in the US.

America is a nation of prudes. That's why they have such words as "slutty" in the first place. Then they blame people for dressing in a certain way instead of leaving them alone, as any normal person would. It's almost halfway to Saudi Arabia.

I didn't, my dictionary did.

Described what? Like this? "Esp. of a woman: sexually promiscuous or provocative, esp. in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful.". So you're injecting your subjective views into what looks mean and attaching a value judgement into that. How is saying that someone looks distasteful not prescribing is beyond me.

Unless the thieves and liars are the government, right?

I think the one viable metrics is the statistics of car deaths per vehicle per year. Deaths are generally difficult to cover up.

MIT already has an "integer overflow debugger" decades ago. It was called Lisp.

Now multiply the two probabilities with respective probabilities of said people being in the cabin and in control to get a more meaningful number. In case of depressed pilots, it's the probability of being depressed times 100% probability of being in control.

"Slutty"? How dare you prescribe how other people should dress and feel about themselves...

Which, to me, is a horrible way of looking at things. If that were the only criterion, we could easily end up with ten times more car deaths simply because we're more comfortable with putting blame at people, even at the expense of lives.

Sounds to me like the solution to the problem in question - a computer could quickly periodically recompute the envelope of possible scenarios and never drive in the phase space into points from which it can't recover without hitting someone or something.

Humanpedia deletionists are fine with that.

There may be the issue of demand. PV cells apparently require a lot of material compared to a lot of other potential applications of GaAs (RF? Optoelectronics?). If you really started mass-producing them from GaAs, you'd start straining the global supply (200 tonnes per year or so?) long before you'd reach anything close to current global production of silicon-based PV cells.

So, does that mean that blasphemy has also been retracted as an Indian legal concept?