Because the only one that has a response responsibility is me. The mistake was ever to consider this dialogue.

Well, let's keep in mind that you're the one asking the questions here. Far be it from you to sound anything other than Oz-like.

Oh, and you "know" all of the politics and legalities and intrigues. As though it wasn't ALL charades, from end to end, subsequent to the departure from common sense. Which was my point, after all.

If "illegal" means "likely to result in court action that actually sticks" let's just stipulate that the Obama Administration is just a sea of tea & crumpets.
Having rejected the idea of truth, the rule of law is just a line of coke we seem to snort together.

Electric car advocates continually make the flawed argument that because an electric car can have a daily range of 200 miles or so, it can replace the gasoline car for most users. This isn't true at all. People pay for gas cars not just to be commuter appliances, but to have transportation flexibility. Flexibility matters to a lot of people, even if they don't use it, it matters. It's nice to know that if I wanted to, I could drive my gas car the 790 miles to my in-laws house, or 200 miles to my brothers, or 500 miles to my aunts and uncles. It my cheaper for me to take a plane to go by myself, but, add a wife and a couple of kids, then my transportation cost for each trip is about $100-$150 in fuel and my time in driving.

So, with that in mind, I think the real tipping point for electric vehicles will be total operating time on a charge. That means, I want to be reasonably able to drive 10-12 hours on a long road trip with perhaps an hour time for charging. Once that happens, then electric cars will take over for everyone.

With that said, in a married family, having two vehicles, one for road trips, an SUV, and a daily commuter that is electric, makes a great deal of sense. But most families are going to have that "one" vehicle.

Either states will decide you don't need insurance if you have a self driving car, or a company will spring up that will insure self driving cars for a lot less money.

It is one area where capitalism can work. Lets say all the existing insurance underwriters charge $100/month for normal insurance based on human drivers. At that rate they can cover the rate of claims and make a nice profit. Say $20/month ends up being net profit after their operations costs and payout are factored in, and operations are another $20/month.

Well lets say that self driving cars then have a 0.01% accident rate compared to human drivers (it may end up being lower than that). That will drop their payouts by a similar amount, so from $60/person/month to $0.60/person/month. Ok but they decide to keep the price the same, just make more money.

Thing is, they'd still be really profitable at $41/month, instead of $100. Someone else will realize that, and work to steal their business. They might not go that low, maybe $80/month, but it'll happen. Then they'll try to get it back and so on and so forth.

Remember that your costs aren't just based on your specifically, they are based on actuary data of accident likeness. Sure you've had no accidents, but there is a statistical probability that you will. You are in the lowest risk group likely, but it is there. If self driving cars are much lower, rates can again be much lower.

Also, have you checked around? My rates haven't gone up in a long time. Maybe your company is just screwing you because they can, and you'd save if you took your business elsewhere.

For comparison purposes I pay about $350/6 months for $200k/$500k liability insurance on an old, cheap, car.

You understand that there are side deals with the IAEA? Watch the Senator Cotton video at the link. The whole situation is utterly indefensible. We could have just had the Red Hot Chili Peppers go to negotiations and play a concert and had more for our money. Our foreign policy seems to be: "Yeah, we got nothin'."

I believe the polls exist. I also believe that if you don't have access to the questions, methodology, and funding source, you're the sound of one hand with the clap.

Music by specific artists is a unique product -- another artist generally can't reproduce the same music in exactly the same way.

Insurance is the opposite. All auto insurance is essentially the same -- the differences have very little value. If one insurance company fails to update it's business model, 5 more insurance companies will swoop in and take the business.

It's not being handled as a proper treaty. In defense of President Obama, he's not alone in betrayal.

All roads lead to Woodrow.

Which is why #OccupyResoluteDesk is not calling it a treaty. Because his administration is a fundamentally un-conservative attack on all that is proper about our notion of self-government.

Note, too: you completely ignored my procedural point. Another "conspiracy" cop-out. *sigh*

Because the Iranians have always been so honest and stuff.
Note, too: you completely ignored my procedural point.

I mean, I stipulated in the JE that I doubt I'll actually see it. Why would I pay someone to waste ~2hrs of my life?

Oh, I already have, baby.