After losing both catapults for 10 minutes during an attack (that was over in 2 minutes) that was only averted thanks to Pete "Maverick" Mitchell saving their asses, that ship had clearly seen its day.

The Freemasons would feel right at home there, and would probably find it especially attractive for conventions.

Credible citations please. There are numerous credible studies that say just the opposite, especially with regard to the autism link, or the complete lack thereof. Just saying there is proof does not make it true, especially when there is little to show to backup your claims.

The last decade has shown exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Less vaccinations has resulting in outbreaks of diseases in the last decade that were basically extinct 20 years ago.

With these kind of huge sizes, I think it's more like a gigabuttload, or as the layman would say, a Kardashian.

No, to paraphrase your original post:

There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.

The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.

Got it, but where does the fact that the traffic has been requested by the users the target network play into it? The more appropriate term here is "puller" as opposed to "pusher". The traffic would not be there except for the end network requesting it in the first place.

Although for the number of discoveries we've had so far that claimed "may help to understand/treat Alzheimer's", you would think it would have gone the way of smallpox by now.

Just saying...

Why, I am ME. I have both the ability and the right to come to any idea or notion that I damn well choose. The question is who are you to imply otherwise? You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks. Welcome to freedom of thought and expression, it's a warm and inviting place that people flock to.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I should have said science tends to draw people that have a greater tendency question everything. The complete lack of credible evidence for religion eventually persuades them to release that belief in a deity. Drawn to, flocked, whatever.

No. That statement stood on it's own.

Ummm, it was a response to the question you asked. It is representative of the number of scientists that are atheists versus the number of theists, showing markedly "less" religious people in science, ergo less religious people "flocking" to science.

And science is always presenting us with new and wondrous things on an almost daily basis.

I didn't say religious people didn't, actually, only that atheists as a whole do, so perhaps you are reading into it a bit. But, I can't say I've ever hear an atheist denouncing evolution... Just saying.

Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?

Agreed, and I certainly never said otherwise. Seems like you are a bit sensitive about atheism. Take a breath, relax, and remember his noodly goodness loves you even if you don't believe in him.

Yup, that comment nailed it. It's a strawman argument, lacking an understanding of what actual science and the scientific process is. It has nothing to do with atheism, but atheists flock to it because it gives them the proof and rationality they crave.

Exactly. But until they capture and show something better than this I say Meh.

That's why they would buy a company that already has that expertise as well as supply and distribution chains. They would also be buying that production expertise, plus enough patents and patent licenses to allow them to actually move forward. Google is not completely without experience in this kind of situation.

Given the likely intractability of the big car makers to Google's advances (they want the whole pie for themselves, they do not like to share), there may be little alternative if they want to go big at a faster pace than starting a car company from scratch would allow.

Problem solved. The others would be scrambling to catch up after that.