How did this get modded *4, Funny*?

I'm interested, as other respondents have said, and can't find links to what you say exists. I'd be interested if you could direct me. Tnx.

Thanks, and full marks for the submission. The video is fascinating.

"No it is testing new ion engines that actually allow for decent orbital delta V."

Citation requested, please.

Yes, and you can read about the carbon filament bulb that has been burning for over a century at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light

my impression is that one of the factors that strongly affects birthrate is the prospective parents' faith in their future, their confidence and optimism. This phenomenon may be mediated through the effects of chronic elevated stress hormone levels. I don't have access to my reference database at the moment, so I apologize in advance for not being able to provide cites to support my thoughts. But given the dismal economic prospects for those in the lower and middle classes in America, and the fact that they comprise the vast majority of prospective parents in the US, is it at all surprising that birth rates have fallen so low?

Isn't every car manufacturer already liable for product defects that cause accidents for the life of the car, anyway?

Liability is an artificial barrier that can be eliminated by legislation. If the accident rate and accident severity of driverless cars were significantly and proveably lower than human-driven cars, there would be an economic incentive to transition to driverless cars. The incentives would include legislation to limit product liability for manufacturers of driverless cars and their subsystem vendors (vehicle behavioral code vendors, for example). Insurance companies will be major forces in getting that legislation passed, because with lower accident rates and severity, their payouts will be reduced.

and removing TSP (trisodium phosphate) removed an antropogenic source of phosphorus that was aggravating eutrophication of lakes; see, for example, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/HSphosphatepresent.pdf Lowered oxygen->fewer fish, etc.

and removing sulfur from diesel reduced the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere, which reduced the amount of SO3 -> H2SO4 production, which reduced the acidity of rainfall, which has a number of beneficial effects which you can explore if you're interested.

The price rises for consumers simply indicate the fact that the full costs weren't being accounted for in the first place. As we learn more about the various complex processes that sustain our lives, we're better able to determine what it actually costs us to live. Don't expect those data to be especially comforting.

I can recommend the Wikipedia article as a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

In the Sources section, it states that humans release about 29,000 megatonnes (= 29 gigatonnes), compared to natural processes that release about 439 GT annually. That would make the human contribution about 6.6% of the "natural" contribution.

You wrote: "They know that without the sciences, their comfortable lives could not be what it is today."

I suspect a large fraction doesn't know that. I doubt these are people who, when they flip a light switch or run hot water in their kitchen or flush a toilet, even occasionally think of the infrastructure that lets them do those things. They not only don't know what they don't know, they aren't curious about it. Much less capable of changing their minds in light of scientific evidence that conflicts with their faith/beliefs.

Thanks for the clarification.

Interesting idea. Don't know enough about labor law to know if your idea is currently legal, but with legislation it could quite likely be implemented. I concur, the only thing I want my pilot to be concerned with is safe completion of the flight.

Interesting, thank you. Wish I had mod points for you. I have no problem with the concept of paying a decent living wage to the skilled professionals to whom I entrust my life when the cabin door closes. I hope those who are hiring those professionals feel likewise.

Reading TFA, I see it says that 1500 hours is *six* times the previously required minimum, which would be 250 hours. You say the previous minimum was 800 hours. Would you please clarify? Did the WSJ reporters get it wrong? Thanks.

Thanks for your thoughts. Increases my optimism about our country a bit.