It has a significant number of issues.

ST:ID should have been a battle for the soul of the Federation. You've got Sellers arguing for increased militarization of what was a peaceful and scientific organization. Keep Cumberbun in there as the guy making it all happen - hell, he can even be Khan because I have nothing against that. But the ending should have been with Spock suffering significant injuries and Khan stealing the badass ship to escape. Every attempt to punish Kirk for being disobedient never did anything because he was automatically promoted back in charge almost immediately. Then Khan can come back in the third film and end the cold war between the Klingons and the Federation as they have to work together to defeat him.

As is, they stole too much symbolism from Wrath and made death no longer remotely threatening with magic blood. The fact you need Nimoy to tell us that Khan is bad should have been a clear sign they should have started over. But Orci and Kurtzman aren't talented enough writers to deal with that and JJ is far too loyal to drop them.

I don't have to run anything. It will happen regardless.

Automation and other technology developments will continue to remove the need for a number of jobs at a rate faster than we can generate new ones, creating an increasing class of the unemployed. It's not really a question of if it will happen but when.

Laws can be changed if there is sufficient will. By having to pay out smaller claims, they also no longer need as many employees. It will be a steady drop as more and more cars go driverless. If premiums are held constant, insurance companies will be raking in massive profits. But the free market will easily take care of that because plenty of other people will want a piece of that pie. The real challenge will be whether someone wants to insure the software company developing the self-drive and what it will cover.

I disapprove of robotic reporting. Largely because you could get multiple tickets before being informed of the first one. Also, your definition of less polite drivers may differ from mine.

There will be a number of significant implications from self driving cars that I want to have happen.
- Decreased accident rates, resulting in less damage and therefore smaller insurance companies
- Far fewer traffic violations, such that traffic police will either be let go or reassigned to more pressing matters
- Shitty pay driver jobs will be nonexistent

Essentially, it helps push towards increasing unemployment and that is good in my opinion because it will require a new train of thought in how the world works.

Why couldn't we use them as temporary apartments for the homeless? All the infrastructure is there to meet their needs, just replace the cell bars with a wall/door to add privacy. They now have an address in applying for employment. Showers, laundry, and dining facilities. Common areas could help with job training and education. The medical wing could make efforts to help diagnose mental illness and help people with addiction.

The only thing this requires is effort.

I believe it was this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Believing you're the greatest is just plain easier. Why do you think Detroit got its ass handed to them? Or why Microsoft typically struggles in other markets.

If I was truly interested in being the best, I'd look at the competition and see what they are doing right and figure out how to make it work for me. But then again, that process involves not telling people what they want to hear.

Google aggressively filters out porn from the results. Bing doesn't. Which is convenient when you want to find porn.

I was one of the poor saps who preordered Homefront....

At least I got Metro 2033 for free with it! Hell of a game if you haven't played it.

I would contend that it depends on the subject. I'd seriously consider teaching math or science but given that my friend is making $42,000 with a masters in Industrial Engineering to teach stats and CS, why bother? I can make twice that or more in industry when I finish my doctorate. I'd bet if you were offering $70,000 to math and science teachers, you'd get plenty of talented folks.

I was a part of the group that did the second engine study to defend continuing the funding for the F136. Since it was cancelled, I'd expect GE to continue funding it internally and when the F135 can't do the job, they show up with an engine that costs significantly more than it would otherwise and they've got Uncle Sam by the balls.

I would actually argue that it's not an R&D problem but rather a requirements problem as well as a military acquisition problem. The former is largely due to the VTOL requirements that the Marine Corps want is largely incompatible with the Navy and Air Force requirements. The problem is that the Marines needed a replacement aircraft and Congress wouldn't approve two aircraft programs so they tagged along. The latter is a far bigger problem in that Congress dictates what systems the military get, which is why we're making tanks that we don't need and sending them directly to the Boneyard.

I personally think the military should be able to establish their own priorities and initiate weapons programs as needed subject to review from Congress. Congress could then insist that the military defend their position but they would not be able to force systems on the military that are unwanted or unneeded.

The house I currently live in apparently existed in the early 1900s. It has slowly been improved but it has tons of problems. So many that it would be far more beneficial to tear it down and start over from scratch. But my landlord has no interest in doing that or even having people come in and make minor improvements. Why bother putting that kind of money into a house you're not living in? And there are many houses in the area in the same boat, if not the country. What I would do is come up with a metric that looks at annual energy used vs size of the house and charge a hefty tax on properties that are higher than some particular value (might be a function of residence so some places aren't as penalized). And over time, reduce that value to include more houses.

I'm honestly not sure how one should fix it as electric cars become much greater in number. I'd hate to have a hybrid system where gas cars are fuel tax and electrics are per mile tax. But the solution I like is to have everyone pay a per mile tax to cover the roads and then gas cars pay the fuel tax as well with the revenues going to energy research.

Is the plan to keep the fuel tax and introduce the per mile on top of it, I assume? What a pack of jackasses. They could just increase the fuel tax and problem solved...

Yep. Unlike aircraft, there just isn't a significant desire by the auto manufacturers to really get serious about drag reduction. It's really a shame too since things like wheel skirts are really simple.

I think part of the problem is that they intentionally put them on the most unconventional looking cars just to help ensure they don't sell because people are hesitant to significant change. I'd rather they step up and tell people how much fuel that would save with them on and what that would cost annually. And have it as a package you can put on at the dealership.