Not nearly as good as getting people when they let their guard down.

Terrorists target buses, planes, schools and theatres because they know that's where they can get the most people when they're most at ease (and that is the really scary bit). At a security checkpoint everyone is alert and awake not to mention the security staff who will actually be looking for suspicious people and things. There's security personnel stationed everywhere in an airport security inspection line, not just at the X-Ray.

Finally, it's not that good of a place to set off a bomb. Seeing as everyone is in a line, you'll only maim a few people directly in front and behind you (their bodies will form a shield of sorts protecting others). With a bus or a plane the explosion is contained in a much smaller area meaning a small explosion can kill or maim most, if not all occupants.

This. There are no additional taxes on digital media beyond sales tax.

As an Australian, I import all my games and movies on disc from places like Hong Kong and the UK (I also buy my books from there too). I pay the UK/HK prices plus shipping and its still cheaper. Even if I had to pay tax (an order under A$900 is tax free) I'd just have to add 10% and I'd still be making a huge saving compared to buying it locally.... and this is 100% legal, it's even legal for an Australian company to drop ship media products and pay local taxes on the transaction.

So I'd also like Mr Expert to point out where these high taxes are?

Australia is amongst one of the lowest taxed nations in the western world (we pay more federal income tax, but no state income taxes like the US and Canada). High costs are a legacy of a time when the AUD was not strong (around US$0.5-0.6) and when we were so isolate we had no choice but to pay stupendously inflated prices. Isolation is not an issue anymore and the AUD has been strong for almost a decade.

With media, it isn't the stores charging the high prices, it's the distributors. Margins on media are razor thin and when it comes to Apple, Google and other online distributors, they are not local stores but still are beholden to the whims of the "rights holders".

Shhh,

If you listen carefully you can hear the Randian's heads pop.

Everywhere I've travelled, the less regulated the taxi industry the more they take the piss and rip off customers. Thailand is a good example, in Bangkok taxis are cheap. From the Airport to the city centre is 400 Thai Baht + 70 Baht in tolls (approx 30 Baht == 1 USD), that's a distance of 35 KM and includes an airport fee. Taxi's are well regulated in Bangkok (its the same story in Singapore).

In Phuket, a taxi wont even turn on the engine for less than 200 Baht, it's less than that to get into a taxi in Australia. Taxi's aren't regulated at all, they operate like a Mafia using violence against their competition, ripping off customers. They sit there all day turning down paying customers because they aren't paying enough. The local Phuket govt isn't interested in doing anything (since the recent coup in Thailand, I've heard the army has been attempting to clean the taxi mafia up).

But how much do you want to be that UberX drivers dont have that level of liability insurance. Here in Australia private car insurance (the kind everyone has on their car) does not cover business use, so if you're using your car for mini-cabbing (Uber isn't new, it's just Mini cabbing with a web 2.0 interface) your insurance wont cover you (also in my state, you're driving an unregistered vehicle because with private registration you get a tax cut off the cost of business rego). But Uber will flounder and die here because its not only just as expensive as a regular Sydney or Melbourne taxi, they're also extremely unreliable.

Yes and no,

We've got a long history of breeding programs in animals to say that yes, a lot of traits are hereditary and are usually passed on by selective breeding. A horse sired by a successful racehorse is more likely to be a successful racehorse. Its not guaranteed because of the problems of random genetic mutation, recessive genes and natural variation but it is more likely. Also when you're running a breeding program for horses you dont keep breeding the failures, you send them off to be made into glue and dog food.

Even in humans, some traits are hereditary, my dad isn't bald, his dad died with a full head of hair, it's likely me and my children wont go bald either because there's no history of male pattern baldness in my family... however there is an increased risk of Diabetes because I have a family history.

However this is when you base it on scientific observation. If you go around shooting all the redheads* you will eventually get rid of the gene that causes red hair, it will take many generations though... However if you're criteria for living or dying is something as irrational and unprovable as demonic possession, you've got problems eugenics will never solve.

* I do not, under any circumstances recommend the systematic annihilation of red haired people. They currently hold Scotland and the Scots are not a people to be fucked with lightly.

Well I have my white van. I just need to write "Expensive Candy" on the side... Because lets face it, you cant ransom kids back to poor people.

Maybe not American Republicans... But the UK is currently in the grips of a Conservative government (that party is actually called the Conservatives but commonly referred to as the Tories) and much like the US conservatives, they hate the working class with a passion.

Two problems I've noticed thus far: 1, certain parts want you to use a microphone. I HATE websites that want to use my mic, and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone in feeling that way.

1. You're not alone. I dont have a mic hooked up to my PC because I dont want websites to have access to it.

2. Duolingo has an app for Android (I suppose they have one for that other OS that is nothing more than a minor footnote in the glorious history of Android, but who cares about them) which is the one I've used.

Personally I dont like the gamification of it, but I'm fairly certain I'd be alone in that. I just dont like the "do shit and get enough shit to progress" thing. It holds me back as I can learn some things faster than the average person (some things I'm slower at, all swings and roundabouts) so sometimes I end up grinding just to move on (and I hate grinding).

Like most electronic language learning aids, it can teach you vocabulary, but not how to communicate.

No, I based that on science.

No you didn't.

Your long winded tirade didn't say anything about why 100 hours is required to learn how to drive and why mandatory waits are useful. In fact you pointed out why they aren't. One thing you forget, is that people forget. As I said, we have these mandatory hours and waits in Australia, they haven't helped one bit as new drivers do their hours quickly and sit around or just fabricate them.

Like most people, you're basing your opinion on bad ideas.

If you want to improve driver training, you need to improve the content, not the length. People drive badly because they were never taught how to drive properly in the first place, not because they haven't spent enough time doing it. People drive for 40+ years badly because they were never taught properly... After 40 years are you going to tell me it's because they haven't had enough practice?

My reaction time is low.

Now I know this is complete bullshit.

First of all your reaction time varies based on a number of factors (most notably fatigue but distraction is another big one), this ranges between 250ms and 5 seconds but the average time is around 2.5 seconds.

here's some actual studies on the subject.

You dont have a low reaction time, like most bad drivers you've convinced yourself that you have a low reaction time when you really do not (the old Dunning-Kruger effect in action).

I actually understand that when I'm tired, it's dark or I'm distracted my reaction time will not be as good as it could be, so I adjust my driving style accordingly. I have had accidents (none were my fault) but there have been no fatalities or serious injuries because I drive to mitigate risk, not because I believe I'm that good.

Advanced driving courses teach vehicle dynamics, skid control, proper reactionary techniques to road hazards, proactive hazard evaluation, and so on; they cost $300 here, and you can go all the way to $1500 for driving/racing combined classes. Learner's permit should be 6-12 months with at least 5 hours per week of driving and 100 combined driving hours in a 6 month period or 200 combined driving hours in one year;

I agree that licensing and learning needs to be improved and more involved but I disagree with mandatory waits and hours. All that does is forces people to do pointless busywork or in most cases, fabricate evidence. In Australia we have a mandatory number of hours for learner drivers (differs between states) and this is self recorded in a log book... or as they're better known, lie books.

Some (very few) people do learn to drive in 10 hours, others cant do it in 110 but most are in between. Mandatory waits just force people to sit on their hands. In my state (western Australia) there is a six month wait AFTER you pass your driving test before you're allowed to drive on your own, this means most learners sit around not driving and forgetting what they learned leading to worse novice drivers.

The best thing we can do isn't to make tests harder, rather require students to undergo a number of hours of training from a professional instructor. Teaching defensive driving from the word go will result in better drivers.

If you are going to mandate hours, mandate them after you pass a driving test (sans the mandatory wait). The test proves you know how to handle a car, but not how to handle real life driving situations. The test is useful but cant impart a lot of important skills. By having a student do additional practice after the test an instructor can focus on teaching important parts of roadcraft like courtesy, advanced parking manoeuvres, lane selection and discipline, speed discipline and handling traffic that you just cant test for in an hour or two. Also, but mandating the hours after the test is passed, the learner has more confidence and will stop second guessing themselves as much.

Remember when we used to have Hydrostatic licenses because you didn't pass your driver's test on a manual transmission?

Fortunately we still have this in Western Australia. A C class license is for an ordinary car (less than 8 seats, under 4.5 GVT), if you pass your test in a manual you get a C printed on your license, if you pass it in an Automatic you get CA and it's illegal for you to drive a manual (I've heard of dealers turning people with CA's away from sequential auto's, despite the state considering these being Automatics).

I dropped from 70mph to 20mph in one second today (good tires) because of other idiots on the road.

Are you counting reaction time or just stopping time?

The Project Mu brake pads on my old Honda could stop in that distance easily, but I'd still have to contend with my own reaction time... Which remands me why I need to get some Project Mu's on my Nissan (sadly, my budget does not stretch to Brembo callipers).

The test is simple: Turn the car on. Activate the right turn signal,

Whoa, whoa, whoa,

This test sounds really advanced. I drove in the US for a few weeks last year and the only time I saw an indicator used was on a car with Canadian plates.

Its better that you just give licenses to anyone who shows up or even better, just put them on the back of weeties boxes.

Because prohibition doesn't work.

The US has bans of marijuana, has that disappeared? the little experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 30? Banning a substance means you lose all control over it. You end up with backyard smokes cut with woodshavings to make it cheaper (even more unhealthy than straight tobacco).

OTOH The problem with unrestricted smoking is that a lot of people who dont smoke will be affected by it. This is what Libertarians always ignore, almost everything you do has an effect on someone else.

Ultimately the people who dont smoke will outnumber those who do and smokers are so extremely unreasonable. Here's what happened in Australia.
Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking in the office please.
Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet)
So smoking was banned indoors.

Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking near the entrance?
Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet)
So smokers must now smoke 5 metres away from building entrances.

Ultimately, smoking restrictions came about due to the extreme discourtesy of smokers.

The ban on large soft drinks did not come about because we dont have the same problem. If someone is drinking a large coke near you, you're not going to have to smell it on your clothes for the next 4 hours, if you're working in a place where people drink soft drinks, you're not forced to breathe it in. This is the bit Libertarians always ignore, then again reality and Libertarians were always at odds.

In the US, doesn't everyone offer a free refill on soft drinks (I believe you call it Soda)?

Making a ban kind of pointless.

Heres the thing, you were and you dont get a choice nor were you informed.

The revenue from your health insurance premiums goes into the general revenue pool which pays for everyone. If you didn't use them they went to someone else. This system is more socialist than the most socialist public healthcare system but you ignore that because someone is making profit off it. So smokers are in the same general revenue pool as you, in fact they need more money so they take from your smaller pool.

At least in Australia, the more you smoke the more tax you pay on it which goes to covering the costs of medical problems. Smoking is a choice, you can choose to quit as I did when they raised the tax 10 years ago or you can choose to keep paying.

It continually surprised me how stupid some smokers are though. Here they're trying to compare sugary drinks to smoking hoping that smoking will become less carcinogenic and become more accepted but in reality all their doing is making sugary drinks more dangerous than they really are (as sugary drinks can be enjoyed in moderation with no negative effects on health, quite unlike smoking). In Australia, smoking is heavily taxed and discouraged whilst sugary drinks dont get a mention in parliament, let alone a bill or motion, there's a reason for that..

Is there a per jump tax on skydiving or how do you'll handle that?

How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from skydiving?

Is there a per mile tax on mountain biking or how do you'll handle that.

How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from mountain biking?

Is there a tax on watching TV

How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from watching TV?

How, exactly, does all this work?

Well first of all I shoot down your hyperbole. Then I explain how horribly wrong you are

None of the things you listed are inherently unhealthy. Every cigarette does damage, there is no healthy way to smoke and it does cost a lot of money. Significant portions of your health insurance goes to keeping smokers alive, in places like Canada and Australia where tobacco is heavily taxed this is recouped directly from the smokers and not from me (a non-smoker). In places like the US, this comes from general revenue collected from everyone.