That wasn't hate, that was pity. Most people eventually grow out of the sophomore bullshit phase, but you're special.

That, and because the wheelies the rockets do when they rev them up and then pop the clutch are just friggin' awesome!

Where's the control for this experiment? How about posting a similar but completely factual article? I bet you'd get the same results -- no response on Wikipedia, and a dogpile of people on Reddit calling "FAKE!"

Yup. If there was a group of people dead-set on destroying the United States, that's where they should start. Bomb the security checkpoints. By definition they're insecure areas, and they have lots of people milling about. Bomb an airport security queue and you'll stop all air travel for a couple days. Bomb two or three simultaneously and you'll stop air travel for weeks. Randomly bomb other queues, such as train stations or sporting events or concerts, and you'll panic the the nation so badly we'll collectively shit ourselves to death. You win! It'd be easy to do, especially if you have a few people willing to martyr themselves for the cause.

Now, this hasn't happened yet in over a decade since the WTC attacks. What does that tell you about the existence of the bogeyman that we're being told is lurking just around the corner?

I don't want anyone else to read your ideas ever again.

What do you think it's the correct behaviour:
A - I stop reading you.
B - I ask slashdot to block all your posts for everyone unless they opt-in.

FTFY. This is really the issue at hand. It's not that the people proposing the law don't want to see porn, it's that they don't want anyone else seeing it. Err, I mean, they don't want the children to see it. Adults should have the right to, of course. Just opt-in by putting your name on this list titled "Probable Sex Offenders" and you can look at your porn again. You perv.

...therefore I am a scumbag and should be ashamed of myself?

No, of course not. You're a scumbag and should be ashamed of yourself because you're male.

Until silent electric cars are commonplace enough that the public is aware that the normal sensitivity of audition may be insufficient to navigate as a pedestrian, adding sound would seem to be a good idea on the whole.

No, it wouldn't seem that way. Why? Because if you add artificial noise people will never become aware of it. It just perpetuates the problem.

Adding noise is exactly the wrong answer. Quiet cars are a nice step forward for those of us who can hear. How about instead we come up with some protocol for a blind person to signal his intent to cross the street? Say, hold out your arm and point to the other side for 10 seconds before crossing. Then train drivers to actually stop for that signal? That would have other benefits as well. Sighted people could use the same signal, making it easier for them to cross busy streets too. And it would protect the blind from those oh-so-silent bicyclists whizzing down the street. (Or maybe bicyclists should adopt some sort of artificial vroom-vroom noise just like cars?)

Simple, free, and peaceful. What more could you want?

Well, it's not like the media companies can claim child porn when they want to shut down a pirate site. "Hey, cut off their DNS! They're pirating our CHILD PORN!"

I notice that the FAQ omits the two questions I would expect to be most frequently asked: "What will it cost?" and "When can I buy one?" Call me when those two are answered. Until then it's just another concept vehicle that will never advance beyond the one-off prototype stage.

Our current system is not 100% safe. A replacement system does not have to be 100% safe, just better.

I completely agree with this, but I wonder if society will in general. It's all fine and dandy to say that human drivers result in X fatalities per year, and robot drivers result in half that. You can have statistics and charts and 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows drawn on them and a paragraph on the back of each explaining what it shows to back you up. That's not going to stop someone from bringing a now-quadriplegic kid who was crippled by a johnny-cab into court and suing the manufacturer into oblivion. The jury won't care that statistically the robot drivers are safer. They'll just care that in this instance the robot car caused grievous bodily injury. Never underestimate the power of an injured child in a courtroom.