All these puns suck.
Actually, this is also incorrect. They do not decide what the law means, there is no decision involved. They attempt, to the most exactingly precise level possible, to determine what congress intended when the law was enacted. It is rare indeed that a law is so vague that it's intent cannot be determined with a reasonable amount of clarity.
Or, should I say, it used to be rare...
It must be comforting, living in a world of such naivete. At least, it will be until you wake up and realize where you are.
Glass (and obsidian for that matter) are crystalline in structure, making them hard and brittle. Exactly what you do not want in a road surface. Rock on the other hand is usually an amalgam of several materials, meaning that it can be scraped and chipped, but is less likely to develop cracks that propagate. Using regular ordinary gravel in asphalt also means that the rock pieces are not subject to localized large forces, as the exposed surfaces of the gravel stones flex away thanks to the bitumen. The twin properties of flexibility and a hard wearing surface are what make asphalt able to stand up to being hit with tonnes of force hundreds of thousands of times a year and still last decades between having to be relaid.
I agree that it's probably not the case that we can't do better, but the question is about current materials technology and economic viability. Could we do better if we spent $1m per square meter of road surface? Possibly, with those newly emerging exotic resins and fibers. Would a $1m/sqm price tag mean that the project has any chance of success? No.
When I said "solid bitumen", I was referring to traditional road materials, and not a bitumen only tarpit. Sorry for not being specific.
Also, "durable" is a relative term. We're talking about roads. Solar panels are durable when compared to, say, laptop screens. They are not durable in the context of road surfaces. Yes, there are amazing glass types around today, but once again, in the context of road surfaces, I don't think glass is, or could ever be, an appropriate material.
Bitumen+gravel is used because the stone gravel provides excellent wear resistance while the bitumen holds it in a flexible and self-healing suspension. It is still the best road surface material we have by a country mile.
You missed the whole point of durability that I mentioned.
In Thailand, many of the roads in the southern areas use glass balls as lane markers. They don't get driven over unless a wheel is in on the lane marker, hence, only a small fraction of the actual traffic. Nonetheless, it is plainly obvious that they just don't last. They are chipped and damaged to the point that they don't fulfill their function.
Roads are possibly the most abused surface mankind makes. No type of glass that we have access to could ever stand up to long term road wear. It's just not possible with today's tech. I really think that this is a grant scam, which is unfortunate, because the politicians being scammed will be less favourable to green projects the next time a real idea comes around.
What if the toaster was free, so long as you had to deal with a screen on the side with speakers that played ads with sound while it toasted your bread? Sure, *you* wouldn't willingly buy it, and *I* wouldn't willingly buy it, but if enough of the market did, we may end up with that being the business model for toasters and nothing else being available.
Google, Facebook and and their ilk are doing that exact thing. Their services are all free* (as in getting raped at the train station after dark).
I really hate to be skeptical, especially with a project with goals as desirable as this, however I just don't see it happening. Road surfaces receive an enormous amount of wear. The current state of materials technology just isn't able to deliver the properties that such a surface would need to have to provide the described functionality.
Don't get me wrong, I really, really want this to succeed. It's just that we still can't make a solid bitumen road resistant to cracks in the long term, so how can we hope to make electronics and other far more fragile components match or exceed that level of durability without making the costs skyrocket to the point that it is not economically viable. Airports, with their massive budgets, have runways with *some* of that functionality, and they already require regular maintenance. The $ per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is more than a few orders of magnitude more than that spent on public roads.
Anyway, let's watch and hope.
Yea, remotely possible, but there are just too many eyes on the Tor project to make it realistically likely.
If we can't trust even the most thoroughly reviewed projects, then we really can't trust anything except burning brands and pitchforks as tools of political change.
Who's to say that Silk Road, Bit Coin, TOR etc aren't all just honeypot projects for the NSA?
Because the people involved in some of them are all well known non-Government types, especially Tor. Besides, even if it were an NSA honeypot, the code is thoroughly understood and vetted, the protocol openly implemented and the actual servers are controlled by a very large number of disparate people and orgs.
Even if it DID start out as an NSA honeypot, they can't be getting too much from it as it does deliver well on its promise.
So put it in a VM with a firewall blocking anything except what is precisely expected.
Plus, they have more to lose (their entire market) by exploiting their members than they have to gain (a functioning black market of their own design).
Actually, that is sometimes the case.
Coal is about the only reliable and cheap source of power that we have enough raw materials for for several hundred years into the future
If we continue burning coal at the current rate, civilization as we know it will not exist several hundred years in the future.
This is a very real problem
No, it's not really. The world has survived plenty of instances of entire technological paradigms becoming obsolete. Fossil fuels will become obsolete sooner or later, and the world will be better off for it. It's just a question of how long the elite (like the Koch brothers) can hold the welfare of the entire world hostage to their pointless shell game.
What you describe is a "law above laws", that serves as a guide to legislative actions and that reflects the underlying values of the society that we don't want legislated away by the whims of the parliament of the day.
This is the role of the constitution. And yes, the modern world does need a right to private communications or something similar to be included, because the current protections included in it just don't cover the manners in which modern abuses of power can manifest.