Thank you for COMPLETELY validating everything I've always thought about environmentalists. Much appreciate the laugh on a Monday morning.
A nation of 1.4 billion people, with a gdp of $8 trillion, the largest nation in the world, will manage to reach the moon before a couple of handfuls of mostly-private teams with budgets perhaps 1 MILLIONTH of theirs.
I'm 100% certain that in this circumstance, environmentalists WOULD be complaining angrily about 'destruction of saline environment' and 'harm to local species'.
I'm not kidding at all.
Culture and civilization are all great, but doesn't really change the fact that deep down we're social ANIMALS, and probably the greatest evolutionary advantage that we have had was that we could cooperate.
There's a clear Darwinistic pressure to confirm, so long as there's a little percentage of (expendable) individuals willing to experiment creatively - since for the bulk of history and prehistory, 'creativity' was a great way to get you and others killed.
Here's my idea: offer an insurance program that kicks OUT when you do something deliberately disregarding reasonable methods of protection.
1) smoke? Then no, your lung-cancer isn't covered.
2) don't believe in vaccines? Then no, your measles/mumps/rubella isn't covered.
3) Like to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? No prob, but no coverage for head-related injuries resulting from a motorcycle incident.
The sad fact is that in terms of humanity, it IS good that their offspring are afflicted, and hopefully sterilized. The fact that the parents are likely done reproducing means that they're functionally irrelevant.
Look, it's unreasonable to simply say "men do this, women do this" and try to justify it with (usually) an elementary-school understanding of biochemistry.
to suggest that the hormonal change which RADICALLY alters otogeny (either developing testes and the subsequent hormonal consequences, or continuing on to developing ovaries) which then results in relatively consistent changes in brain structure, sexual attraction, body chemistry, etc. along one of two tracks DON'T have any impact on brain capabilities just because the idea of gender differences makes us uncomfortable with our 21st century politically-correct sensitivities is also unreasonable.
Females show a statistically superior skill in verbal fluency, across cultures.
Males show a similar skill advantage in spacial reasoning.
That's a simple fact. To suggest that other differences are only limited to trivial superficialities is a desperate rationalization, not a logical inference.
BTW the whole "women are paid less" thing has been debunked so many times that the only people repeating it are ardent feminists and the willfully ignorant.
...so someone doesn't accidentally buy a $335,000 600hp sports car without realizing IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS.
In other news: the government has banned running with scissors.
...what you're saying is that the tenure (I get a great salary, can never be fired unless I practically murder a kid, and have a giant professional union handling all my negotiations) bullshit is like winning the lottery, and you're unhappy that buying a bigger, more expensive ticket isn't an "automatic" win?
Wow, I think I'm tearing up here.
"...who really thinks it's a good idea to let some preening, unaccountable bureaucrat decide whether or not you should be granted that privilege with no justification needed..."
We did, collectively.
We decided that we wanted a federal government with powers in excess of those specifically granted by the Constitution, each step (usually cloaked in a well-intentioned "The government knows better how to help..." or "The government has the resources to fix...") has inexorably ratcheted up the government ability to intrude and control the lives of private citizens.
Congratulations, you "big government" Democrats and you are just as culpable you intrusivist neo-Conservative evangelical Republicans: both groups of assholes that want to shove their creed down people's throats.
...why are they so cheap?
Seriously, if these are petroleum products, and petro products are finite, why are they so cheap? Or are they made of petro-fractions that are otherwise nearly worthless?
I've always wondered - I don't have one of those sprout-things sticking out of my dash, and (on this car) there really isn't a handy ledge to lay it on, so when I'm using the navigation feature on my phone, I'm holding it upright in my hand, listening to it's directions.
I often just drop it (then have to drive incautiously as I later retrieve it) when a police officer is nearby, as I don't want him to think I'm texting and driving.
I just wonder, while there are plenty of people who DO text and drive, I'd imagine there are a few like me that aren't ACTUALLY texting, but holding their phone like they might be....
That is why I've said from the beginning that, if only for PR purposes, the US is most likely working the hardest to KEEP HIM ALIVE.
Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad HIMSELF could walk up and knife Snowden, and it would be blamed entirely on the US.
but isn't this why we have living wills?
Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.
I'd agree with everything you wrote, but my question is: Shouldn't we always consider the charger-power in the 'cost' considerations for the vehicle?
I mean if the tesla takes X power, and the charger takes 10% of that, then the system takes 1.1X of power - because most certainly energy needed to heat the batteries is not peripheral to the operation of the car, no?