From the article the grandparent obviously did not read "Glantz showed a simple one-line Linux command and then jokingly walked away from the podium stating "That's it, thanks for coming," as the audience erupted into boisterous applause.". So in fact top notch people skills.
Also if people are actually serious about a solution to global warming, sea level rise and the collapse of property values for underwater front properties, we are going to need loads of energy. So what to do with all that energy, desalinate sea water and pump the fresh water inland to irrigate the worlds deserts. With cheap energy, you get cheap water and with that you turn dust bowls into carbon vacuums, plus of course benefits of albedo affects and water retention away from the sea. Green ex-deserts can of course produce an income to subsidise the cost of the water but the key is lots of cheap energy, so nuclear is required to fix the current problem.
At least it is now recognised that the key to better management of energy requires better energy storage. Renewable require better batteries to really make a difference. So likely more targeted funding is required in association with governments and an international treaty. Patent free research into battery technology, so researchers can grab information from every source free of charge and attempt to apply it to the best possible solution. Once the solution is obtained, they can commence production whilst patent issues are resolved via a specific government/industry body established for this key purpose.
Augmented reality glasses with a simple connection to a smart phone, smart phone does all the processing and supplies power, are very much more likely to be on the scene before they sort out insurance on automated vehicles. Most likely around the time it is legislated that only licensed opticians can fit and supply augmented reality glasses. It should not be up to tech companies to finalise the design of that particular bit of kit but up to Ophthalmologists and Optometrists.
What the hell is wrong with that, hmm, doctors, dentists, school teachers, road laws, aeroplane laws, ship laws, gun laws (in sane countries) just some that spring to mind with regards to doing what ever you like but you are responsible. So hmm, whom do you sue when they blow themselves up as well as others?
The price of taxi licences comes about from not what you implied, "Drivers spent their entire life's saving enough to buy their own license", a wildly false claim but the from the reality of companies buying up all the licences, limiting availability and lobbying to prevent more licences being issued, so they can pay minimum wage to new immigrants to drive those taxis whilst charging a fortune to customers. Higher insurance comes about because the poor wage slave gives not one crap about the taxi.
So want cheaper more accessible licences, simple law change, ONE PER CUSTOMER (the customer being an operator who must operate that licence and vehicle at least some of the time), get em while their hot. Set a minimum price on that licence and auction them off, when the bids drop below the minimum price no more licences are issued, say $5,000 (used in an industry fund to pay for victims of bad operators). When you no longer want you licence you return it for a refund at the minimum price and it goes up for auction again (you have an initial allocation and more are added every year in set blocks as long as the minimum price is achieved).
Here are some statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., clearly the current methods are pretty sucky because they are not doing enough to limit deaths, let alone ten times that in major injuries and hundreds of times that in lesser injuries. You know what, no matter how many people, scream 'IF ONLY' and, no matter how many times they say it, it will have absolutely zero impact on the consequence that results in the 'IF ONLY'. Solutions have to be actual solutions not just empty complaints. Likely smarter solutions, slower more boring ego less cars (the vehicles first priority should be safe driving and not maximum horse power nor highest speed possible or loudest exhaust, the more boring they are the less they will be used), lower speed limits, vehicle location awareness with warnings for exceeding posted limits.
How about over other people's property without their permission. How about around public roads, keep in mind to penalise people for poor behaviour, you need to go through all the legal gymnastics of defining exactly what is illegal versus the simple expedient of it all is illegal (this up to clarification for manslaughter and homicide should a drone crashing into a vehicle cause the driver to lose control and crash).
Next up public parks. Now consider the sound principle of law for a public recreational spaces, those who have the least impact have the greatest priority. Easy example, take a lake, a popular swimming lake. Now up turns a douche ski boat operator on the once swimming only lake, no law bans his boat screaming around the lake driving all the swimmers from the water and deafening all nearby residents. Ski boat douche expects to clean up renting rides as the only operator on the lake, public park lake, why should the one ski boat operator be denied their chance for profit ahead of say a thousands swimmers, swimming for free. America of course, yeah profit, screw the swimmers and residents. Rest of the world, well, no, those who have the least impact when using the 'SHARED' resource get the priority because others can still readily use it versus the ski boat operator who presence actively denies access to others.
So for drones in public parks, well, there use will interfere with the people's uses of the park. In terms of noise, annoyance and risk of injury. So drone parks, basically use only in parks where it is specifically allowed versus non-drone parks as in all parks where the use of drones have not been specifically allowed and sign posted. Public roads absolutely not. Over other peoples property without their permission, again, logically strictly forbidden. Use over your own property, no problem at all. These are not high altitude devices like planes they are low altitude devices, hence huge restrictions.
Uber drivers are subsidized by everybody else. Taxi drivers have to pay high insurance rates because the act of driving a long distance every day for a ton of strangers is a job that inherently leads to a much higher statistical rate of payouts. If they're driving as a taxi on regular car insurance, it's you that's paying the bill for their swindle of the insurance system.
Hint: you can't, because it doesn't. More likely the contrary (as in: seeing a naked body every now & then lets kids grow up to be healthy adults). As has been shown at least a few times in serious studies
The best way for anyone to see how this is true is to see what goes on at a Nudist park, village, beach, etc. and my direct study (this summer) of the situation confirms your answer. Nudity != sex in spades. Also, people talk about body acceptance. If a nudist camp experience can't give you that with bodies all over the spectrum, then you really do need help.
I joined Cedar Waters Village http://nhnude.com/ this year, after a lifetime of avoiding places like that (except for that one visit to Moonstone Beach (PPTJLC)), and I can only say that I regret not doing something like this sooner in my life. The ability to just walk out of your cabin after waking up - bypassing your clothes hanging in the closet completely - and traipse off to the beach not giving a single flying fuck is refreshing.
BMO - Piping Plovers Taste Just Like Chicken
Yeah, wouldn't that be great if I had linked it in my first post, and then if you had actually read my post well enough to see it?
At least in the US, that seems to be a factor when(for some reason of how the courts are structured and arranged) a given court decision is not official precedent for the purposes of another court; but still has a decent shot at being cited if it framed the issue persuasively. It's not 100%, it might also be mentioned in the process of vehemently disagreeing with the decision of the other court and politely-but-brutally rubbishing their line of thought; but even without binding legal obligation to consider a given case, sufficiently similar past cases tend to help shape future thinking on the matter(as well as encouraging or discouraging prospective litigants).
It seems about as silly as arguing that throwing away junk mail without opening it is abridging the spammer's right to free speech.
How do you come to that assumption?
By linking to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject?
A nuclear warhead has lots of trouble to even "hit" an asteroid.
Essentially every space mission we have launched for the past several decades has had to navigate with a far more precision than that needed to get close to an asteroid and activate a single trigger event when close by.
I definitely suspect that somebody is going to be taking quite a bath on this; either holders of Greek state debt, or Greeks with cash in easy reach of the state, or both; but I just don't see how bitcoins outperform 'in-hand' euros, or dollars in terms of weathering the transition; while anyone who can't get their euros is probably in deep shit; but can't buy bitcoins because they can't get to their euros, so they won't be helped much by bitcoins.
I definitely wouldn't want to have money stuck inside Greece should it exit; but barring all but the most heroic border controls, not a historical strong point of the Greek government, just walking the euros out if you have them will be relatively simple(and, if doing so is illegal, so would getting the same euros out-of-country by buying bitcoins from a non-greek, the money needs to move either way); while anyone who doesn't have them may well be stuck; but also doesn't have cash on hand to buy bitcoins.
We send spacecraft on comparable missions all the time. And it doesn't really take a spectacularly large payload to destroy (yes, destroy) an asteroid a few hundred meters in diameter. 1/2-kilometer-wide Itokawa could be blown into tiny bits which would not recoalesce, via a 0,5-1,0 megatonne nuclear warhead, a typical size in modern nuclear arsenals (in addition, the little pieces would be pushed out of their current orbit).
I know it's a common misconception that "nuking" an asteroid would simply create a few large fragments that would hit Earth with even more devastation, but that's not backed by simulation data. And anyway, even if it didn't blow the asteroid to tiny bits (which simulations say it would) and even if it didn't push the remaining pieces off trajectory (which they say it does), anything that spreads an Earth impact out over a larger period of time is a good thing - it means the higher percentage of the energy that's absorbed high in the atmosphere rather than reaching the surface (less ejecta, lower ocean waves, a broader (weaker) distribution of the heat pulse, etc), the weaker the shockwaves, the weaker the total heat at any given point in time, and the more time for Earth to radiate away any imparted energy or precipitate out any ejecta cloud. If the choice is between 15 Chelyabink-sized impactor (most of which will strike places where they won't even be witnessed) or one Meteor Crater-sized impactor (same total mass), pick the Chelyabinsk ones. 50 10-megatonne meteor crater impactors or one 500-megatonne Upheaval Dome impactor? Pick the former. The asteroid impacts calculator shows the former generating a negligible fireball and 270mph wind burst at 2km distance, while the latter creates the same winds 25km away (156 times the area) and a fireball that even 25km away is 50 times brighter than the sun, hot enough to instantly set most materials on fire.
But that's all irrelevant because, quite simply, simulations show that nuclear weapons do work against asteroids.
What we need is enough detection lead time to be able to launch a nuclear strike a few months before the impact date (to give time for the debris to disperse). There is no need to "land" or "drill" for the warhead. There is no pressure wave; instead, an immense burst of X-rays is absorbed through the outer skin of the asteroid on the side of the explosion, causing it to vaporize (unevenly) from within, especially near the ground zero point, and creating powerful shockwaves throughout its body. In addition to ripping it apart, the vaporized material and higher energy ejecta flies off, predominantly on the side where the explosion was detonated, acting a broad planar thruster.