"Profiling" is a form of rational statistical analysis with a big social problem attached. If you have a known population of people with a propensity to behave in a certain way, then the rational thing to do is to look closely at that population. It is no different analytically than observing that white people are more prone to sunburns and thus have higher rates of skin cancer. If I worked for El Al Airlines security, it would be stupid to not look a little closer at people of Arab descent from a security standpoint because there is a known threat from some portion of that population. It doesn't mean that all Arabs are a threat (most are not) but it does make for a smaller haystack to search through. Profiling by itself is simply a rational form of analysis BUT there is a big problem with using it for policing purposes.

The problem with profiling is that it becomes a cover for overt racism. I know very few black people who have not at some point been harassed by police for no reason other than the color of their skin. Sometimes people do behave in ways that should draw attention from law enforcement but it has to be more than solely the color of one's skin or country of origin.

The Ford vehicle has four Velodyne HDL-32 LIDAR units. This is the generation after the one Google uses. They're smaller, but the field of view is wider vertically and the resolution is lower.

They spin and get full-circle images, so for research purposes they're usually mounted on top of the vehicle. But that has to change for production vehicles. A production system wiill need more sensors better integrated into the auto body.

The problem isn't with the mere fact that the NSA is looking for people with bad intentions. That by itself is fine up to a point. The problem is that the NSA and congress and the executive branch refuse to have an adult discussion with the electorate about boundaries and the fact that the NSA presently is not answerable to the electorate. "Trust us" is not remotely sufficient assurance that the NSA is not abusing their power, especially when every indication is that they are behaving badly.

Some surveillance is reasonable and appropriate but there are boundaries beyond which the government should not step without extremely strict oversight. We have the fourth amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches precisely because governments have a hard time restraining themselves. Ensuring judicial oversight is inconvenient for the government and that is precisely the point of that judicial oversight. Governments have proven time and again that they will abuse power. We understand the need for some reasonable surveillance but that doesn't mean we can or should give carte-blanche to the NSA to do whatever the hell they want. The electorate should have a say in exactly what constitutes "reasonable".

In a democracy the government is supposed to be ultimately answerable to the people. When you have a secretive branch of government, implementing secret policies, "overseen" by a secret (and apparently toothless) court, with secret findings that are never released to the public, then there is no way for the NSA to be answerable to the people. THAT is the problem.

Don't be ridiculous. Assange has said all sorts of things that line up with that same sentiment. He's gleefully released data compromising the families of Iranian resistance and protest activists, knowing full well what that regime does to people like that, all because he cares more about trying to make people of whom he disapproves look marginally worse to his sycophantic audience. His disdain for the fallout from what he does is all the more odious because he's so one-sided about who he throws under the bus.

We could cut down on all this silly legislation if they'd simply pass a law that let you punch rude people in the nose.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of insurance. The way it works is that you pay more than you need to most of the time on the off chance that something goes horribly wrong.

The issue is that the vast majority of spending doesn't go to "the off chance something goes horribly wrong", it goes to treating a very small fraction of people with multiple chronic conditions. That's not catastrophe insurance, it's continued expense.

Since you made the analogy to homeowners insurance, it's the difference between having your house burn down once by accident and living right in the middle of a dry forest that periodically burns down. Insurance will cover the first case without issue, but in the latter case you simply won't be able to get homeowner's insurance because the company figures out that they aren't so much insuring you against a random chance of disaster but signing up for continued upkeep of a house that's nearly certain to burn down again.

I can't overexaggerate how much I love the zone of silence in my daily bus and train rides, or the pristine calm of the city sidewalks.

Give me a fucking break. Suddenly the Senate is concerned for my delicate ears? More likely: an airline was cutting a deal with a carrier to sell AirTalk (tm) in-flight voice at $3.99 a minute and doesn't want to be undercut.

You'll have to cite a source for that because the wheel doesn't know whether it is pushing or pulling and despite being an engineer I cannot think of any physics reason why pushing versus pulling would make a spec of difference in fuel economy. FWD cars are often less performance oriented which means they might be designed with fuel economy higher on the priority list but that isn't an inherent advantage of FWD over RWD.

Which ones? I can't think of any that fit that description and I'm kind of a car nut. Admittedly I'm not familiar with every car out there. The only reason this might happen is if the car is available in FWD and 4WD configurations. In cases like that you aren't going to design separate chassis.

The Aztec was available in FWD and AWD. To get AWD you kind of need a way of getting the power to the rear wheels. An axle is usually involved.

Depends on the weight distribution in the particular car. Drive something like a BMW where the weight distribution is close to 50/50 and you don't have such an advantage from FWD. The type of drive system (FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD) only actually matters when accelerating. FWD works better for many people for exactly the reasons you mention but a RWD rear engine car (porsche 911) can get excellent traction for the same reasons. Really you want AWD or 4WD if traction under acceleration is a big concern. But a good set of snow/winter tires will make a MUCH bigger difference than the type of drivetrain ever will for most vehicles.

Generally speaking wider tires often perform worse in snow all other things equal because they don't penetrate through the snow as easily. There are plenty of exceptions but they tend to float over the snow rather than penetrating down to pavement.

It's not just the cut of the tread. It also is the rubber compound that matters. Snow tires don't get as hard in colder temperatures in addition to usually have different tread properties. They make a HUGE difference even in relatively modest amounts of snow. In many places a good all-weather tire can perform adequately but you will notice an improvement in sloppy conditions with a set of snow tires.

You'll always have the same problem when accelerating because the weight shifts to the rear tires when you accelerate. This is why FWD cars make rather bad dragsters. You don't typically notice in your boring family sedan because the car doesn't have enough power for it to matter much. Many RWD vehicles are poorly balanced in order to make them understeer so the weight distribution is too far forward. But it doesn't have to be that way and isn't in some RWD cars. I would actually argue (from my own experience) that a well balanced RWD car is easier to drive in the snow than many FWD cars.

You often find small animals hiding in paper bags looking for food.

Good call. Always attack the messenger, and never comment things like the verifiable Assange quote you wish didn't exist.

I suspect the biggest issue isn't technical. At the moment, if a driver drives full speed into a line of kids crossing the road it's the driver who ends up in court. If it's an autonomous self-driving vehicle, it's likely the vehicle manufacturer who ends up in court.

I don't expect the lawyers to allow these vehicles on the road in my lifetime.

And where did you get your information about "various norms of war"? Reading through the rest of your reply you don't seem to get much of that right.

The law doesn't.

Because they are acting lawfully, the federal government isn't. President Obama is just making it up as he goes along. This is rule by decree. That is the wrong answer. They passed a really bad law, fought tooth and nail to prevent changes or delays, and now that the train wreck is arriving they aren't even pretending to follow the law any more. This is a very dangerous thing to be doing.

Perhaps you didn't watch much of the video. The helicopter crews weren't assholes. The "safe distance" as a tactic is desirable, and irrelevant to the discussion. It's war, not a boxing match. The kids were in a van where they weren't visible, and why was that van there? Wasn't it violating a curfew? And why would you take your kids into a firefight? The van was trying to help insurgents escape. It was entirely proper to engage it. From what I recall the remarks were hardly disgusting, but if you lack the constitution you may want to avoid watching real combat action videos as they can be disturbing and possibly personally distressing. Not everyone is cut out for real combat, or even watching people actually being killed.

Diplomacy is a political activity like law making, and all manner of human foibles are involved. I could agree that various diplomats could be more professional.