I don't believe that speed limits being too low is the primary cause of people following too closely. The primary cause of tailgating is poor driving habits. Most drivers that tailgate will do so REGARDLESS of the prevailing speed of traffic. They either don't know any better, are not paying attention, or are just raging a$$holes (mostly this).

In fact, it is my opinion that raising the speed limit will actually increase the incidence of people following too closely, because most drivers don't seem to have a CLUE that following distance should increase as speed increases.

You are entirely neglecting the fact that the reason the toxins are there is from mining by a private corporation that never cleaned up its mess. But EPA bad, corporation good, right?

Moron

Yes because climate scientists are all trying to get rich by pandering to the Government? THis is the most ridiculous argument against climate change. The only "scientists" with a demonstrable financial interest are the corporate shills denying the evidence. Take a look at the history of the campaign to end leaded additives in gasoline. The kind of corporate-funded "research" trying to discredit the voices sounding the alarm against lead in fuels sound eerily similar to what is going on in the climate change debate today.

Just have a high power water gun handy; if you start soaking the drone I bet the operator will clear out. If not then maybe you can knock it down :)

No. This could allow cells copy themselves without replication errors for more generations. This is not "preserving" cells that are growing sicker; the existing cell is copying itself, and having a longer telomere means the succeeding generations are protected longer from errors. From one of the first links I googled (http://www.tasciences.com/what-is-a-telomere/):

"Many scientific studies have shown a strong connection between short telomeres and cellular aging."

The cynic in my says that Groupon did this intentionally to generate a firestorm of controversy to get themselves some free publicity. The only other possible explanation is that they are incredibly foolish.

The key is that you MUST say that you are not answering because you are invoking your 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. If you say nothing at all, then your silence may be used in court. If you say you are not answering because of 5th amendment, then your refusal to answer may NOT be used in court.

It is indeed a perverse ruling, but you can protect yourself by knowing how to respond.

That also explains why I don't trust much coming out of the "hacker" community, either. :)

See what happens when you make sweeping generalizations about a community based on the wrongdoings of some members of that community?

If you think that you can evade the bad behavior of Corporations simply by "not buying from them" then you are incredibly naive.

Watch TV then. Good film is supposed to make you think.

You are either a shill for NK, or a stooge. NK has REPEATEDLY threatened imminent attacks on US soil in the past month. They even showed a video of KJU conferring with his generals, with a map of the USA showing missile tracks targeting several cities.

The general consensus is that Kim is posturing mostly to strengthen his internal political position, but he is doing it in an extremely dangerous and unpredictable way.

I don't think the treaties necessarily would prohibit charging fees after a rescue. Certainly you can be fined after a rescue if you were negligent; it doesn't take too much to imagine a fee charged for a rescue if the boat owner was a US citizen and yet had avoided paying sales tax on their yacht by registering in a tax-haven, and was subsequently rescued in US waters.

It could even be structured so that the fee would be nominal for "normal" boats; e.g. 0.1% of the last sale price. But that $20M yacht? That will be $20 grand please.

Most "normal" boat owners will have paid the sales tax anyway, and be exempt from the fee.

In California, the "Maximum speed law" states that the maximum speed you can drive is no faster "than is safe". This means you can be ticketed for driving at the posted speed limit if it is (subjectively) not safe under the current conditions (i.e. weather, traffic, etc).

Theoretically it also means that driving OVER the posted speed might not be ticketable; I had a driver's ed instructor who claimed that he had gotten a speeding ticket thrown out by arguing in traffic court that he was driving safely, even though over the posted limit; YMMV.

Effectively this means that a cop could ticket you at ANY speed, and argue that it was unsafe. My experience is that in normal traffic, the "up to 10mpg over" rule is the norm, at least on the freeways/highways.

Airplanes routinely try to avoid thunderstorms because of the danger of wind shear. At most this danger might lead to increasing the preferred distance; but it seems unlikely that there much added risk vs. proximity to a lightning strike while on the ground.