Just FYI, while it save energy for the trailing vehicle, it costs more for the lead vehicle. You're actually stealing energy from the lead vehicle.
But there is an overall net savings for both vehicles combined.
But you are not taking into consideration 2 factors. Parents want a limited number of children (with exceptions). Parents for all intents and purposes have unlimited embryos (only limited by the number of ova the woman has). If sequencing can come down to under 100$ (who's to say it won't be next to free) then you supply 200 ova, enough sperm and you develop embryos in the lab.
Now when they have become a zygote you DNA sequence the lot to find the best (with least flaws/potential vulnerabilities) and then implant enough of them to get 1-2 successful children and the rest are discarded.
When it becomes wholesale, instead of on a case by case basis, it will become the norm and what is ethical will change to fall in line.
I agree that this is both the most logical and most likely form of using genetics on embryos. However, I see a problem with the massive selective pressure this will create. As you point out we already do this to some degree, but the degree matters. Genes are complex things, and while I have no doubt we will one day have a very thorough understanding, that day will likely lag behind the ability to screen embryos.
What happens when a gene that increases risk of Alzheimer's disease also confers other positive traits? No parent will take the chance on that gene, and it will disappear in a generation. The same will happen to many genes with any possible negative qualities. The result will be a much less genetically diverse population. As I already pointed out, many genes that will be wiped out will also have positive traits associated with them. By only selecting the 'best' embryos the human race could end up much worse off.
From the looks of things, they're nothing but animated GIFs.
That's only the national ones. If you use a local one, and make it animate, they use Flash. For example, the Boston area radar loop.
Which is actually a step up - they used to be a Java applet. The Flash version is a massive improvement. Of course, there's no reason why they couldn't be done using HTML4 (no need anything HTML5 adds), but they're not.
Note the link, near the upper left, to the standard version. It's a gif:
http://radar.weather.gov/lite/NCR/BOX_loop.gif
According to this first google result:
http://www.nmhc.org/Content.cfm?ItemNumber=55508
33% of Americains rent; of those, 42% live in building with 5 or more units. That gives about 14% of people living in large apartment buildings. I suppose this would have a problem with large multi-unit buildings that people can 'buy' single units of (eg condos).
The DoJ handed out legal arguments. What they have not done is:
- revoked their qualified immunity when acting in egregious violation of law
My understanding of QI is that it applies if the officer couldn't have been reasonably expected to known that his conduct was illegal. By publishing this statement isn't that exactly what the DOJ is doing? From this point forward no officer can claim ignorance and protection under QI.
it's sad that the officer threatened arrest, but I can't say I blame him for harrassing your friend. Why? Because there's no legitimate reason for ridiculously loud exhausts outside of a race track or similar environment, unless your exhaust happens to be damaged and you're en-route to get it fixed or some other equally-improbably corner case. The rest of us just don't want to hear the noise. Get off my lawn, etc.
Then make it illegal.
Strongly reminiscent of an Andrew Jackson quote:
"John Marshal (a supreme court justice) has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
*sigh*
The Department of Justice is a part of the executive, not part of the judiciary. It includes the attorney general and the FBI, and shouldn't have any problems with enforcement.
The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.
I don't see how he is wrong, nor how the NDAA changes anything for US citizens in the US. If the AUMF already allowed indefinite detention then the NDAA doesn't change anything. If it didn't then NDAA doesn't allow it.
Presumably he bought his 4% stake and it cost him some amount of money, so that might be part of it. But for 67 million to be a 30% tax rate he would have had to pay 3.7 billion for that 4% stake. Even at 10% it's still over 3 billion of original investment.
There has to be something I'm missing.
You're missing the fact that he is paying taxes, nearly half a billion, by renouncing his citizenship. The $67 billion figure appears to be an estimate of how much more he might have eventually paid if he had stayed a citizen. On the other hand, he may have paid less or nothing if the stocks drop in value before he sells them.
I thought this was a good summary of the situation:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/renouncing-citizenship
Got examples in the last 2 decades where obscene content was censored by the U.S. Congress? I'm trying to think of some, but came up with nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#Prosecutions
In 2007, Little and his company, Max World Entertainment, Inc., were indicted by the United States Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section with five counts of transporting obscene matter by use of an interactive computer service and five counts of mailing obscene matter, relating to five movies showing fisting, urination and vomiting. Little was subsequently found guilty on all charges, and sentenced to 46 months in prison. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, Georgia upheld the conviction, but remanded his sentence. Little began serving his sentence on January 29, 2009.
Gas was so cheap then it didn't matter. Good times.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
Inflation adjusted gas prices in the 1950s seems to be pretty average, and higher than they were in the 1990s.
I wish Americans would stop using "gas" when they mean gasoline. Over here we have cars running on actual gas, as in, vapor hydrocarbon.
Gasoline vapors are burned in engines, so it is a gas.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Guns are good for you, because they make you feel a little safer. They are terrible for society, because they are stolen by thieves, who sell them to gangster wannabes who wouldn't normally be able to get them.
That's nothing at all like the prisoner's dilemma.
The argument here is that guns benefit the individual but hurt society as a whole. As an individual you have two choices: own a gun or not. Society plays the part of the other prisoner here, and has the same choices. The optimal outcome for all parties is for no one to have guns. However, it is better for an individual to own a gun, in either case. It will either give them an advantage over everyone else, or it brings them on par with everyone else.
This is true of many aspects of living in a civilization. There are many things that make things worse for everyone if they are done, however are in the best interest of the individual to do. As an individual, polluting is the 'best' choice as I save more money/time/effort not complying with regulations than I lose by the tiny addition of pollution that I add. This leads to the worst possible outcome of everyone polluting.
Mexico was before China. The next is Indonesia.
I just wish that a precedent had been set in by court instead of by settlement.
I wish the money had come from the pockets of those responsible, and not the tax payers.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
