So if the technology is demonstrably safer than 99% of drivers and results in a comparable reduction in deaths, youâ(TM)d still be opposed to it?

If someone drives drunk and kills someone then they can be arrested and potentially imprisoned. You can't arrest an autonomous car and the responsibility for any deaths will be too far removed - no-one will be arrested, there won't be enough deterrent to stop companies from putting shoddy autonomous systems on the road.

So yes, I don't want autonomous cars on the road that aren't far safer than your average driver when that average includes people that shouldn't be driving and aren't driving legally.

If an autonomous car could be shown to be safer than a professional driver with years of experience that isn't tired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs then I'd be happy for that car to be on the road. But I would not be happy if the bar was set so low as that the car is barely be safer than drunk or tired drivers. I would also not be happy if the allowing the car to drive in all weather conditions on all roads if it had only achieve a good record driving only on easy roads in daylight in good weather conditions. etc.

PS I have also heard of a theoretical intriguing device that consists of gyroscopes configured in such a way that they could cause lift within a box without violating any laws of physics including the laws of thermodynamics. It is simply a quirk of physics and gyroscopes used in such a way as to cause lift, no laws of nature violations because of the amount of energy needed.

I've since tried finding sources but never had any luck.

Unless said machine runs off a battery and uses more energy to raise a device than sticking a battery with a motor on a vertical rail.

So the machine would not be perpetual motion because you could not gain back more than it took to lift the device.

[citation needed]

Aegis equipped ships have successfully hit ballistic missiles and satellites in testing (and probably under operational conditions as of last weekend), and both of those are, by definition, hypersonic targets. While the US Navy doesn't comment on what weapons a ship might be carrying, it's almost a certainty that all of them have some SM-3s in the magazines at this point.

The biggest current problem with the carrier groups projecting power is that their air wings have less combat power than they have had in the past due to both being smaller and composed entirely of strike fighters with relatively short ranges. Using half the Hornets as tankers solves the range problem but makes the availability problem worse in both the short and long terms. The F-35 appears to improve the range situation, shockingly (thought not by enough) and I would expect that, in war time, the Navy would probably augment the air wings significantly (there is definitely room on the decks).

As far as not getting close to anything that can harm them, any nation would be stupid to put its carriers any closer to anything that can shoot at them then it needs to. With that said, Ike is currently operating in the Red Sea where Iran's proxies can shoot at her and TR is currently in the East China Sea where China can shoot at her directly.

Is it?

I mean, I have no doubt that (barring something like Pearl Harbor) the US military would take the opening rounds of any US-China conventional war, but the but the supply of equipment possessed by the US Navy and US Air Force is relatively small, will attrit fairly quickly, and the relative industrial capacity and resource availability of the US and China today is very much in China's favor. It's doubtful that the US could execute a building program like it did from 1940-1945 (and especially 1942-1944) because it would take years to build the tools just to build the tools.

Because modern search engines (not just google) have decided that they know better than you and will often ignore your specific search terms to return the shit that they think you should know instead. Quoted search terms, exclusions, etc, are all cheerfully ignored to return a result set that is utterly useless for your purposes and somewhere there is a design team patting itself on the back for what a great job they've done.

Marriage is unrelated to any ceremonies. It's a contract with benefits regarding taxes, immigration, property, healthcare and other matters.

Whatever ceremonies you perform in any place to commemorate the occasion are legally meaningless.

IIRC, Roku Channel has some paid options. I am sure that it offers the same "subscribe to HBO/Paramount/whatever" features that Amazon/Google offer. So yes, they have a need to process recurring payments.

He doesn't appear to be confused to me. He appears to be pointing out that the industry standard nomenclature is marketing bullshit.

So what you're saying is that if the forces that have been holding back nuclear power for decades had let us actually build them, they'd be coming on line now?

I will cheerfully wager that for applications like "conference room display" the ratio of consumer grade vs professional grade displays in the wild is 50:1 or higher.

I hate the culture that causes people to point at a fifteen minute youtube video to explain something that takes 15 seconds to read.

Did you mean "the outstanding balance is due and payable immediately, and the bank will foreclose on the property if no payment is forthcoming?" Because "the bank gets the asset outright" isn't a thing.

I was this many years old when I learned that a generation that started with births in 1946 is responsible for the creation of Social Security in 1935. It would be helpful if you could amplify on the above and let me know which time machine they used? Was it Doc and Marty's, did they hijack the phone booth from Bill and Ted (though I've gotta tell you, that would be more of a Gen-X move rather than Boomers), or did they go the long way using Professor Farnsworth's one-way machine?