I don't have an answer, but that seems highly plausible to me; if you install in the wrong orientation then the wiring can be pulled out. Automotive sensors occasionally can be installed in multiple positions but the cable only really reaches in one.

They will take what they can get. There's been plenty of articles on how the recruiters are scraping the bottoms of barrels because less and less educated people are making the decision to go die in the desert for someone else's profit.

If the picture is intended to arouse desire, then it's pornography. And it is not a stretch to imagine an instance in which such a picture is being sent between minors.

If the law says it can happen, then it is reasonably to worry that it will happen eventually. If it is undesirable for it to happen, then the law should not specify it. I'm not against laws regarding child pornography, but I'm against the laws as written targeting those they are meant to protect.

And this is why some of the drone systems planned include a group of drones that shadow a fighter. You can send them on little missions to engage enemies and so on, and do things you can't because you're a squishy bag of mostly water. The drones can be semiautonomous or perhaps even have an optical communications system as backup in case of radio jamming. But on the other hand, that's still an interim step between semiautonomous and fully autonomous drones...

You have this exactly backwards. With proper surveillance support, you can do all this faster and easier from an armchair, because you don't have to do it while also flying a plane. The plane flies itself while you click the mouse. More likely, however, your commander is clicking the mouse, and you're stepping in to do a little flying whenever the automated systems aren't handling the mission as well as you would like.

How much time do you have flying helis?

Yes.

The premise behind a motorcycle is that you can get out of the way if someone is going to smash you. You can't get that kind of car out of the way of anything. In order to safely place such vehicles on our roads, we would have to make substantial changes. The best approach would probably be a graduated system of licensing as used with two-wheeled motor vehicles in Japan. You prove your way up to heavy vehicles, and vehicles with higher-displacement engines. This would eliminate most of the SUVs and 3/4 ton pickups from the road if done responsibly. Also, we would need to either build more rail and move more freight to it, or institute stricter standards for truck shipping including better training and testing for drivers and a national 55 mph speed limit for towing with strict enforcement. We currently have many poorly-trained truckers running around at top speed with inadequate training... on speed. And that, friends, is why I drive a car with crumple zones.

You are strangely ignorant if you don't know that Intel has long been producing genuinely radiation hardened x86 processors for the space program. It wasn't long ago they introduced the hardened Pentium, which AFAIK is about the most powerful hardened processor available so far. They were radiation hardening processors before the 486 was even a thing, before they even could make such fine features, because that most certainly is not sufficient radiation hardening.

Almost. They both go to jail for child pornography, she for producing and he for possessing. Then the child goes into a home, and probably eventually into the military or a prison. Either way, the state profits.

You've almost got it. It's skeptical of anything done by our government in the name of safety, which they clearly do not give one tenth of one fuck about.

There are crazy people out there. However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Bans on cheap handguns have already been struck down as unconstitutional, because they are biased against the poor. Instead of worrying about whether disadvantaged people will steal guns, why not worrying about whether people are disadvantaged? Oh, because the entire system is based on having people be disadvantaged? Which is part of what the guns are for to begin with.

No, no it is not, and if you believe that then you don't understand freedom of speech.

So you do your best to keep him away from cops, right? Because cops commit crimes at about the same rate as the general population, and they all have guns.

Nobody thinks gun safety is a liberal conspiracy. Some people think that particular types of government interference in a constitutionally-guaranteed right are unconstitutional and not done in the best interest of The People, though.

Right, the most likely is harassment, and the next most likely is for criminals to find targets. You only hear about stupid criminals.

Problem is, who says he actually is unarmed? People lie about that all the time. Remember Ms. poor-trigger-discipline-herself Dianne Feinstein's concealed revolver that she carried to protect herself against "terrorists"? Yeah, Feinstein was way ahead of the curve on the war on terror. I wouldn't bet he walks his talk if my life depended on it.

And that's what happens when stupid people meet stupid rhetoric. The fact is that women can rape as well. An honest list would contain the names of all students, faculty, police, janitorial staff, contractors... But it is equally a list of potential non-rapists. Too bad they chose to promote rape.

What purpose does creating such a list serve but enabling people to show up at houses? You have nothing to fear from people who store "dangerous" guns in their houses (I have news for you, all guns are dangerous) unless you intend to do something bad in their house.

These lists only serve two purposes, neither legitimate. They assist criminals who wish to steal guns, and they assist criminals who wish to avoid houses where they might get shot.