They are selfish, spoiled children who want their conveyance to continually shout "LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME". The first thing the stereotypical Harley owner does is straight pipe his 1930s technology boat anchor and reduce the torque to the point that you can out-accelerate them in with a total ramp turd of a cage. Only spectacularly old riders don't do that, probably because it makes their tinnitus act up.

Why does this remind me of GMO labeling? Deniers decry the "hockey stick" because they claim it is "alarmist". And the processed food industry is against GMO labeling for the same reason... it will scare people!

You're not a 'power user' if you're looking for ways to buy yourself out of abuse. You're Microsoft's bitch. Better have daddy's money on time. And get ready to get slapped around anyway, because that's how daddy keeps his bitches in line.

Does he? Does he really own them? Or does he just have some sort of contractual control that can disappear with a lawsuit, and the stroke of a pen?

That's a sign of insufficient citizen involvement, not a sign of too-large government. Larger governments than Flint's have managed not to pollute their water.

What causes you to imagine that a single ice core tells us nothing at all about global temperatures?

The quick fix for the "global warming people" isn't to leave the planet. It's to kill the people who are destroying the ecosphere upon which we depend for survival. If you want to see an eco-war, keep running your suck instead of changing your habits.

The ice core from greenland is a perfectly good meter stick. If localized activity affects the weather there will be signs in the ice. For example, if there's a volcano reducing insolation, then there's going to be volcanic particulates in the ice. Thus, you'll be able to separate the localized influences.

Are you claiming that Greenland isn't affected by global climate? That's going to be a hard sell.

It's not after the fact because it is still happening. We have to identify the culprits and stop them. Are you a time traveler, come back from an era when we no longer know how to spell, to tell us Fuck You, I'm Eating?

I suspect it's also going to be a challenging case to make because it's wrong. They simply also make movies which appeal to that audience, which is not interested in big special effects and whatnot. Different audience, different budget, different casting. And different release strategy as well; many of those movies are direct-to-video.

If they don't use it up, there's a risk they might eventually be asked to give it back.

Several outfits have now demonstrated an electric multicopter large enough to carry a human for twenty minutes.

It doesn't have to be affordable to every tom, dick and asshole. It doesn't have to be viable everywhere in the country. It only has to be viable in a large enough market to afford a few such aircraft. Also, helicopter air taxi services are a thing. People with more money than you or I regularly use them.

Show your math. I'm sure someone would be willing to pay at least that part.

They don't actually make any sense unless they are autonomous, because you're just having to pay the fuel penalty for the pilot — who can reasonably be replaced by a computer the size of your testicle.

Well, that is most of the required infrastructure. You can use their radio navigation beacons.

We're talking about a lightweight vehicle by definition. It won't take much of a rooftop pad for it to land on.

A much bigger problem is that you really need to not have a pilot, and there's no FAA framework whatsoever that would permit transporting passengers by drone.

I don't feel like loading their wix-laden website, but there's a company called gotham air that planned to offer $99 air taxi service from manhattan to the airport. No idea if that ever materialized, or if it (dun dun dun) crashed and burned.

I've heard that about the Osprey, but not the Harrier.

Why not? People can use helicopters in cities, and they're dangerous as heck.

Society has an age discrimination issue. Most of us, even women, would rather look at a fresh-faced young girl than at a woman with lines on her face. We'd rather look at perky boobs than saggy ones. Is it even possible to fix the problem of age bias in Hollywood, and if so, would that actually help address the problem of age discrimination in society? Or would there just be a lot of bitching about how feminist laws are compromising entertainment, ala Ghostbusters? (I don't have an opinion on that movie, which I haven't seen; I'm only characterizing the complaints.)

Yeah, I thought that was a bullshit argument, too. The truth is that they're going to hire the prettiest, most popular actress to play the role, and part of that means hiring the youngest one that can more or less carry it off because that's what puts asses in seats. I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this, either. The degree to which youth equals beauty has been explored nigh unto death by everyone and their mom, especially as she ages.