Mods, kill me! here's a map, BTW.
It's an interesting idea; but even without googling I'm willing to bet the impact zone is too far from any active rover. Why? Because the impact zone is probably close to the planned landing, and they probably didn't plan to land too close to a rover. Why? Because they want to explore diverse areas, and because even a well controlled landing might hit a rover.
I'm willing to wager... uhhh... stupid Internet points that the impact zone is 1000 (one thousand) km or more from any active rover.
AFAIK, the rovers can't get that far in a reasonable time. The zone will be covered with dust again, and/or the rover will fail. They can't "book it", at least not yet. They drive these things like Cameron's father's car. They're orders of magnitude more precious.
You should. Apple chargers are incredibly over-engineered to protect against many problems. If you want to trust your expensive iphone & ipad to cheap chargers, you feel free. I won't and I buy extras to use for other devices as well. Here's a teardown & explanation. http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-quality.html
This. It's not that (or not only that, at least) more people are dying of cancer, or even of specific cancers in this day and age; it's a combination of things like 'instead of having ten people dying of 'consumption' or 'old age' we now break it out into specific cancers' and 'well, a hundred years ago, they usually died of something else, first.'
And yeah, until very recently, kids were 'shy' or 'withdrawn' and would have undesirable traits beaten out of them; metaphorically or literally.
Well, think of it this way.
A housing development has a rash (pun intended) of break-ins.
They get together and decide to institute mandatory installation of alarm systems.
The number of break-ins goes down in direct proportion to the number of houses have alarm systems installed, until all the houses have them installed, and the number of break-ins is almost, but not quite, zero per year.
After a while, people start to think 'we don't have a break-in problem, why are we mandating these alarm systems?'
New houses under construction start to be built without alarm systems. What do you suppose happens to the break-in rate?
The price of freedom (from preventable disease) is eternal vigilance (of vaccination rates.)
It's real easy to say 'we don't need vaccines' when you've never seen a playmate in polio braces, or when pictures of a wall full of children in iron lungs is a quaint historical anachronism. When you don't have an Uncle Bob who's sterile from a bout of mumps. When having a dead sibling is unusual, and probably the result of accident or something, and not 'measles.'
But that's just a guess. Of course that being said, Netflix is cutting back their shipping hubs. Those fuckers axed the one that was next day away from me and I have to use one a state over that takes 2 to 3 days each way.
We've already got Clintongate, and if we get into a war with Russia we're all cooked.
The entirety of your post is rather selfish. You admit that the average person is marching almost futilely into destitution at the end of their life. But no, let's not do anything about that, that would "ruin the progress of society". The progress enjoyed by only the tiniest sliver of society, riding on the backs of everyone else, for all of history. Who's really selfish here?
I make almost exactly the mean personal income / median household income. I still live virtually the same way I did as a poor college student, saving as much as possible as quickly as possible so that someday I will have a chance of securing the most basic bit of security: having a place I'm allowed to sit and (at least) starve to death in peace, without having to bribe someone else every month for the privilege of doing so in their space. That is to say, to own a home (outright) and stop renting. As things are currently trending (including the long-term growth trends in my income, inflating cost of living over time, etc), if I can keep up the breakneck speed I'm saving at right now, I might be able to accomplish that by my 70s, giving me a mere handful of years before I will probably die in which to "save up for retirement" (i.e. food money, etc).
Cutting full time down to 30 hours will merely reduce my income to 75%, which will reduce my rate of progress toward that goal to 25%, which will extend the date that I am free from rent and able to start saving for other retirement expenses to some time near my 200th birthday.
Merely cutting everyone's hours is only going to help those who are unemployed (and not even all of them), at the expense of those who are employed (and a proportionally greater expense for the lower-paid), at not cost to the richest of the rich who are currently siphoning up all the wealth of society. A real solution to poverty has to be at the expense of those who can afford it, not merely dragging the rest of society with barely any hope already down into the same depths of hopelessness as the worst-off of us.
I know I've said this before: "Twitter should have been an RFC, not a company".
Remember RFCs and when there were clients other than HTTP that people cared about? This. Twitter's 140 character messages could be just UDP if you don't care about them making it, or a really quick TCP connection to some server that then redistributes the messages. Heck, it could even be blockchain based and distributed with no central server; but it never should have been a company. The only reason it's a company is because of the way VC money sloshes around in the Valley, and it's a casino where retail investors play against the house and always lose.
The Shuttle is now going five times the sound of speed. -- Dan Rather, first landing of Columbia