We kind of did.

The original SR-71 was going to be hydrogen powered because jet fuel could self-combust at the kind of temperatures it would reach on board and the CIA had plenty of money to spend to try something new.

They scrapped that idea because the hydrogen version was huge and had limited range and it turned out to be easier to make the jet fuel not self-combust than to make hydrogen work as a fuel. As with all these other fads, there's a reason why we've used fuels that make sense for decades rather than fuels that make some oligarch more money.

> How exactly are we going to do that?

Kill all humans, I guess.

You have to understand that we live under a death cult which wants to destroy all sentient life on the planet. Pushing for "there must be none" is one way to do that, because once we shut down oil, nuclear and plastics 90% of the population die and the other 10% spend the rest of their lives fighting each other for food and shelter.

If speed limits were enforced, they would be abolished tomorrow. They only continue to exist because most people can break the speed limit for years without getting a ticket.

If drivers received a fine every time they broke the speed limit, politicians houses would be burning down the next day and the law would be abolished the day after.

You know why encryption is legal despite Bush and Clinton's best attempts to prevent it?

Because Gen-X kids risked a decade in jail for breaking Federal law to ensure the code got out there and everyone had it. It simply became impossible to regulate because anyone anywhere in the world could download the code and run it.

Today programmers won't even say 'no' when governments demand they ID all their users.

Because it's not about age. It's about eliminating anonymity online.

There were laws requiring that escaped slaves were returned to their owners. I presume you would have obeyed those laws, even though they were immoral.

> You live in a country with laws.

A country with laws, yes. A country with law, no.

It's ludicrous to tell people they should obey the law when none of Epstein's clients have been arrested and probably at least half of the business owners in the country would be in jail if the laws on employing illegal aliens were enforced.

If an escaped slave had turned up at your house in the 1800s asking for help, would you have followed the law and sent him back to his owner? From your post, I'm guessing you would have.

I know a few Christian Nationalists. None of them are pushing for "Age Versification" and most are against it because it's clearly just another step toward The Mark of the Beast where people won't be allowed on the Internet unless they bend the knee to Satan.

This push is coming from the communists and WEF-bozos who want to eliminate anonymity on the Internet. Literally everyone who's been following this for long knows that.

Which is why you see support for it from both "left-wing" and "right-wing" governments. They both have the same hands shoved up their behinds.

It's worth remembering that this law was passed by the Conservative government and is now being enforced by the Labour government who complained that it didn't go far enough.

It's Uniparty, Uniparty, Uniparty all the way down. They all work for the same oligarchs.

If America is willing to extradite Americans to the Youkay for a crime that's a blatant First Amendment violation, then the US effectively no longer exists.

I mean, it's possible, but at that point you might as well stick a fork in it and admit it's done.

Until recently, people have cared about not being able to travel to America without being arrested, so they tended to comply with American law.

Pretty much no-one outside the Youkay cares about being able to travel to the Youkay. The country is a joke.

I use a VPN to connect to customer sites in the UK. Good luck after they ban it and we can't fix customer systems when they break and make it a bad--and potentially life-threatening--day for millions of people.

These 'Ofcom' people are retarded. This is what happens when most of the smartest kids leave the country every year for seventy years.

It's weird how the 'slippery slope' is a fallacy and yet we've slid right down pretty much every slippery slope that's been created in my lifetime.

This is just another "Acshually, I know a [insert category here] who isn't [insert description here]' argument.

> is to learn

Sure, but schooling isn't education. It's weird, degenerate daycare.

> Modern technology has made the entire concept of centralized learning into this weird anachronism we cling on to.

Modern schooling exists to keep teachers employed. It was created by the Prussians as a propaganda mill to produce compliant factory workers and soldiers, but it doesn't even do that any more.

Smart kids have never benefited from government schools. Even before the Internet, smart kids would likely learn more from the local libraries than from school.

But teachers are now a huge voting block and no democratic politician wants to tell them to 'learn to prompt'.