> And I know how to hit the brakes...

With the engine past the redline there is very little vacuum to operate the power brakes. Without power assist the brakes may not be able to overcome the engine (this is, IMHO, a fundamental design defect).

> ...shift into neutral...

The computer may not let you do that with the car moving and the engine at high rpm. After all, the engine and/or transmission might be damaged (another design defect).

> ...and/or turn off the key...

Some of these vehicles don't have keys: just a radio remote. The emergency shutdown procedure is to hold a button down for three seconds (another design defect).

Sounds a little like Minority Report, doesn't it?

Each of the three precogs generates its own report or prediction. The reports of all the precogs are analyzed by a computer and, if these reports differ from one another, the computer identifies the two reports with the greatest overlap and produces a majority report, taking this as the accurate prediction of the future.

One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.

Fortunately that's not true. In high school history we learned about Manifest Destiny.

Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.

You left out "the idea that 'uncivilized' peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States." Or Native Americans and Christianity:
"White Attitudes. Among whites there were two common religiously based attitudes toward Native Americans. One was expressed in the notion of Manifest Destiny, the idea that white Christians had a God-given mission to expand their civilization and its ideals of liberty and democracy across the entire North American continent. From this point of view Indians who occupied valuable lands could be removed or even exterminated with few moral qualms. A second point of view held that the Indians did not have to be seen as a hindrance to white progress. Rather, they were simply ignorant heathens who could become part of American society if they were allowed to benefit from the civilizing instruction of whites. The first step toward civilization was believed to be conversion to Christianity. Although earlier missionaries to the Indians had produced few converts and much antagonism, the revivals of the early nineteenth century brought new impetus to the missionary movement. Most Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church sent men and women to Indian tribes across the country, where they preached, distributed Bibles, and established schools."

"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective

adjective: "noun: the word class that qualifies nouns.
verb: add a modifier to a constituent.
"Taliban" modifies "Christian".

t is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power.

And Christian Talibans such as those I already linked to would do the same thing. The difference is the religion, and the sect of the religion. Seeing as how either you can't be bothered to see that Dominionists and other Reconstructionists would do the same thing, that "civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", I am left thinking you're trolling. All that's changed is the religion and the holy book.

And if you don't think stoning, which is what they plan, isn't terrorism then I don't want to live in your world. Even associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell said theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony positions on stoning were scary.
"In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stoned--a rather abrupt way for the Clinton presidency to end."

Full disclosure, the reason.com (which I subscribe to) link is to the same article as the yuricareport.com link.

More:

• Public Stoning: Not Just for the Taliban Anymore
  "Christian reconstructionists believe democracy is heresy and public school is satanic -- and they've got more influence than you think."
• Adultery is a sin in Christianity too!
• Pat Robertson advocates 'stoning' for UFO enthusiasts

Further, dominionists don't say in any way that they want to forcefully convert any one or that they intend to mass murder any people who will not believe in their exact form of Christianity. Reconstructionists have nothing to do with government or militant attitudes. They're basically the root of the protestant movement away from the control of the Holy See (the pope). Reconstructionism was in fact a break from religious control and not an instantiation of it.

As links I've posted previously show, if you believe Dominionists don't want to dictate how people live you don't know much at them.

Finally, using a blog to support a radical opinion is about as useful as using a tissue to clean up hurricane Katrina

Of those links I provided above only one is a blog. Others are to dictionary definitions, encyclopedia entries, and other links. Now how about you provide links of your own, other than a sarcastic one? Because it's easier to try to poke holes in arguments against your position than it is proofing you're right?

Falcon

Sure they could - just that they chose not to until now. Are you saying it takes Apple to make people buy them, or will they have to copy Apple again, with all those obvious things it takes to make them sellable?

The general recommendations were that each smalltalk method should be a few lines at most. Everything small, easy to understand and self contained. That doesn't mean the program couldn't be arbitrarily complex, but it did mean that unit testing was almost redundant as you could test each small functional part in-situ.

Unfortunately, it also meant that you couldn't really show your program to anyone until you were 95% done as it requires a bottom up approach to development. I loved it - if I could get the new C# / .NET stuff into a bubble browsed environment with a little "Do It" popup that used to appear in Smalltalk ("Do It" used to execute whatever you had selected) then I'd be quite a bit more productive. Most smalltalk programmers got used to including a comment in their method that had an example (with arguments if necessary) that you could "do it" and see the results.

I guess the question though, is does everyone doodle in a manner that's relevant to what's being learnt, or are some doodles unrelated?

Do you tend to doodle things that are relevant to the subject at hand, i.e. basically using sketches as a form of notes, or do you mean you just doodle seemingly unrelated objects, but to you they act as a memory prompt or similar?

I know some people just doodle things like random cubes when they're on the phone, and whilst I understand these have phsycological meaning they don't have any relevance to the phone call they had however. I'm sure others though, possibly like yourself when you doodle tend to doodle things that are indeed more directly related to the subject at hand?