But require significantly more planning and skill to do, which is why the number of bombs used for mass killings in the US is vastly out numbered by the number of mass killings using guns.

You can change the law you know? You just need enough people to agree. If enough people agreed to write a new amendment that outlawed Islam then you could do it; similarly if enough people agreed to ban guns you could do that too. The constitution isn't fixed and perfect forever document, it can and should adapt as the world and attitudes change.

Australia did it legally. The US could do it legally as well, it just requires a constitutional amendment. Sure it's not easy or straight forward, but if enough people said "enough is enough, we don't want to live like this and we value protecting people from gun violence more than we value the right to bear arms" then the amendment could pass and the government could remove the guns. Just because something isn't constitutional now doesn't mean it won't be constitutional in the future; or are you saying that the current version of the US Constitution is the final version and most perfect it could ever be no matter how circumstances change in the future?

That might be because stamp collectors do not have special privileges and tax breaks in society; they don't bitch about it when someone else asks that they be treated equally; they don't go around calling non-stamp collectors evil and immoral. If stamp collectors did start acting that way, then maybe the non-stamp collectors would start to talk about the evils of stamp collecting.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a gods, it is saying that nothing has convinced me so far to believe that gods exist. It is not a (on its own) statement that the atheist is certain that there is no god. There are people who take that position, they are gnostic atheists. i.e. they take that position that you can know for certain whether gods exists or not. Most atheists are however agnostic atheists, they take the position that you cannot know for certain, but that evidence isn't strong enough to convince them to believe the claims.

Except functionally, not believing is a position that does not require a burden of proof whereas believing is one that does. You have to be able to justify your beliefs to yourself, otherwise they are no beliefs. I lack belief in a gods because there hasn't been sufficient evidence for me to establish a belief. I don't actively disbelieve in gods because I think it is an unanswerable question to rule out all possible god concepts. I do currently actively disbelieve the Christian god, because there is sufficient evidence for me that the claims made in the bible do not stand up to scrutiny.

Are you an atheist and stating that this is your position, or are you putting up a straw man?

As an atheist, my position is that no claim about the existence of a god has met a burden of proof strong enough for me to believe it. I lack any believe in a god. It is not an active belief that there are no gods or cannot be a god. I am what is usually called an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I do not think that we can know with absolute certainty whether a god exists, and atheist because I have not been convinced by any argument that gods exist.

What it should have to say is nothing. Since the vast majority of software is going to be provided with these terms - i.e. "as is and without warranty"; then the law should be changed to say that unless otherwise specified all software is provided as is and without warranty etc. That should be the default. (or whatever we as society decide is a reasonable default for the majority of cases). Then only software that requires something else, such as that used to run critical systems will need more than the default terms and conditions or license - and the purchasers of that software will ask for such license terms.

We need to get to the point where the default covers the vast majority of cases. It's no longer the 70s where software was expensive and employing lawyers to draft licenses was a small proportion of the cost.

Actually what's needed is a standard set of terms and conditions that apply by default to all applications that everyone agrees is reasonable (consumer and producer) and then only where a developer wants to impose something different should they have to say where they vary from it. This is what happens in other scenarios where the public interact with companies.

You don't have to read a massive 'terms and conditions' contract when you check into a hotel since there are consumer protection laws about how hotels can treat their customers and laws to protect the hotel from abuses by customers such as theft of towels or trashing of rooms. Similarly when you buy a burger there are generally accepted conditions about the food being fit for human consumption and health departments who enforce it.

Otherwise we'd have to spend forever reading through terms and conditions every time we interacted with companies. As a society we decided that a level of standard regulation made life better for everyone. This is what we need for apps, for websites and for online services.

So complain about those practices and lobby hard to get those practices banned. GMO crops in general are neutral as far as that is concerned. Fight against the actual things you find objectionable, not against the general science.

I don't think anyone is saying that you won't be able to own a car. I'm sure that many people will. However you won't have to own a car. SDCs will open up the personal transportation market.

Yes, insurance companies won't need to get the data from Google, they will get it from the customer or directly themselves by aggregating claims and costs for SDCs vs HDCs.

Sure some people (probably most) won't want to share a ride, but for some the reduced cost would be mean that they are fine with. People share buses or trains now, this will be more like that.

I assume that you stop at least once during that journey. If the SDC didn't have enough range to get you there in one charge, you'd likely either want to stop for coffee or meal which would give it enough time to recharge, or if you truly are in a hurry (why didn't you get the express train instead?) then you probably swap at a service stop for fully charged SDC - after all you won't need to own the SDC it'll just be a service you pay for, giving you a vehicle that meets your requirements for the journey you are taking. You won't want the same vehicle for the daily commute as you would for a long cross country drive.

Why wouldn't they recharge themselves? It's pretty easy to design a charging station that a robotic car can attach itself to. You're still thinking in terms of the manual plug and cable that is designed for us humans to use easily. Robots won't need that.