"And it would take YEARS!"
from wikipedia: The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789, and in 1801 Richard Trevithick was running a full-sized vehicle on the roads in Camborne.
So yes, it *did* take years, more than a hundred; self-driving cars at now at the Camborne stage. Things
move faster now - it will only take 25 years to get them on the roads in numbers.
It can be done if you're willing to disable kext security check
citation(s) much needed
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
"Overall, the agricultural sector contributed nearly 7% of total US GHG emissions in 2010"
that is from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...; that's just the USA
but it's indicative that there's something a *little* wrong with your claim
this is smart, at least with respect to space-X. Musk will man rate
his rocket with or without NASA money, so it's a win-win for
NASA
yes, also infinity Q50 (as in the infamous
http://www.motorauthority.com/...)
nuke the entire site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
the vacuum is electrically neutral; the virtual charged particles
created by quantum fluctuations will be in oppositely charged
pairs (e.g. electron / positron). Won't this drive send these pairs
in opposite directions? So the whole thing will have zero thrust
this thought is the product of complete ignorance of how this
drive is actually supposed to work however
how do you get from
"in many cases"
to
"overwhelming majority"
this is the straw man fallacy, classic case
"Actually, there are three issues at play, two of which are mutually exclusive and the other two are related but not exactly the same."
I am intrigued by your mathematics
seriously, it's time
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
This doesn't make sense. Laws forbid you to utter slanderous statements. Other laws forbid you to utter "fire" in a theatre. In both cases, I can commit the offense. So either slander laws *do* limit speech or the "don't shout fire in a theatre" does *not* limit free speech. Which is it?
The point is that either you have reasonable basic liberties, or you don't. If you think an adult ought to be able to decide what they will or will not ingest, then how do you get from there to the authorities stepping into that decision using coercion? If you don't think an adult ought to be able to make those decisions for themselves, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you.
I think you mean an adult can ingest anything he wants so long as it does not harm
others (suppose I ingest substance A and B which together form a powerful explosive,
right beside YOU. Do I have the right to ingest A and B. I think not).
Now, we should have a *meaningful* discussion of whether **some** drugs are such
that there consumption harms others to a sufficient degree to warrant prohibiting their
ingestion.
I think it is completely obvious that marijuana poses no such risk; not so sure
about crack cocaine (and, from another angle, potential cognitive enhancers,
steroids for athletes etc.)
Anything free is worth what you pay for it.
