CO2 emissions are proportional to fuel consumption, so I guess there's no point measuring that figure; the fuel efficiency of vehicles is a known quantity.
But are these vehicule really causing 90% of the pollution? Maybe it's only 35% when you count CO2 who knows?
Ontario Policy is what is causing the pollution. I have heard (but to be fair, have not checked) that you can continue using your vehicle there for decades after it fails emissions tests so long as you don't sell it to someone new. This results in a lot of polluting cars on the road, particularly among people who can't really afford to replace them. A combination of a cash-for-clunkers type program and opening their markets to make it easy to import cars from the states would go a long way toward reducing the air pollution.
A guy doing this can kill more people than every psychopath in the world combined. Irresponsible lies about scientific research that fundamentally affects the future of the planet is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater--well outside the bounds of what free speech should protect because it risks mass casualties. This guy should be lined up against a wall and shot.
I tend to let tabs accumulate unless I need the resources. Restart the browser in a few days. The cost of searching for the right information again is generally higher than the cost of leaving the tab open.
I do wonder what percentage of this has to do with the age of the person involved. I find geeks in their 20s tend to read less for fun when compared to geeks in their 40s, with geeks in their 30s may or may not. Reading requires a longer attention span and *may* have some correlation with context-switching habits. I am also curious about context-switching costs, which as I understand it tend to be ridiculously high for humans.
Basically, a few thousand gallons of gasoline. The airplanes are privately owned.
So close to zero that it doesn't matter. The budget is driven by social security, medicare, and defense. Talk about anything else in the federal budget is almost meaningless until we fix those--it just distracts from the core problem.
False, although mostly true so far. Notably, the intrusiveness of airport security has gone way up, for the big example on the false side.
Mostly what there's been so far has been a tradeoff between *privacy* and security. As in none of the former.
I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.
But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't stepping far enough back. He's concerned about the next five years; I'm concerned about the next twenty or fifty.
I suppose there's an AI issue, too--a singularity is going to get into this data in a few decades. I can't predict what an AI a hundred times smarter than any of us might do with it.
When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.
If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.
Bullshit.
You have to comply with *lawful* police orders. In probably every state you can be arrested for failing to follow *lawful* police orders. But if they tell you to do something they don't have the power to order, they *may* arrest you in fact, but they are not *allowed* to.
If they do not lie about what happened (and cops lie a lot) you will be set free sooner rather than later, likely within a few days. If the cop's behavior is obviously illegal, as opposed to just arguably illegal, you can sue him and his department successfully.
> But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt.
The cabs in New York, for example, are usually worse than this. There was a court case a while back about how they screw you with their insurance. Basically they made each cab its *own* LLC and provided the minimum insurance permitted by law. So good luck recovering.
Encryption was defined as a weapon until '97. There were a number of interesting end runs around that, including a book with all of the PGP source code in it. Since you could print the definition for a 3D gun, banning 3D files for guns should run into the same legal restrictions that banning the publishing of encryption software did.
I have a vague recollection of reading about guys in 1980s-1990s taking suitcases of encryption algorithms on printer paper across the border to get around the export restrictions. It's a crazy work we live in...
> The ones I've worked with have good senses of humor and, contrary to the opinions voiced here, have no desire to trample on anyone's rights.
Generally true--you've mostly got a lot of really good guys working intelligence. Most of the concern around massive surveillance--and part of the problem they really have a problem understanding it--is not what the guys in control of it now *do*, it's the *potential* for the wrong guy or guys to use it for evil.
Right now you have some *REALLY* sketchy stuff going on even with good guys in charge. Most notably, you've got a problem in that it's being used against criminals indirectly, which is a gross violation of the rights of a lot of criminals. Think parallel construction type projects. Wasn't there a big treasure trove of tax evasion data that mysteriously appeared a while back? Here we go: http://www.politico.com/mornin...
That *is* almost certainly our government or governments colluding to violate the rights of criminals, but the people doing it don't *care* because it's criminals.
I am a little upset about that because it's unconstitutional and because we overcriminalize generally, so almost everyone is breaking the law and they have something on everyone if they care to use it.
I am *much* more concerned with the potential for misuse not with the generally good guys dealing with it today, but by the bad guys who come in tomorrow, or the good-ish guys who get too tempted knowing how much easier it would be if they blackmail a senator or two based on knowledge of who they've slept with or what their daughter was up to on spring break. You're fundamentally dealing with power politics with an apparatus that could put a man like Frank Underwood in control of the country for decades, all without real transparency or accountability.
Most politicians don't have anywhere near that level of savvy--we are mostly saved by a combination of incompetence and a lot of really great guys in the intelligence community who would go a long way to prevent that kind of thing if they find out about it--but if we don't put incredibly good *processes* in place, engineered to prevent that kind of takeover, then it *will* happen if it has not already. Think what J. Edgar Hoover could have done with that information. Think what McCarthy did without it, and how much worse it could have been.
But Uber's not winning because you can hail them with a phone. (And a taxi company could write that app if it wanted, or a consortium of taxi companies could.) It's winning because it's a fundamentally *better* experience for almost anyone. You know roughly how long it will take to get to your place, which is hit-and-miss with cap companies. You don't have drivers lying to you that their machines aren't working in order to get cash and make off-book profits. You have cars that are actually clean. Close to nine of ten uber rides go very well and without a hitch or deceipt or radically unsafe driving, while with cabs it's closer to 1 of 2.
Put another way, the natural market is allowing these freebooters to win. Legislation should be used to make sure passengers are protected, but even once that's done the taxi companies are going to lose unless they rebrand and radically improve their service.
They're not forced, they're just figuring it's not worth it. Kansas is a relatively small market and they'd need to invest a bit and incur additional liability and complexity that they're unwilling to deal with if they can help it.
The law requires primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death and bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death and bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage, which is more than some states let taxis get away with but isn't really unreasonable. For some reason (maybe there are cities just over the border and it wants to let uber drivers from Kansas work there) it differentiates between being *ready* to get a ride and actually driving someone, and if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.
They're not forced, they're just figuring it's not worth it. Kansas is a relatively small market and they'd need to invest a bit and incur additional liability and complexity that they're unwilling to deal with if they can help it.
The law requires primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death and bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death and bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage, which is more than some states let taxis get away with but isn't really unreasonable. For some reason (maybe there are cities just over the border and it wants to let uber drivers from Kansas work there) it differentiates between being *ready* to get a ride and actually driving someone, and if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
I have read stories that NASA considers to shutdown this rover mission due to budget cuts and priorities.
No. It's too popular, like Hubble--Congress won't let them shut it down even if the cuts are big enough that they should. They'll keep at least a skeleton crew on it as long as it's running.
They may make noise about shutting it down to try to keep from getting a budget cut, but they're highly unlikely to shut it down.
But Gandalf calls Treebeard "the oldest of all living things" and Celeborn calls him "Eldest".
And it was said of Bombadil:
'But in any case,' said Glorfindel, `to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.'
New York City is probably more productive than most of the other cities cited in the article based solely on their raw populations.
It depends how you define productive. Tokyo and New York are the most productive cities in the world by GDP by a wide margin, each being more productive than about 90% of the countries in the world.
As to waste, what percentage of that was paper? NYC has more law firms than you can imagine. Although you know all the little food places where you can grab a sandwich by wall street? They don't tend to have recycling bins...
The entire point of the books is missed if the eagles drop the ring in. Sorry, not a great ring of power, just a magic bauble of the sorts you find in D&D. It's not just a story of a great big adventure. The point is the struggle with the ring, the struggle between the factions, the struggle most of the people had with themselves, and so forth.
Or to use a word from Pratchett: narrativium.
The Hamlet Defense! (I.e. why didn't Hamlet just kill his Uncle in Act I?)
Very true and an entirely legitimate narrative device; it's just much more impressive when the storyteller shows awareness of the hole (and preferably has a bit of fun with it). Like if you had that last host of the Captains of the West surrounded by all the armies of Morder at the Black Gate, and then the eagles show up, and Merry turns to Gandalf and is all "Er... Why didn't we--"
Honesty, the nerd tendency to reject the statement "but at the end of the day we know we're rationalizing it" is sad, pathetic, hilarious, and fascinating.
Actually, that would be a really interesting study--self-awareness of rationalization. I bet you could tie it in in a useful way with learned intentional decision-making and self-improvement. It's an interesting question what the overlap to the nerd and geek communities are, but those communities are not clearly defined so you've got a whole field to build up. I wonder what studies have been done already... mmm...
"It seems that nobody noticed this alleged plot-hole during Tolkien's lifetime, as there is no surviving letter where Tolkien is inquired so." To quote from here: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki...
"That federal law protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age."
I don't think I ever realized how ironic that was before now. A threshold requirement for an age discrimination claim is that you not be certain ages...
The Fell Beasts didn't need to be ridden. The Servants of Sauron were completely capable of acting on their own. It's not a rationalization. You'd have to learn a bit more to know this, but as you've already closed your mind I rather doubt you're in the mood for learning. Plus, studying Tolkien-lore is much like being good at chess...it's a useless skill that only pleases its student. Your time would be better spent learning applied skills.
They were, but they didn't appear until later in the book and I don't believe there was an indication that they were known to exist by the Fellowship before they were encountered. Of course, IIRC there was some lore in the Silmarillian about the flying beasts from Angband, but I can't remember for sure offhand whether that included beasts on the small scale (as opposed to dragons).
In any event, your post-hoc explanation may make perfect sense, but without some hard evidence that the author made a decision for that reason, it's still a post-hoc explanation for a seeming inconsistency and therefore suspect as a rationalization. (No offense being intended or implied by the term. It turns out hindsight bias is *really* hard to guard against.)
I suppose you could argue it's a Hamlet-type plot hole (deliberately left in so that you have the rest of the production, even though everyone knows it's a plot hole).
No, not only China. Uber's business model is illegal in most of the world where there are already laws governing charging fares to passengers in your car.
Not only China, but more China. As a practical matter, I have never heard anything good about China's response to foreign business investments. It's probably the single biggest thing limiting their growth at the moment. Worse, even companies investing billions there have to basically have a Chinese company do it for them because there is so much corruption that it is impossible to do it themselves without violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
But Saruman was washed away by Neptune's great ocean.
Hahahah. Silly movie. He was defeated by the Ents...
Although actually, his later death in the book was incredibly well done, with Frodo's words incredibly moving, even after the Scouring of the Shire, showing the profound hopefulness of the book--while perfectly catching and distilling the core of an audience response to Aristotelian tragedy.
"No, Sam!" said Frodo, "Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me, And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it."
Short version: why didn't they just ask the Eagles to fly them to Mordor? Or over the mountains?
Short (prevalent) answer: Eagles would be extremely easy to spot over the skies of Mordor, and thus would be stopped before they got to Mount Doom. They were willing/able to pick up Frodo at the end because Sauron had already been defeated.
Oh, yes, there are lots of possible answers we can make up to rationalize it, but at the end of the day we know we're rationalizing it. Like rationalizing Han Solo's discussion of making the Kessel Run in a number of parsecs is because he skirted closer to a black hole so technically he was crossing less space. As an author if you mean something like that you have to "hang a lantern" on it and either demonstrate your knowledge of the plot hole or have somebody share the reason it's not a hole.
Besides, Nazgul were on horses until they were unhorsed.
I see you were once rejected by a group of thespians and happy to tempt the wrath of the big whatever from high above, regardless of context. Hurray! It's so much less smiting for the rest of us. Of course, I suppose that might presuppose a law of conservation of smiting...
On the other hand, perhaps theater superstitions were just created by Roko's Basilisk. I mean, if you were Roko's Basilisk and you were bored...
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 emissions are proportional to fuel consumption, so I guess there's no point measuring that figure; the fuel efficiency of vehicles is a known quantity.
But are these vehicule really causing 90% of the pollution? Maybe it's only 35% when you count CO2 who knows?
Ontario Policy is what is causing the pollution. I have heard (but to be fair, have not checked) that you can continue using your vehicle there for decades after it fails emissions tests so long as you don't sell it to someone new. This results in a lot of polluting cars on the road, particularly among people who can't really afford to replace them. A combination of a cash-for-clunkers type program and opening their markets to make it easy to import cars from the states would go a long way toward reducing the air pollution.
A guy doing this can kill more people than every psychopath in the world combined. Irresponsible lies about scientific research that fundamentally affects the future of the planet is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater--well outside the bounds of what free speech should protect because it risks mass casualties. This guy should be lined up against a wall and shot.
I can't bring myself to close tabs.
I tend to let tabs accumulate unless I need the resources. Restart the browser in a few days. The cost of searching for the right information again is generally higher than the cost of leaving the tab open.
I do wonder what percentage of this has to do with the age of the person involved. I find geeks in their 20s tend to read less for fun when compared to geeks in their 40s, with geeks in their 30s may or may not. Reading requires a longer attention span and *may* have some correlation with context-switching habits. I am also curious about context-switching costs, which as I understand it tend to be ridiculously high for humans.
Basically, a few thousand gallons of gasoline. The airplanes are privately owned.
So close to zero that it doesn't matter. The budget is driven by social security, medicare, and defense. Talk about anything else in the federal budget is almost meaningless until we fix those--it just distracts from the core problem.
False, although mostly true so far. Notably, the intrusiveness of airport security has gone way up, for the big example on the false side.
Mostly what there's been so far has been a tradeoff between *privacy* and security. As in none of the former.
I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.
But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't stepping far enough back. He's concerned about the next five years; I'm concerned about the next twenty or fifty.
I suppose there's an AI issue, too--a singularity is going to get into this data in a few decades. I can't predict what an AI a hundred times smarter than any of us might do with it.
When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.
If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.
Bullshit.
You have to comply with *lawful* police orders. In probably every state you can be arrested for failing to follow *lawful* police orders. But if they tell you to do something they don't have the power to order, they *may* arrest you in fact, but they are not *allowed* to.
If they do not lie about what happened (and cops lie a lot) you will be set free sooner rather than later, likely within a few days. If the cop's behavior is obviously illegal, as opposed to just arguably illegal, you can sue him and his department successfully.
> But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt.
The cabs in New York, for example, are usually worse than this. There was a court case a while back about how they screw you with their insurance. Basically they made each cab its *own* LLC and provided the minimum insurance permitted by law. So good luck recovering.
Encryption was defined as a weapon until '97. There were a number of interesting end runs around that, including a book with all of the PGP source code in it. Since you could print the definition for a 3D gun, banning 3D files for guns should run into the same legal restrictions that banning the publishing of encryption software did.
I have a vague recollection of reading about guys in 1980s-1990s taking suitcases of encryption algorithms on printer paper across the border to get around the export restrictions. It's a crazy work we live in...
> The ones I've worked with have good senses of humor and, contrary to the opinions voiced here, have no desire to trample on anyone's rights.
Generally true--you've mostly got a lot of really good guys working intelligence. Most of the concern around massive surveillance--and part of the problem they really have a problem understanding it--is not what the guys in control of it now *do*, it's the *potential* for the wrong guy or guys to use it for evil.
Right now you have some *REALLY* sketchy stuff going on even with good guys in charge. Most notably, you've got a problem in that it's being used against criminals indirectly, which is a gross violation of the rights of a lot of criminals. Think parallel construction type projects. Wasn't there a big treasure trove of tax evasion data that mysteriously appeared a while back? Here we go: http://www.politico.com/mornin...
That *is* almost certainly our government or governments colluding to violate the rights of criminals, but the people doing it don't *care* because it's criminals.
I am a little upset about that because it's unconstitutional and because we overcriminalize generally, so almost everyone is breaking the law and they have something on everyone if they care to use it.
I am *much* more concerned with the potential for misuse not with the generally good guys dealing with it today, but by the bad guys who come in tomorrow, or the good-ish guys who get too tempted knowing how much easier it would be if they blackmail a senator or two based on knowledge of who they've slept with or what their daughter was up to on spring break. You're fundamentally dealing with power politics with an apparatus that could put a man like Frank Underwood in control of the country for decades, all without real transparency or accountability.
Most politicians don't have anywhere near that level of savvy--we are mostly saved by a combination of incompetence and a lot of really great guys in the intelligence community who would go a long way to prevent that kind of thing if they find out about it--but if we don't put incredibly good *processes* in place, engineered to prevent that kind of takeover, then it *will* happen if it has not already. Think what J. Edgar Hoover could have done with that information. Think what McCarthy did without it, and how much worse it could have been.
So it's mining for a mix of deliberate misinformation and incompetence?
I mean, couldn't you just get that from Congress?
But Uber's not winning because you can hail them with a phone. (And a taxi company could write that app if it wanted, or a consortium of taxi companies could.) It's winning because it's a fundamentally *better* experience for almost anyone. You know roughly how long it will take to get to your place, which is hit-and-miss with cap companies. You don't have drivers lying to you that their machines aren't working in order to get cash and make off-book profits. You have cars that are actually clean. Close to nine of ten uber rides go very well and without a hitch or deceipt or radically unsafe driving, while with cabs it's closer to 1 of 2.
Put another way, the natural market is allowing these freebooters to win. Legislation should be used to make sure passengers are protected, but even once that's done the taxi companies are going to lose unless they rebrand and radically improve their service.
They're not forced, they're just figuring it's not worth it. Kansas is a relatively small market and they'd need to invest a bit and incur additional liability and complexity that they're unwilling to deal with if they can help it.
The law requires primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death and bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death and
bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage, which is more than some states let taxis get away with but isn't really unreasonable. For some reason (maybe there are cities just over the border and it wants to let uber drivers from Kansas work there) it differentiates between being *ready* to get a ride and actually driving someone, and if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.
They're not forced, they're just figuring it's not worth it. Kansas is a relatively small market and they'd need to invest a bit and incur additional liability and complexity that they're unwilling to deal with if they can help it.
The law requires primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death and bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death and
bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage, which is more than some states let taxis get away with but isn't really unreasonable. For some reason (maybe there are cities just over the border and it wants to let uber drivers from Kansas work there) it differentiates between being *ready* to get a ride and actually driving someone, and if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
I have read stories that NASA considers to shutdown this rover mission due to budget cuts and priorities.
No. It's too popular, like Hubble--Congress won't let them shut it down even if the cuts are big enough that they should. They'll keep at least a skeleton crew on it as long as it's running.
They may make noise about shutting it down to try to keep from getting a budget cut, but they're highly unlikely to shut it down.
But Gandalf calls Treebeard "the oldest of all living things" and Celeborn calls him "Eldest".
And it was said of Bombadil:
'But in any case,' said Glorfindel, `to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.'
New York City is probably more productive than most of the other cities cited in the article based solely on their raw populations.
It depends how you define productive. Tokyo and New York are the most productive cities in the world by GDP by a wide margin, each being more productive than about 90% of the countries in the world.
As to waste, what percentage of that was paper? NYC has more law firms than you can imagine. Although you know all the little food places where you can grab a sandwich by wall street? They don't tend to have recycling bins...
The entire point of the books is missed if the eagles drop the ring in. Sorry, not a great ring of power, just a magic bauble of the sorts you find in D&D. It's not just a story of a great big adventure. The point is the struggle with the ring, the struggle between the factions, the struggle most of the people had with themselves, and so forth.
Or to use a word from Pratchett: narrativium.
The Hamlet Defense! (I.e. why didn't Hamlet just kill his Uncle in Act I?)
Very true and an entirely legitimate narrative device; it's just much more impressive when the storyteller shows awareness of the hole (and preferably has a bit of fun with it). Like if you had that last host of the Captains of the West surrounded by all the armies of Morder at the Black Gate, and then the eagles show up, and Merry turns to Gandalf and is all "Er... Why didn't we--"
Honesty, the nerd tendency to reject the statement "but at the end of the day we know we're rationalizing it" is sad, pathetic, hilarious, and fascinating.
Actually, that would be a really interesting study--self-awareness of rationalization. I bet you could tie it in in a useful way with learned intentional decision-making and self-improvement. It's an interesting question what the overlap to the nerd and geek communities are, but those communities are not clearly defined so you've got a whole field to build up. I wonder what studies have been done already... mmm...
"It seems that nobody noticed this alleged plot-hole during Tolkien's lifetime, as there is no surviving letter where Tolkien is inquired so." To quote from here: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki...
"That federal law protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age."
I don't think I ever realized how ironic that was before now. A threshold requirement for an age discrimination claim is that you not be certain ages...
The Fell Beasts didn't need to be ridden. The Servants of Sauron were completely capable of acting on their own. It's not a rationalization. You'd have to learn a bit more to know this, but as you've already closed your mind I rather doubt you're in the mood for learning. Plus, studying Tolkien-lore is much like being good at chess...it's a useless skill that only pleases its student. Your time would be better spent learning applied skills.
They were, but they didn't appear until later in the book and I don't believe there was an indication that they were known to exist by the Fellowship before they were encountered. Of course, IIRC there was some lore in the Silmarillian about the flying beasts from Angband, but I can't remember for sure offhand whether that included beasts on the small scale (as opposed to dragons).
In any event, your post-hoc explanation may make perfect sense, but without some hard evidence that the author made a decision for that reason, it's still a post-hoc explanation for a seeming inconsistency and therefore suspect as a rationalization. (No offense being intended or implied by the term. It turns out hindsight bias is *really* hard to guard against.)
I suppose you could argue it's a Hamlet-type plot hole (deliberately left in so that you have the rest of the production, even though everyone knows it's a plot hole).
No, not only China. Uber's business model is illegal in most of the world where there are already laws governing charging fares to passengers in your car.
Not only China, but more China. As a practical matter, I have never heard anything good about China's response to foreign business investments. It's probably the single biggest thing limiting their growth at the moment. Worse, even companies investing billions there have to basically have a Chinese company do it for them because there is so much corruption that it is impossible to do it themselves without violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
But Saruman was washed away by Neptune's great ocean.
Hahahah. Silly movie. He was defeated by the Ents...
Although actually, his later death in the book was incredibly well done, with Frodo's words incredibly moving, even after the Scouring of the Shire, showing the profound hopefulness of the book--while perfectly catching and distilling the core of an audience response to Aristotelian tragedy.
"No, Sam!" said Frodo, "Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me, And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it."
Short version: why didn't they just ask the Eagles to fly them to Mordor? Or over the mountains?
Short (prevalent) answer: Eagles would be extremely easy to spot over the skies of Mordor, and thus would be stopped before they got to Mount Doom. They were willing/able to pick up Frodo at the end because Sauron had already been defeated.
More discussion here
Oh, yes, there are lots of possible answers we can make up to rationalize it, but at the end of the day we know we're rationalizing it. Like rationalizing Han Solo's discussion of making the Kessel Run in a number of parsecs is because he skirted closer to a black hole so technically he was crossing less space. As an author if you mean something like that you have to "hang a lantern" on it and either demonstrate your knowledge of the plot hole or have somebody share the reason it's not a hole.
Besides, Nazgul were on horses until they were unhorsed.
the Scottish Play
GOOD LUCK at your next performance of MACBETH!
Fucking thespians and their superstitions.
I see you were once rejected by a group of thespians and happy to tempt the wrath of the big whatever from high above, regardless of context. Hurray! It's so much less smiting for the rest of us. Of course, I suppose that might presuppose a law of conservation of smiting...
On the other hand, perhaps theater superstitions were just created by Roko's Basilisk. I mean, if you were Roko's Basilisk and you were bored...