Do you mean DDT? Instead of using your memory you might want to look into that. The science used to ban it was based on fraudulent data and the WHO has since allowed its use again because it turns out to not be all that bad when used properly. What they do mind is that it shouldn't be used as a treatment for crops but they've since realized that the whole egg shell thing was crap and the health issues were also (mostly) crap. It does, indeed, turn out that using it to soak down children daily is in fact not healthy but used properly it works to control mosquito populations and is quite safe to be used in conjunction with other preventative methods.
No, you don't have to worry about waking up to zombie corn stalks.
Nothing, not ever, is proven safe. Science does not work that way. Everything is potentially harmful. Instead, we've found these reasonably safe to date and I suggest more studies be done while not crippling ourselves with fear because you think you've an obligation to tell others what to do based on your feelings.
Finally, stop with the strawman shit. Nobody is arguing that we should deregulate anything. This isn't a corporate thing - it's an anti-science and fear mongering thing and you're partaking in it. That's fine but please, for all that is good, do it quietly and stop trying to prevent progress because you're scared. If they were, in fact, bad we'd have a huge outcry based on the science and not FUD.
"Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a-changing." Bob Dylan
Maybe YOU do not but some of us do, in fact, understand the consequences and the probabilities and can associate a risk level accordingly. Thus my solution of getting off this rock in a meaningful manner. I suspect my poor writing skills are to blame for your confusion.
From the looks of things it's not like they're just giving up. It looks like they're giving up because this group isn't meeting goals, being open, and because there are other options that are capable of doing those things. I don't even think they're being miserly - or myopic - but are just going with an alternative because this group of people appear to be complete and utter failures. Perhaps someone else can opine but that's what I've gathered.
It really is. Did you have the chickens before the "Happy Monday from the Golden Girls" guy came around? (They've gone missing, I kind of miss them. I looked forward to their posts wishing me a happy day.) If you did then it must have been almost as strange when they popped in.
Either way, that's an excellent choice of names for your critters. A group of chickens followed the path from my neighbor's house (which is actually quite a ways away but she and he both do some work for me) and have opted to live at my house. After having witnessed the chickens in action, I've generally concluded that there must have been some sort of political divide and one team of chickens opted to move out and set up a new community.
At one point I set out to send them home but it turns out that herding chickens is impossible. I don't actually know where they're coming from but the number increases from time to time and they're not like brand new chickens but fully grown things. I can only assume that they tell tales of the group that have wandered away and split from the commune and these new chickens are those sent to find them (and aren't returning) or are those who are also disenfranchised with the other community.
My conclusion is that one group must be, in fact, a tyranny and the oppressed are seeking a new life elsewhere. I also conclude that the freedom loving chickens must be mine because the migration appears to only happen one way. What right-minded chicken would willfully subject themselves to tyranny, obviously. The thing is, I never fed them or invited them and they don't actually appear to have any reason to be here except that now I have them fed. They're also fond of my garden and I don't mind them eating bugs but they've also eaten a few plants along the way. Well, I assume they ate some. They certainly pecked them to death.
So, another oddity is that I've since had guests who say, "Oh, you have chickens?" Which is a pretty dumb question, I guess. Really, I don't. I tell them that I don't have chickens and that they just kind of chose to live here and they don't belong to me. When I left home to go on my journey I was up to six chickens. I have no idea how many chickens I have now. I'm not sure what the neighbors will do when they run out of chickens but I presume they'll buy more and I'll end up with more chickens.
What they SHOULD do is find the evil tyrant that's leading their chickens and eat them. That would end their migration and ensure the freedom loving fowl that have sought refuge in my domain could return to their motherland. A constitution might also be a good idea. I don't mind the chickens, I don't normally eat many eggs either, so it's okay that they live here but I'm sure they must want to return and live among their friends instead of having to run away in the middle of the night to live in a distant land.
They also don't like the house I built them. They prefer to live under the overhang on my woodshed. I'm pretty sure they're communists. I'm okay with that but I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I end up with a yard full of chickens and the society collapses. I'm told that they're probably not good eating. They're also speedy bastards when they want to be. And nosy. I often leave my door open and more than one has wandered into the house.
I'm kind of hoping that there's no drama between the groups. I don't know if chickens go to war or anything (or anything at all about chickens really) but I do know a war would be bad. I'd have commando chickens and I guess that might be interesting.
Ah rubycodez... Your secret is out. Also, you should stop replying to yourself, it looks silly and nobody actually gives you any credibility. I suppose that's not enough to break through your mental illness but I feel better for having done the socially responsible thing. Seriously, we care. Go get help. I don't mind paying taxes to help you out. In fact, I hope you get good mental health care. I really don't mind paying my share to help pay for it.
Well, one can hardly argue with the wisdom espoused by one Mr. Ice Cube, now can they? In the future they will be heralded as the bards and great philosophers of our time. As will Mr. T. "I pity the fool that tries to get me on an airplane!"
I do, at certain times, conceal carry. Every time I opt to carry my firearm one of the things that does, indeed, rush to my mind is a hope that I needn't use it and a quiet thanks that I've never had to. I prefer to open carry at times simply because I am pretty sure it's calmed a number of situations down on its own. I really don't relish the idea of harming anyone and, most likely, would certainly give someone (like a mugger) my property rather than elect to harm them.
There are others who are willing to accept risks and are aware, also, of the probabilities. Yes, an asteroid might harm us in very meaningful ways. The RISK (as you so eloquently state it) is acceptable, at this time, as we've more important things to resolve. It would, indeed, appear that bombing little brown men is one of them and while I don't agree with that directly I do think there's plenty of other things to worry about before worrying about a big rock making us go the way of the dinosaur. Like, how about, getting off this rock in the first place? Doing so meaningfully would mean we'd not even have to worry about living somewhere else - we'd be able to live long-term in our new environment. That would negate the risks of the big rock making us go dead.
We've been eating genetically modified food since before the dark ages. Hell, broccoli is pretty much entirely man made. Maize that we eat today has never existed in the wild. Fear for fear's sake is anti-science.
Failure to buy Brand X (lead included) Lubricant will result in your beings sued because the company failed to make a profit by your choosing to not buy it. Surprise sex for everyone!!! I'm hoping they whip me and call me names first. I'll pay extra for that.
Heh... Look! I found the guy that is doing the "that is the way of their kind" posts and other absurd junk posts. You can deny it if you want but your writing style matches it too well for it to be a coincidence as does your... Um... Manner of expressing yourself.
Who would have thought it would be the Europeans who are being anti-science? Yet they scoff at the US citizens (also retarded) who decry global warming. Personally, I like the idea of GMO. And yes, yes I will (and I presume I do) eat some.
I'll narrow it down. You're going to get raped. So, you have 'surprise sex' coming but who knows when? I've not yet seen one good thing reported about this. Not one...
It's no problem. I've seen your prior posts (and you seem intelligent enough) so I figured you must have missed something so I went on a quest to figure out what it might have been. I really don't understand the thinking process where you want to shout down, shut down, or harm another because you don't like what they have to say. I've tried to understand but I just can't seem to get my head around it. I keep asking because I'm hoping someone will actually explain the thought process that goes on or because I have new questions.
I mean, yeah, I despise the pricks that are the KKK but I don't want to shut them down, control their funding, or silence them. I, too, have a right to speak. I don't want someone to dislike my speech and use that as an excuse to shut me down if I should find a cause to speak for. I wouldn't want to stop someone from campaigning to shut these people down - that's not my business. Instead, I'd just kind of like to understand the thought process they have. I mean, yeah, they're free to campaign for such but it's pretty stupid and I want to understand not the why but the process that led them to think that was a reasonable choice.
While extreme it is akin to seeing someone say, "I like sticking young children into elephant butts." I mean, okay... But what, exactly, makes you think like that? I'm not even into psychiatry, I'm just confused. It's just so bizarre that I don't get it.
Oh I know what you mean (I'm pretty sure - I've made a special trip just to drive on the autobahn and experience it in person) but I wanted to make sure that people knew the difference. One could, reasonably but terribly broadly, say that an on-ramp is an intersection (and sometimes they do). However, we usually refer to those as interchanges.
A road without any intersections would have absolutely no way to get on or off it - at all, as it must intersect with others in order to access it. Using that definition would make some pedantic folks whine or those who don't know of the interchange definition be confused. Add to that the fact that some folks will happily call (and document) an interchange as an intersection it can get even more confusing.
I figured i'd throw some (attempted) clarity into the mix.
Well, to be fair, there's more than one person who buys a shitty used car for the express purpose of getting a deer or a moose. I can't say that I'd do so myself but it's not unheard of. I have no idea of the success rates but there are probably fewer nights that I could not see an animal than there are nights where I could see an animal. I don't go 'moose spotting' when I'm home. Instead, I practice 'moose avoidance.' There are plenty who hit them by accident. It seems like it would be fairly trivial to do so on purpose.
Deer are more nimble and more intelligent than the majestic moose. The meese are stupid and will sit there and giggle at you while you're waiting for them to meander out of the roadway. Sometimes they'll attack your car just to show you who the boss is and to stop you from checking out their womenfolk. Other times they get infected with a brain worm that makes them do stupider things like jump off a cliff onto a car, jump up and down on the car (killing the lady and her child) and then jump off the next cliff, plummeting to their death in the Wyman pond area just above the Bingham corners.
Stupid meese...
Anyhow, you could (and some do) certainly paste them with your car and I understand there's a technique to it. (Aim for a rear leg or use the handbrake to slide sideways into them - use a car as a truck is higher and will result in more meat spoilage.) I can't say that I've ever felt the urge to engage in it.
In hindsight, you may have missed the initial topic from whence this came... Allow me to quote...
This is going to be interesting as people start using the data to target their enemies. There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign. All those "private" messages between users and the people who funded them are now public.
You can also see the former topic concerning this where they're actively cheering for this as well. (I'm guessing they might be participating but they seem more like a cheerer and not a doer so I may be mistaken.)
They are actively trying to get them defunded and that would limit their ability to speak. I don't care for what they say but, damn, I can't imagine the mental thought process that would make me decide to try to get someone defunded just because they're full of shit and taking money from a bunch of other idiots.
A firearm is quite clearly a tool. It can also be used as a weapon - as can most anything, up to and including using your attached limbs. I use my firearms as a tool that enables me to throw small bits of metal at accuracies, distances, and speeds unable to be easily matched by other means in a similar format. I typically use those bits of metal to put holes in little pieces of paper that are so far distant that they are actually difficult to see. I also use those bits of metal to put holes in small furry woodland critters that are eventually cooked and eaten.
All in all, it's a pretty damned well designed too for a very specific task - throwing bits of metal to quite a distance, accurately, quickly, and with decent reliability. In fact, some of them are quite exquisitely designed tools that perform their given tasks very well. Unless you want to change the definition of tool? Or somehow want to insinuate that something being capable of being used as a weapon is now inherently bad then I'm not able to see much logic in your reply at all.
If the citizenry are attacking the government due to a true injustice then the citizen-filled military is quite likely to side with the citizenry. There have been military coups for just this sort of thing. Just because I was enlisted does not mean that I'd have been willing to fire at my fellow citizens because I was ordered to do so. I'd have, instead, fired at those giving the orders and I was not alone. I dare say this was a pretty common sentiment.
Additionally, they're not going to use nuclear tactics against a rebellion. An armed group is able to remain active, albeit engaging in small battles that they select, quite easily and has been an issue since Sun Tsu's time. A more recent example would be Iraq. We could, if we wanted, start the process today. We're ruled by consent. I surmise, then, that the boundary of tolerance has yet been reached as we've not had a revolution in quite some time.
Frankly, I'm quite welcoming of the idea that the citizens have the capacity to defend themselves against tyranny. I'm actually unable to comprehend the thought process of those who strive to dismantle it. I just don't understand what would make you reach those conclusions, what evidence you must seem to believe, or why you're willing to submit to being ruled against your will.
There are vast areas of Mexico, Canada, USA, and other areas that go under served or unserved completely. You can probably get away with that in smaller countries but that's not always effective (or doesn't seem to pan out) in other countries for a whole host of varied reasons.
Just a point of clarification... Professionally we tend to refer to those 'on/off ramps' as 'interchanges.' However, some will (and I guess they could, it's just not specific enough in my opinion) call those intersections as they do, indeed, intersect with the highway. However, interchanges are typically referring to limited access highways and have some subsets. While a bit rare, it's not entirely unheard of to see interchanges referred to as intersections - even in some documentation.
The Autobahn is something Germany got very right. My career was traffic modeling and I'm impressed with the Autobahn. I went a few years back just to drive on it as I'd not experienced it personally and felt that I must. I'd considered shipping one of my own vehicles over (I'd have gone with my Saab - an older 900S Turbo) but I opted to, instead, rent a beefy Audi for the trek.
There's also the cultural thing - the system was very orderly and, while I had no dealings of this nature, I guess those who violate the rules are subject to severe and swift repercussions. If there's anywhere that would be a good pilot for autonomous vehicles, I'd suggest that the Autobahn might be a good place. I don't see fully autonomous vehicles being close at hand in the short term but I do see them doing limited sections of the driving in the short term. Open highway and easily mapped areas with well defined regulations would be an ideal space to test that.
As an aside, I have a new BMW with me on my current journey. I made sure that I got a standard just so that I have something to do. With adaptive cruise, built-in GPS, lane assistance, HUD with obstacle recognition, etc. there's not much more that needs to be done by a driver other than pay some attention and point and poke a pedal. Disabling stability and traction control is optional but fun. ~450 HP is also very fun.
Where? Not so very far from my house. If I go about 30 minutes to the North East then I lose all connectivity and don't get connectivity again for about another hour and a half. Of course, there are no telephone lines (but there are electricity lines in most of the areas) for much of this trip.
I'm currently on the road and am just traveling at random (technically paused in western New York for the moment) and you'd be surprised how often I don't have a reliable signal. I'm thinking you don't get out much or tend to stay to the well worn tracts when you do. I'm not suggesting you try it but you may want to do so before you assume connectivity is ubiquitous. It simply isn't and those are unprofitable areas so this is likely to remain unchanged for the duration.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mean DDT? Instead of using your memory you might want to look into that. The science used to ban it was based on fraudulent data and the WHO has since allowed its use again because it turns out to not be all that bad when used properly. What they do mind is that it shouldn't be used as a treatment for crops but they've since realized that the whole egg shell thing was crap and the health issues were also (mostly) crap. It does, indeed, turn out that using it to soak down children daily is in fact not healthy but used properly it works to control mosquito populations and is quite safe to be used in conjunction with other preventative methods.
No, you don't have to worry about waking up to zombie corn stalks.
Nothing, not ever, is proven safe. Science does not work that way. Everything is potentially harmful. Instead, we've found these reasonably safe to date and I suggest more studies be done while not crippling ourselves with fear because you think you've an obligation to tell others what to do based on your feelings.
Finally, stop with the strawman shit. Nobody is arguing that we should deregulate anything. This isn't a corporate thing - it's an anti-science and fear mongering thing and you're partaking in it. That's fine but please, for all that is good, do it quietly and stop trying to prevent progress because you're scared. If they were, in fact, bad we'd have a huge outcry based on the science and not FUD.
"Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a-changing." Bob Dylan
Maybe YOU do not but some of us do, in fact, understand the consequences and the probabilities and can associate a risk level accordingly. Thus my solution of getting off this rock in a meaningful manner. I suspect my poor writing skills are to blame for your confusion.
From the looks of things it's not like they're just giving up. It looks like they're giving up because this group isn't meeting goals, being open, and because there are other options that are capable of doing those things. I don't even think they're being miserly - or myopic - but are just going with an alternative because this group of people appear to be complete and utter failures. Perhaps someone else can opine but that's what I've gathered.
That. Is. Awesome.
It really is. Did you have the chickens before the "Happy Monday from the Golden Girls" guy came around? (They've gone missing, I kind of miss them. I looked forward to their posts wishing me a happy day.) If you did then it must have been almost as strange when they popped in.
Either way, that's an excellent choice of names for your critters. A group of chickens followed the path from my neighbor's house (which is actually quite a ways away but she and he both do some work for me) and have opted to live at my house. After having witnessed the chickens in action, I've generally concluded that there must have been some sort of political divide and one team of chickens opted to move out and set up a new community.
At one point I set out to send them home but it turns out that herding chickens is impossible. I don't actually know where they're coming from but the number increases from time to time and they're not like brand new chickens but fully grown things. I can only assume that they tell tales of the group that have wandered away and split from the commune and these new chickens are those sent to find them (and aren't returning) or are those who are also disenfranchised with the other community.
My conclusion is that one group must be, in fact, a tyranny and the oppressed are seeking a new life elsewhere. I also conclude that the freedom loving chickens must be mine because the migration appears to only happen one way. What right-minded chicken would willfully subject themselves to tyranny, obviously. The thing is, I never fed them or invited them and they don't actually appear to have any reason to be here except that now I have them fed. They're also fond of my garden and I don't mind them eating bugs but they've also eaten a few plants along the way. Well, I assume they ate some. They certainly pecked them to death.
So, another oddity is that I've since had guests who say, "Oh, you have chickens?" Which is a pretty dumb question, I guess. Really, I don't. I tell them that I don't have chickens and that they just kind of chose to live here and they don't belong to me. When I left home to go on my journey I was up to six chickens. I have no idea how many chickens I have now. I'm not sure what the neighbors will do when they run out of chickens but I presume they'll buy more and I'll end up with more chickens.
What they SHOULD do is find the evil tyrant that's leading their chickens and eat them. That would end their migration and ensure the freedom loving fowl that have sought refuge in my domain could return to their motherland. A constitution might also be a good idea. I don't mind the chickens, I don't normally eat many eggs either, so it's okay that they live here but I'm sure they must want to return and live among their friends instead of having to run away in the middle of the night to live in a distant land.
They also don't like the house I built them. They prefer to live under the overhang on my woodshed. I'm pretty sure they're communists. I'm okay with that but I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I end up with a yard full of chickens and the society collapses. I'm told that they're probably not good eating. They're also speedy bastards when they want to be. And nosy. I often leave my door open and more than one has wandered into the house.
I'm kind of hoping that there's no drama between the groups. I don't know if chickens go to war or anything (or anything at all about chickens really) but I do know a war would be bad. I'd have commando chickens and I guess that might be interesting.
Ah rubycodez... Your secret is out. Also, you should stop replying to yourself, it looks silly and nobody actually gives you any credibility. I suppose that's not enough to break through your mental illness but I feel better for having done the socially responsible thing. Seriously, we care. Go get help. I don't mind paying taxes to help you out. In fact, I hope you get good mental health care. I really don't mind paying my share to help pay for it.
Well, one can hardly argue with the wisdom espoused by one Mr. Ice Cube, now can they? In the future they will be heralded as the bards and great philosophers of our time. As will Mr. T. "I pity the fool that tries to get me on an airplane!"
I do, at certain times, conceal carry. Every time I opt to carry my firearm one of the things that does, indeed, rush to my mind is a hope that I needn't use it and a quiet thanks that I've never had to. I prefer to open carry at times simply because I am pretty sure it's calmed a number of situations down on its own. I really don't relish the idea of harming anyone and, most likely, would certainly give someone (like a mugger) my property rather than elect to harm them.
Space slugs are not a real threat.
Sure... That's what they want us to think. Wait - are you one of them and trying to fool us into a false sense of security? I'm on to you!!!
On the internet, nobody knows you're a space slug.
There are others who are willing to accept risks and are aware, also, of the probabilities. Yes, an asteroid might harm us in very meaningful ways. The RISK (as you so eloquently state it) is acceptable, at this time, as we've more important things to resolve. It would, indeed, appear that bombing little brown men is one of them and while I don't agree with that directly I do think there's plenty of other things to worry about before worrying about a big rock making us go the way of the dinosaur. Like, how about, getting off this rock in the first place? Doing so meaningfully would mean we'd not even have to worry about living somewhere else - we'd be able to live long-term in our new environment. That would negate the risks of the big rock making us go dead.
Umm... No? Can you show me anything good that has been published about this? I've not seen one good thing published about this. Not one.
We've been eating genetically modified food since before the dark ages. Hell, broccoli is pretty much entirely man made. Maize that we eat today has never existed in the wild. Fear for fear's sake is anti-science.
Failure to buy Brand X (lead included) Lubricant will result in your beings sued because the company failed to make a profit by your choosing to not buy it. Surprise sex for everyone!!! I'm hoping they whip me and call me names first. I'll pay extra for that.
Heh... Look! I found the guy that is doing the "that is the way of their kind" posts and other absurd junk posts. You can deny it if you want but your writing style matches it too well for it to be a coincidence as does your... Um... Manner of expressing yourself.
Who would have thought it would be the Europeans who are being anti-science? Yet they scoff at the US citizens (also retarded) who decry global warming. Personally, I like the idea of GMO. And yes, yes I will (and I presume I do) eat some.
I'll narrow it down. You're going to get raped. So, you have 'surprise sex' coming but who knows when? I've not yet seen one good thing reported about this. Not one...
It's no problem. I've seen your prior posts (and you seem intelligent enough) so I figured you must have missed something so I went on a quest to figure out what it might have been. I really don't understand the thinking process where you want to shout down, shut down, or harm another because you don't like what they have to say. I've tried to understand but I just can't seem to get my head around it. I keep asking because I'm hoping someone will actually explain the thought process that goes on or because I have new questions.
I mean, yeah, I despise the pricks that are the KKK but I don't want to shut them down, control their funding, or silence them. I, too, have a right to speak. I don't want someone to dislike my speech and use that as an excuse to shut me down if I should find a cause to speak for. I wouldn't want to stop someone from campaigning to shut these people down - that's not my business. Instead, I'd just kind of like to understand the thought process they have. I mean, yeah, they're free to campaign for such but it's pretty stupid and I want to understand not the why but the process that led them to think that was a reasonable choice.
While extreme it is akin to seeing someone say, "I like sticking young children into elephant butts." I mean, okay... But what, exactly, makes you think like that? I'm not even into psychiatry, I'm just confused. It's just so bizarre that I don't get it.
Oh I know what you mean (I'm pretty sure - I've made a special trip just to drive on the autobahn and experience it in person) but I wanted to make sure that people knew the difference. One could, reasonably but terribly broadly, say that an on-ramp is an intersection (and sometimes they do). However, we usually refer to those as interchanges.
A road without any intersections would have absolutely no way to get on or off it - at all, as it must intersect with others in order to access it. Using that definition would make some pedantic folks whine or those who don't know of the interchange definition be confused. Add to that the fact that some folks will happily call (and document) an interchange as an intersection it can get even more confusing.
I figured i'd throw some (attempted) clarity into the mix.
Well, to be fair, there's more than one person who buys a shitty used car for the express purpose of getting a deer or a moose. I can't say that I'd do so myself but it's not unheard of. I have no idea of the success rates but there are probably fewer nights that I could not see an animal than there are nights where I could see an animal. I don't go 'moose spotting' when I'm home. Instead, I practice 'moose avoidance.' There are plenty who hit them by accident. It seems like it would be fairly trivial to do so on purpose.
Deer are more nimble and more intelligent than the majestic moose. The meese are stupid and will sit there and giggle at you while you're waiting for them to meander out of the roadway. Sometimes they'll attack your car just to show you who the boss is and to stop you from checking out their womenfolk. Other times they get infected with a brain worm that makes them do stupider things like jump off a cliff onto a car, jump up and down on the car (killing the lady and her child) and then jump off the next cliff, plummeting to their death in the Wyman pond area just above the Bingham corners.
Stupid meese...
Anyhow, you could (and some do) certainly paste them with your car and I understand there's a technique to it. (Aim for a rear leg or use the handbrake to slide sideways into them - use a car as a truck is higher and will result in more meat spoilage.) I can't say that I've ever felt the urge to engage in it.
Next week we'll learn about 'heater hunting.'
In hindsight, you may have missed the initial topic from whence this came... Allow me to quote...
This is going to be interesting as people start using the data to target their enemies. There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign. All those "private" messages between users and the people who funded them are now public.
You can also see the former topic concerning this where they're actively cheering for this as well. (I'm guessing they might be participating but they seem more like a cheerer and not a doer so I may be mistaken.)
They are actively trying to get them defunded and that would limit their ability to speak. I don't care for what they say but, damn, I can't imagine the mental thought process that would make me decide to try to get someone defunded just because they're full of shit and taking money from a bunch of other idiots.
A firearm is quite clearly a tool. It can also be used as a weapon - as can most anything, up to and including using your attached limbs. I use my firearms as a tool that enables me to throw small bits of metal at accuracies, distances, and speeds unable to be easily matched by other means in a similar format. I typically use those bits of metal to put holes in little pieces of paper that are so far distant that they are actually difficult to see. I also use those bits of metal to put holes in small furry woodland critters that are eventually cooked and eaten.
All in all, it's a pretty damned well designed too for a very specific task - throwing bits of metal to quite a distance, accurately, quickly, and with decent reliability. In fact, some of them are quite exquisitely designed tools that perform their given tasks very well. Unless you want to change the definition of tool? Or somehow want to insinuate that something being capable of being used as a weapon is now inherently bad then I'm not able to see much logic in your reply at all.
If the citizenry are attacking the government due to a true injustice then the citizen-filled military is quite likely to side with the citizenry. There have been military coups for just this sort of thing. Just because I was enlisted does not mean that I'd have been willing to fire at my fellow citizens because I was ordered to do so. I'd have, instead, fired at those giving the orders and I was not alone. I dare say this was a pretty common sentiment.
Additionally, they're not going to use nuclear tactics against a rebellion. An armed group is able to remain active, albeit engaging in small battles that they select, quite easily and has been an issue since Sun Tsu's time. A more recent example would be Iraq. We could, if we wanted, start the process today. We're ruled by consent. I surmise, then, that the boundary of tolerance has yet been reached as we've not had a revolution in quite some time.
Frankly, I'm quite welcoming of the idea that the citizens have the capacity to defend themselves against tyranny. I'm actually unable to comprehend the thought process of those who strive to dismantle it. I just don't understand what would make you reach those conclusions, what evidence you must seem to believe, or why you're willing to submit to being ruled against your will.
There are vast areas of Mexico, Canada, USA, and other areas that go under served or unserved completely. You can probably get away with that in smaller countries but that's not always effective (or doesn't seem to pan out) in other countries for a whole host of varied reasons.
Just a point of clarification... Professionally we tend to refer to those 'on/off ramps' as 'interchanges.' However, some will (and I guess they could, it's just not specific enough in my opinion) call those intersections as they do, indeed, intersect with the highway. However, interchanges are typically referring to limited access highways and have some subsets. While a bit rare, it's not entirely unheard of to see interchanges referred to as intersections - even in some documentation.
The Autobahn is something Germany got very right. My career was traffic modeling and I'm impressed with the Autobahn. I went a few years back just to drive on it as I'd not experienced it personally and felt that I must. I'd considered shipping one of my own vehicles over (I'd have gone with my Saab - an older 900S Turbo) but I opted to, instead, rent a beefy Audi for the trek.
There's also the cultural thing - the system was very orderly and, while I had no dealings of this nature, I guess those who violate the rules are subject to severe and swift repercussions. If there's anywhere that would be a good pilot for autonomous vehicles, I'd suggest that the Autobahn might be a good place. I don't see fully autonomous vehicles being close at hand in the short term but I do see them doing limited sections of the driving in the short term. Open highway and easily mapped areas with well defined regulations would be an ideal space to test that.
As an aside, I have a new BMW with me on my current journey. I made sure that I got a standard just so that I have something to do. With adaptive cruise, built-in GPS, lane assistance, HUD with obstacle recognition, etc. there's not much more that needs to be done by a driver other than pay some attention and point and poke a pedal. Disabling stability and traction control is optional but fun. ~450 HP is also very fun.
Where? Not so very far from my house. If I go about 30 minutes to the North East then I lose all connectivity and don't get connectivity again for about another hour and a half. Of course, there are no telephone lines (but there are electricity lines in most of the areas) for much of this trip.
I'm currently on the road and am just traveling at random (technically paused in western New York for the moment) and you'd be surprised how often I don't have a reliable signal. I'm thinking you don't get out much or tend to stay to the well worn tracts when you do. I'm not suggesting you try it but you may want to do so before you assume connectivity is ubiquitous. It simply isn't and those are unprofitable areas so this is likely to remain unchanged for the duration.