Self-driving vehicles

Will Politicians Block Our Driverless Future?

Autopia is within our grasp-if government doesn't screw it up.


Jason Ford

Faced with innovation that operates outside of their control, many lawmakers can't stop themselves from grabbing the steering wheel. Sometimes literally.  

"So, I'm in the Tesla," Sen. Ben Nelson (D–Fla.) told a March hearing of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. "And we're coming back across the Anacostia River and getting up on—on the bridge then to get on to the ramp on to 395. And I'm instructed in the driver's seat: 'Engage the autonomous switch.' I click it twice. 'Take your hands off the wheel.' And so all of a sudden the car is speeding up and they say: 'It automatically will go with the flow of the vehicles in the front and back.' But now we are approaching the on-ramp on to 395 and it is a sharp turn. And the vehicle is still speeding up. And they said, 'Trust the vehicle.'"

But the senator could not quite manage to do that. "As we approach the concrete wall," he said, "my instincts could not resist. And I grabbed the wheel, touched the brake and took over manual control. I said, 'What would have happened?' They said, 'If you'd left your hands off of the wheel, it would have made that sharp turn and come on around.' And so I am here to tell you that I am glad I grabbed the wheel."

Making the senator's panic even more metaphorically apt was the title of the Senate hearing: "Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving Cars." While many lawmakers therein expressed considerable enthusiasm about autonomous vehicles, most members of the committee made it clear that they'll be hard-pressed to stick to a hands-off approach to regulating driverless cars. As Nelson put it, "In the federal government we have a critical role to make sure that the regulatory environment and legal environment in which American business does business is able to develop and manufacture these vehicles. And also it means that we're going to have to—in our case—exercise responsible oversight."

Nelson's words should strike fear in the hearts of those who are looking forward to playing Scrabble, applying makeup, or reading a Kindle on the freeway. Leading automakers such as Ford, Toyota, and Volvo, plus contending tech companies like Tesla and Google, forecast that self-steering cars will be widely available by 2020, with fully autonomous vehicles less than five years later. Driverless cars have the power to make us richer, less stressed, more independent, and safer.

Unless lawmakers and regulators manage to screw everything up.

Robots, Take the Wheel
"We should be concerned about automated vehicles," University of South Carolina law professor Bryant Walker Smith told the Associated Press in March. "But we should be terrified about today's drivers."

Self-driving cars aren't perfect and they never will be. They are, however, significantly better pilots than today's distracted, maladroit, and sometimes drunk human beings. In 2014, some 38,000 Americans died in traffic crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 94 percent of automobile accidents in the U.S. are due to human error. A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study commissioned by Google estimated in January 2016 that human-driven vehicles crash 4.2 times per million miles traveled whereas current self-driving cars crash 3.2 times per million miles, a safety record that's likely to keep improving as robocars gain more real life experience on the roads.

California, unfortunately, didn't get the memo about comparative human/robot safety records. The Golden State's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) wants to mandate that all self-driving cars have steering wheels, pedals, and a licensed, specially trained driver in the front seat, according to the 22 pages of draft regulations Sacramento released last December.

As the autonomous vehicle pioneer Brad Templeton wryly summarizes: "We don't understand this, so let's not allow it until we do understand it." There's a cost to such pre-emptive prohibitions. "Once you ban something, it is hard to unban it," Templeton, a software engineer who sits on the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation—and formerly consulted on Google's self-driving car project, says. "A regulator doesn't want to be the regulator who unbans something and then something goes wrong."

To Templeton's point, a February open letter from a consortium of California tech business associations to the secretary of California's State Transportation Agency decried the "draft regulations that explicitly prohibit the operation of fully autonomous vehicles in California."

Google's vehicle division, in a December statement, declared that it was "gravely disappointed" with the draft regulations, especially the requirement for a licensed driver to be inside the car. In a public blog post, the company's self-driving car chief Chris Urmson urged, "Instead of putting a ceiling on the potential of self-driving cars, let's have the courage to imagine what California would be like if we could live without the shackles of stressful commutes, wasted hours, and restricted mobility for those who want the independence that the automobile has always represented."

But regulators are busy slapping shackles on this technology before it has a chance to deploy. Testifying to the March Senate committee hearing, Urmson noted that in the past two years 53 bills aiming to regulate self-driving cars have been introduced in 23 states. Five states have already adopted laws regulating autonomous vehicles, he said, and "none of those laws feature common definitions, licensing structures, or sets of expectations for what manufacturers should be doing." He added that unless a unified approach is crafted, these disparate state regulatory schemes "will significantly hinder safety innovation, interstate commerce, national competitiveness, and the eventual deployment of autonomous vehicles."

"What we have found in most places," he said, "is that the best action is to take no action. And that in general the technology can be safely tested today on roads in many states."

Send in the Feds?
All of the industry participants at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing strongly urged Congress to pre-empt the developing patchwork of state regulations on self-driving vehicles. "We propose that Congress move swiftly to provide the Secretary of Transportation with new authority to approve life-saving innovation," Urmson said. "This new authority would permit the deployment of innovative safety technologies that meet or exceed the level of safety required by existing federal standards, while ensuring a prompt and transparent process."

In contrast with California regulators, the feds at the NHTSA responded positively in February to Google's request that the agency legally recognize the company's on-board computerized self-driving system (SDS) as the driver in a self-driving vehicle. "If no human occupant of the vehicle can actually drive the vehicle, it is more reasonable to identify the 'driver' as whatever (as opposed to whoever) is doing the driving," the NHTSA letter declared. Even so, the agency noted that it would have to embark upon a rulemaking to figure out how to make sure that the SDSs' sensors can monitor and operate such federally mandated safety features as turn signals, headlight dimmers, rear visibility, and so forth.

At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx announced that his agency would develop within six months federal guidance on the safe deployment and operation of autonomous vehicles and devise a model state policy on autonomous vehicles outlining a path to a consistent national scheme. In addition, the Obama administration proposed in its 2017 budget allocating nearly $4 billion to funding various unspecified autonomous vehicle pilot projects.

Not So Fast
So is federal intervention the solution? Not exactly.

There are two "equally important components that will determine the future of autonomous vehicles," Lyft's vice president for government relations, Joseph Okpaku, said at the March hearing. "The first is the interaction of everyday people with these new vehicles, and the second is the much more unpredictable interface of the government with this entirely new transportation resource."

University of Texas engineer Kara Kockelman notes that traditional automakers tend to "see the transition to self-driving as a very natural, a very normal process adding over time features like GPS, adaptive cruise control, cameras, lane keeping assist systems, dedicated short range communications, and so forth." Such semi-autonomous vehicles can safely operate only in predictable traffic environments, so some manufacturers are suggesting that dedicated additional infrastructure such as separate highway lanes be built for them.

But "special lanes are a bad idea," says Kockelman. "They would be incredibly expensive and constraining." Planners, politicians, and regulators may think that establishing dedicated infrastructure and rules for self-driving cars is helpful, but Templeton notes that "such rules could easily lead to them not being allowed in the ordinary lanes."

Kockelman argues that semi-autonomous vehicles, or what NHTSA calls "limited self-driving automation," present a big safety problem. With these so-called Level 3 vehicles, drivers cede full control to the car for the most part but must be ready at all times to take over if something untoward occurs. The problem is that such semi-autonomous cars travel along safely 99 percent of the time, allowing the attention of their bored drivers to falter. In an August 2015 study NHTSA reported that depending on the on-board alert, it took some drivers as long as 17 seconds to regain manual control of the semi-autonomous car. "The radical change to full automation is important," argues Kockelman. "Level 3 is too dangerous. We have to jump over that to Level 4 full automation, and most manufacturers don't want to do that. They want protection; they want baby steps; they want special corridors; they won't get that."

Consequently the first law of the robocar revolution, according to Templeton, is "that you don't change the infrastructure." Whatever functionality is needed to drive safely should be on board each individual vehicle. "Just tell the software people that this is the road you have to drive on and let them figure it out," Templeton says. "Everything you must do is in software or you lose." Some self-driving shuttles confined to specific areas—airports, pedestrian malls, college campuses—will be deployed, but they are not the future of this technology.

Another infrastructure mistake would be mandating the deployment of "smart roadside infrastructure" such as traffic lights and sensors to monitor conditions like icing on bridges and communicate the information via radio to autonomous cars. In 2015, Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D–Mich.), Gary Peters (D–Mich.), and Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.) embraced this idea when they introduced the Vehicle Innovation Act, which included spending more than $300 million on various favored tech, including vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications systems.

Before embracing such external information systems, keep in mind that the U.S. Department of Transportation estimated in 2007 that 75 percent of the nation's 330,000 traffic lights are mistimed or use obsolete control systems. "If city and county street and road agencies can't keep traffic signals up-to-date, how long would it take them to install and upgrade smart road systems?" Randal O'Toole asked in a 2014 Cato Institute study, "Policy Implications of Autonomous Vehicles." It's all most states and cities can do to fix potholes, much less deploy and maintain sophisticated networks of roadway sensors.

Other regulators and politicians want to require automobiles to be equipped with V2V communications tech using dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) protocols. The idea is that the cars could talk with one another to provide warnings of traffic jams, accidents ahead, or vehicles in front that are braking. They might even cooperate with one another to get through intersections. A good bit of the Obama administration's promised $4 billion dollars would be earmarked for V2V research and development.

"Some cellular experts feel DSRC will be obsolete by the time it's required on new vehicles," says Kockelman.* "Regulators simply can't write down a communication standard that will be useful for a long time." Templeton agrees. "People outside the industry think it's essential and the car companies are just going along with it to keep them happy," he says. "It's something designed in 2000 [that] wouldn't be fully deployed until 2030 or later." The bottom line: "Mandating V2V connectivity is stupid and a waste of time."

Templeton cites the internet as a model for how to roll out the technologies that enable self-driving cars. "The internet is a dumb network that connects smart devices," he explains. "You want smart cars running on stupid roads." Dumb networks push innovation to the edge, giving end-users control over the speed and direction of change.

Winning Hearts and Minds
Despite an embrace of other life-changing tech—who can even remember life pre-internet?—Americans remain rather terrified of driverless cars. In March, the American Automobile Association asked 1,800 Americans what they thought of self-driving automobiles. Seventy-five percent were not yet ready to trust the driving to robots. More women (81 percent) than men (67 percent) were afraid of allowing an autonomous vehicle to drive itself with them in it. Baby boomers (82 percent) were more afraid of self-driving vehicles than younger generations (69 percent). On the other hand, most drivers did say that they would like their next cars to be equipped with semi-autonomous features such as lane-departure warning, adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, and self-parking technology.

Regardless of the suspicion, America's love affair with the individually owned automobile may already be waning. A January 2015 study by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute reported that the percentage of Americans with a driver's license decreased between 2011 and 2014, across all age groups. For people aged 16 to 44, that percentage has been falling steadily since 1983. "In 1983, 46 percent of 16-year-olds obtained a driver's license. In 2014, that figure has dropped to 24 percent," noted Lyft's Okpaku at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing. "That's a 50 percent change in something that I was 100 percent certain I wanted more than anything else when I was 16."

An underappreciated benefit to self-driving vehicles is that they would provide mobility to millions of Americans who can't or don't drive now, such as disabled people, children, and the elderly. Fleets of shared driverless cars could cut the average consumer's transportation costs by as much 75 percent, according to a 2013 Columbia University study by mobility specialist Lawrence Burns. A 2014 report by the investment firm ARK Investment Management noted that private vehicles in the U.S. are in use less than 4 percent of the time, or about one hour each day. Given a U.S. fleet of 260 million vehicles, that's a daily waste of about 5.8 billion hours of potential productivity.

More autonomous cars also mean less time in traffic. A January 2015 University of Texas study concluded that if travelers take advantage of robotaxis, one autonomous vehicle could replace as many as seven to nine privately owned vehicles. The Texas researchers, simulating a shared autonomous vehicle fleet in Austin, calculated that typical traveler waiting time would be around a minute. Even at rush hour, the average wait would be under four minutes.

Squadrons of electric robotaxis would also massively cut greenhouse gas emissions. A 2015 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study published in Nature Climate Change reckoned that the per-mile greenhouse gas emissions of a battery-powered robotaxi in 2030 would be about 90 percent lower than a 2014 gasoline-powered private vehicle. A consumer switch to a fleet of shared self-driving cars could also free up lots of land currently devoted to parking—about 3,000 square miles, an area the size of Connecticut.

In 2007, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) urban planner Donald Shoup estimated that as much as 30 percent of central business district congestion arises from drivers cruising around in search of a parking space; that would be largely eliminated with driverless cars. Automated vehicles travel more efficiently on highways and streets, thus further reducing congestion. The old-fashioned Detroit business model, in which car manufacturers peddle automobiles to individual owners, will be steadily superseded by on-demand public transport in which companies sell commuters mobility rather than vehicles. Municipalities will soon recognize that this impending consumer switch will make their inflexible and costly public transit systems obsolete.

Once the technologies have proved themselves, the rollout of driverless vehicles will be rapid, because of the enormous cost savings. One highly cited analysis, put together by the global financial services firm Morgan Stanley in 2013, suggests that autonomous vehicles could bring America $1.3 trillion in annual cost savings: $488 billion in accident avoidance, $507 billion in productivity gains, $158 billion in fuel savings, $138 billion in productivity gains from congestion avoidance, and $11 billion in fuel savings from congestion avoidance. It also estimates that self-driving long haul freight trucks would cut costs by $168 billion annually.

Google in February patented an autonomous package delivery platform. Driverless vehicles will alert customers on their cellphones that their package has arrived; then people will stroll outside, open the appropriate bin with a credit card or pin number, grab the package, and send the car on its way.

Given the initial high costs of the technology, self-driving vehicles will probably be first deployed as fleets of robotaxis and long-haul freight trucks. In January, General Motors invested $500 million in the ride-sharing service Lyft with plans to develop an on-demand network of self-driving cars. Consumers will quickly accept their new robot chauffeurs. At the Senate Commerce hearing, Urmson observed, "The first five minutes are often a little tense, but after that people think, 'That car drives better than me.' We're fairly confident that once people try it out, they're going to enjoy it."

Hacked on the Highway
A 2014 Harris Interactive poll probed Americans' attitudes toward self-driving cars and reported that 59 percent were concerned about liability issues, especially who would pay when a car crashed. Some 52 percent feared that self-driving cars might be maliciously hacked, and a third worried about having their privacy invaded by government, insurers, or advertisers.

Templeton is fairly sanguine about liability issues, noting that the entire industry is hyper-aware of how safety failures would impact their businesses. "Developers don't need to prove the safety of the vehicles to the government, but first to their boards of directors and customers," he said. Moving to a no-fault insurance system would resolve most liability issues. Since human drivers rarely balance ethical issues when they are involved in an accident, self-driving cars should be programmed to cause as little damage as possible while protecting their passengers.

Is hacking a problem? "Vulnerabilities in autonomous vehicles are not a whole lot different from the sort of cyber attacks that can be unleashed on modern vehicles that are not automated today," observes the Berkeley transportation security researcher Steven Shladover. In 2015, two cyber security researchers famously hijacked from 10 miles away a Jeep being driven by Wired senior writer Andy Greenberg, by killing the engine and steering it into a ditch. And yet, even as computers have proliferated in our cars, the primary car-hacking crime is stealing vehicles by cracking their keyless entry systems. Otherwise, there are very few instances where cars are known to have been hacked by people other than researchers.

At the March Senate hearing, Sens. Ed Markey (D–Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) tried to get the industry representatives to support their Security and Privacy in Your Car Act of 2015. The SPY Car Act would authorize the NHTSA to conduct a rulemaking on motor vehicle cybersecurity, aiming to protect against unauthorized access to electronic controls or driving data, including information about the vehicle's location, speed, owner, driver, or passengers, whether transmitted or stored on-board the vehicle. The act would also prohibit manufacturers from using collected information for advertising or marketing purposes without the owner's or lessee's consent. All of the industry panelists declined to endorse the bill, arguing that it was way too early to start setting standards.

One of the biggest hacking vulnerabilities will be through the same V2V communications systems that some in Congress want to mandate. Hackers could seek to smuggle in malicious code as cars talk to one other. In a 2015 study, UCLA computer researchers simulated a vehicular botnet attack via vehicular ad hoc networks that could snarl autonomous vehicles into a massive full-stop traffic jam within 20 minutes of being launched. Researchers are busy working on ways to make sure that information transmitted between cars can be validated. In any case, autonomous vehicles will have their own on-board sources of data from their radars, laser range finders (lidars), cameras, altimeters, gyroscopes, tachymeters, GPS, and map databases. If V2V information conflicts with what the car is sensing, it will rely on what it sees rather than on what it is being told.

While acknowledging that V2V might be useful, Templeton is basically against promiscuous chatting between vehicles. "The first thing you teach your children is not to talk to strangers," he said. So why would you want your car to talk with a jalopy with an unknown reputation? While concerned about private hackers, Templeton is more worried about state actors. Computer attacks against fleets of autonomous vehicles by the Chinese, Russians, or Iranians could create chaos in major cities. In 2014, University of Michigan engineers and computer scientists reported that they had gained control of 100 wirelessly networked traffic lights in an undisclosed Michigan city and were able to change the state of the lights on command. They entitled their study "Green Lights Forever."

Even as lurid worst-case scenarios are conjured, it is good to keep in mind that our already vulnerable traffic system has never been significantly hacked.

What about data exhaust—that is, the excess data collected by an autonomous car, especially information about its passengers? Robocar privacy is a hard problem. Fleet owners will reasonably want to monitor their cars as they move about, for purposes of rebalancing their locations and recalling them for charging. They will also want to make sure that their vehicles are not being abused, and so would need to verify and hold accountable those who are using them. Passengers may prefer to keep their movements to themselves.

One possible solution is to require fleet operators to discard data after a specified short period of time. This will be resisted, since passenger data could be monetized in various ways, such as advertising. Templeton has suggested that cars could be designed so that passengers could physically shut off in-car cameras using an outside switch before entering a driverless vehicle. They would then open the shutter after exiting, so that the car's interior state could be inspected.

As in so many other areas of our lives, most Americans may be willing to surrender their personal data in order to gain access to cheap and convenient mobility services. A February poll by Morning Consult found that only 18 percent of respondents were confident that Uber would keep personal information and data secure. Yet Fortune reported in December that the number of Uber's daily rides doubled in the past year.

The best solution will be to adopt legislation and for courts to uphold Fourth Amendment privacy protections requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant to access our travel data.

Are We There Yet?
If such regulatory roadblocks are avoided, how rapidly will self-driving cars be adopted? Let's compare two technology rollouts: old-fashioned people-driven cars vs. cellphones.

In 1900, according to the Census Bureau, there were just 8,000 automobiles registered. By 1925, the number was more than 20 million, a 2,500-fold increase. Around 260 million vehicles are registered in the U.S. today.

In 1985, there were 340,000 mobile phone subscriptions in the U.S., according to CTIA—the Wireless Association. In 2010, the number of subscriptions had risen to more than 300 million, a nearly 900-fold increase. In 2015, U.S. cellphone subscriptions exceeded 355 million.

In fact, the cellphone revolution might have kicked off a decade earlier had the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) gotten out of the way. A 1991 analysis by National Economic Research Associates argued that "had the FCC proceeded directly to licensing from its 1970 [spectrum] allocation decision, cellular licenses could have been granted as early as 1972 and systems could have become operational in 1973."The economists estimated that this regulatory delay until 1983 cost the U.S. economy $86 billion ($205 billion in today's dollars).

Autonomous vehicles' market penetration is likely to happen much more quickly, because the model of individual ownership is likely to change. How many self-driving cars would it take to supply the cheap mobility services of 260 million U.S. passenger vehicles? Using the University of Texas' low-end calculation of each shared self-driving car replacing the services of seven individually owned vehicles, the answer is 40 million self-driving cars. Let's accept Google's projection that fully autonomous cars will become available in 2020. Assuming something like cellphone adoption doubling times, an initial fleet of 100,000 fully self-driving cars in 2020 would increase to 6.4 million by 2026 and replace the services of nearly 45 million conventional automobiles. By 2029, the self-driving fleet could number more 50 million.

In less than half a generation, Americans will benefit from a massive change in how we commute, shop, and travel. Autopia is within our grasp, if only we don't allow over-cautious regulators, outdated infrastructure demands, and our fears to kill off the self-driving car.

*This quotation has been altered to clarify Kockelman's views on the obsolescence of DSRC.

NEXT: Gary Johnson Roundup: Off Weed, Mad at NSA, Ready to Climb the Highest Mountain of U.S. Politics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We’re talking at least 25 million jobs.

    However, driver-less cars will result in ZERO human-factor automobile incidents.

    Luckily for me, I don’t drive for a living.

    But there’s no stopping the future.

    1. Nah man. Do you know how long it took before the railroads got rid of firemen? Early 2000’s. Firemen are there to stoke boilers – which no one has used for longer than I’ve been alive. But unions required them and government gave railroad unions absolute power over management.

      So don’t be surprised if while the rest of us are running around with a fully autonomous vehicle, all *commercial* uses will require someone in the driver’s seat. Who will spend most of the day asleep like subway ‘drivers’.

      1. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $94/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $14000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. I work through this Website.. Read more on this site._____________

      2. I don’t necessarily think truck drivers are going to go away, I think their job is going to change. Skills like repair, cargo management, and schedule coordination will become more important.

        I really would feel more comfortable is someone was in the damn truck ready if something goes wrong. Truck drivers will still be necessary they’ll just be truck managers or truck operators instead.

        1. *Truckductor

        2. My co-worker’s step-mother makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14108 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
          I work through this Website.. See here._______

      3. More like ’80’s and early ’90’s. Firemen was only a third of the dead weight. Crews were typically five men (engineer, fireman, two brakemen, & a conductor) and a caboose. Some were somewhat necessary before portable radios allowed reliable communication over the length of the train and flashing rear end devices eliminated the need for cabooses. Took both getting union contracts and state laws changed to cut down to standard two man crews of today.

        1. They didn’t *start* going away until the ’80’s, most were gone in the ’90’s but they weren’t all gone until the ’00’s.

          1. Which road had them in the 00’s? I don’t know of any Class I that still had them at that point. Now there might have been extra allowances still in contracts for engineers working without a fireman. The BN contract I’m familiar with, for instance, eliminated that pay in the mid 90’s, long after they went to two man crews.

            1. I honestly don’t remember – it comes from an article I read (in the early ’00’s) describing how the RR’s *finally* eliminated fireman altogether.

      4. Or texting, like train drivers do now.

    2. But there’s no stopping the future.

      That won’t stop the luddites from trying. And unfortunately, most luddites of today wind up in DC at some point in their lives.

      1. The maddening part here is that our “representatives” want to protect us from guns to “save lives”, but when faced with allowing autonomous vehicles that will literals save thousands of lives a year they will stop at nothing to block or slow progress.

        Fucking hypocrites all of them.

        1. You mean like they’re treating vaping like smoking, despite the fact it can save thousands of lives annually?

          Thought so.

          1. It’s the typical prog chain derp reaction. Some prog shits their pants and dreams up something to be outraged about. Once they’ve said anything about their new outrage, all progs then shit their pants and get outraged. No need for thinking, just an emotional chain reaction of feelz. Borg like sycophants, all of them.

            1. Isn’t just the progs. Washington is full of derp, whether it’s technology-phobic proggies, stuffed shirts in similar positions of authority, or flim flam artists.

      2. Municipalities will soon recognize that this impending consumer switch will make their inflexible and costly public transit systems obsolete.

        And the day after that City Council briefing they’ll be writing ordinances to protect their systems. Ask Uber about Austin, or about many other cities that are trying to shut them down.

      3. Be far more concerned over mandated autonomous driving. Government controlled mandated autonomous driving.

        As far as I’m concerned, autonomous driving should never come to pass if you value freedom of movement.

        1. Indeed. I’m not against driverless cars necessarily, I just fear the architecture that in my view would be necessary to make such a system work. I haven’t run into a system that adequately handles the human decision making process in it’s programming, and so far all these autonomous driving systems have a margin of error that will still result in a lot of deaths per year. Who’s liable for that? Google? Therefore I assume the government will mandate everyone must use driverless cars. For the children, after all!

      4. I have nothing against driverless technology (optional), but I think the headline fails to grasp what is likely to happen on the regulators’ end of things. It seems to me more likely that legislators will do their best to FORCE us to go driverless than hold it back. Think of the logic they will use to sell it. “f it can save just one life…” And of course it will trickle into the insurance industry, where the rates for regular cars will go through the roof, meanwhile “incentives” to go driverless will be the only affordable option. Oh, and I DETEST anti-lock brakes.

        Anyway… just sayin’.

    3. However, driver-less cars will result in ZERO human-factor automobile incidents.

      So the one area of tech without user error or computer security issues? That seems unlikely

      1. ^This.

        When I read this article on the dead tree version last month, I thought there was a significant pollyannaish bent to how well things and technologies were going to work.

        1. It would be hard to imagine that autonomous vehicles would match the 38,000 person slaughter of human-driven vehicles.

          1. Is it really that hard to imagine? Honestly? Have you ever even used Windows?

    4. My co-worker’s step-mother makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14108 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
      I work through this Website.. See here._______

  2. Enhance your calm, Ron Bailey.

    1. Nice.

      (Also, perhaps you should be the therapist, cs)

        1. My eyes burn.

  3. If these people had been in charge last century we wouldn’t even have radios in our cars now.

    A century from now a lot of these archaic laws are still going to be on the books, but people will probably just ignore them and joke about how ridiculous they are.

  4. They are going to kick, scream, tear their hair and do everything they can to keep this from happening.

    How much money goes through the court system every year for traffic tickets?

    1. They’ll find a way to fuck with people, no matter what, no matter how ridiculous, they will find a way.

    2. You mean if a city needs more tax revenue, they will actually have to appeal to the citizens and make their case for a tax increase rather than nickle and dime every out of towner that crosses city limits without knowing where the speedtraps are?

      1. No, they’ll just put a tax on pop.

  5. Since driverless cars will still have accidents (not being able to compensate for black ice for example) who will have liability, the car maker or the owner or the occupant, or nobody since black ice is an act of god?

    1. Why does that matter? If, as you say, black ice is an act of god, then whoever you pick is an unnatural choice.

      Criminy, man, if we’ve figured that out now, what makes you think it’s impossible to figure out in the driverless future?

      You think like a bureaucrat who has just discovered the empowerment of the precautionary principle.

      1. It matters because its the real world

        Driverless Car spins out on ice, crashes into home and causes $100,000 in damage, who pays?

        Liability is part of the free market and part of Libertarianism, so I thought that Reason might be a good place to discuss it.

        1. The owner of the driverless car pays.

          1. Sounds good to me, but I bet at least some owners will try to get the car maker to pay. They will claim the car was defective since it could not handle a icy road

          2. What about ownerless cars? Eventually there’ll be cars abandoned or whose AI induces them to run away & strike out on their own. What then?

          3. ..since we’re becoming a full-retard prog world, what will probably happen is that the car will refuse to drive if conditions are conducive to icing. Government has to protect us (at gunpoint) from ourselves.

        2. The details don’t fucking matter.

          I once, briefly, joined some society which wanted to figure out how to live on the moon. The premise was they would figure out the hard stuff ahead of time. Instead, it deteriorated to squabbling over such nitpicking nonsense that I gave up after just a couple of weeks. It was the equivalent of trying to decide the width of sidewalks before letting the first covered wagons cross the continent.

          That’s what you’re doing, worrying about stuff that will sort itself out naturally. Same as those damned bureaucrats who think they are the most important part of the process, who think the precautionary principle is too dangerous because it doesn’t factor them into consideration.

          1. It was the equivalent of trying to decide the width of sidewalks before letting the first covered wagons cross the continent.

            You, sir, are brilliant.

          2. I think it does matter. I would suggest that the reason why these cars are not on roads is because manufacturers don’t want to invest tons of money in developing something that will get them sued so only those with the greatest political influence bother.

            Airplanes are not allowed to fly supersonic over the U.S. The FAA has said they may consider allowing it under certain circumstances if there’s ever a supersonic passenger jet. But who is going to invest billions in hopes they may consider letting them use it. Same sort of thing.

            1. I would suggest that the reason why these cars are not on roads is because manufacturers don’t want to invest tons of money in developing something that will get them sued

              If there is demand and likely profit, they will get made and made to the level that satisfies the customer.

              It is precisely the risk of being sued that will drive them to make them well/safe. No regulation required.

              If they are relieved of that liability, you will get shit for a product and the government will step in and invariably fuck it up with onerous regulation that goes far beyond that required.

              1. Nobody is saying they should be relieved of liability. The liability of an airline is figured different than that of a person giving someone an airplane ride because the government decided it be so. Unless it’s clear what the government rules are going to be people aren’t going to want to play the game.

            2. I’m guessing you’re too young to remember sonic booms. I lived in the Chicago suburbs in the 1960s and they were not uncommon. IIRC they stopped by the end of the decade.

              1. I lived by an air national guard base when I was a kid. We heard sonic booms all the time. Rattled our windows regularly. No big deal.

          3. I once, briefly, joined some society which wanted to figure out how to live on the moon.

            I joined a group called Christian Exodus back in … 2003/4 or so? for the lulz. I was also genuinely curious what the conversation would be like.

            It very quickly turned into what you said. more people were interested in arguing about the microdetails than actually doing anything. i found myself wanting to grab them by the lapels and go, “For the love of Jesus, lets DO this thing!!” Out of 10,000 subscribers they managed to move a dozen families to their “Promised Land” in rural SC.

            One of my personal contributions was joining the Flag Committee (should it be denominational? should it share features in common with the host state? etc.) It ended up being a variation of the SC/Moultrie Flag, with a cross added… but avoiding references to the flag of secession (*Not yet!)

            Most of the time-wasting-debate involved people debating their various forms of born-again/evangelical fundy-christianity. I avoided exposing myself as a heathen by simply agreeing with what anyone said all the time. No one ever noticed the constant contradictions.

            1. Wow, was this in NYC?

              Sounds like their success rate was far worse than the Free State Project.

              1. No, it was an online group. it was mentioned in the NYT i think, and i sought them out. they still exist and have a few micro communities across a handful of states.*

                they’re basically like multi-denominational Amish/Shakers; religious fundies who just want to be left alone and in control of their own micro-society.

                (*their mention of California as the land of “Fruits and Nuts” is not a joke, I think)

              2. The FSP hit 20K this year. New Hampshire is gonna be free.

    2. Why do you think a driverless car won’t be able to contend with black ice?

      Oh, btw…


    3. Somebody’s made the first effort to consider liability for driverless cars:…..ce-offered

    4. African American ice is the term. Racist. /sarc

    5. Google will be liable. Go after the party with the most cash.

  6. black ice

    Why do you have to make this about race?

  7. I bet Sen. Nelson has the same reaction when there’s a human driver (he wants to take over the wheel).

    1. Go figure, a career politician is a control freak and resistant to new ideas.

  8. Fuck California!

    That is all.

  9. Why would people choose shared driverless vehicles at any higher rate than they do taxis, uber and rentals? Maybe millenials think differently, but I like my own space. There maybe french fries stuck between the seats, but at least they are my kids fries.
    The average soccer mom with a cargo area full of equipment, snacks, and yesterday’s forgotten lunch box isn’t going to want to pack everything everytime she gets in the car, forget about moving car seats. The business commuter who has his talk radio station preprogrammed and choose the sports car to keep him from feeling like he is getting old, isn’t going to want the comfortable sedan showing up at his door. Ths teenager who wouldn’t be caught dead climbing out of a minvan, isn’t going to car share with “old people.” Cars are an extension of identity at least for Americans.
    I can see driverless cars. Shared vehicles not so much. Americans are way to attached to their cars.

    1. Agree, mostly. Only socialists and other private-property haters could imagine people liking shared vehicles.

      But! Some things don’t matter — radio stations, for instance, could be configured on your phone or fob just as some cars do nowadays. Most pure commuters don’t drag a lot of stuff around with them, and shared cars would be fine. Even trips to the grocery store don’t require much personal stuff in the car. Family vacations could use a single dedicated shared car for the entire trip.

      At some point, 90% of trips would not need a personal car, and people would realize they have paid for a vehicle they hardly use. Your example of the baby seats, for instance, could be satisfied with a minivan rental which already has four seats loaded pretty much permanently. Parents keeping kids stuff like DVDs and toys in the car — they might realize that paying for a seldom-used vehicle just as a moving closet isn’t a good way to spend their money, and learn to put up with keeping all that stuff in a bag, which would have some advantages — you wouldn’t need two copies of the favorite DVD, one for home and one for the car.

      1. Your example of the baby seats

        So are baby seats required in cars that don’t have accidents?

        How much would current accident rates need to be reduced before our precious cherubs don’t need to be strapped in like fighter jocks?

        1. As car accidents are far and away the leading cause of children dying and as it is seen as being mostly preventable if the kid is in a properly driven modern vehicle with properly installed car seats, they ain’t going anywhere.

          Disclaimer: While I have given far too much money to the good folks at Graco, I am not in their employ nor do I own stock in the company.

        2. Ha ha, nice try, but I know about CPS and do-gooders, you know about them, everybody knows about them, and baby seats aren’t going away, ever never never ever

          1. Used to stand on the seat next to my dad. My seatbelt, let along car seat, was him putting his arm out when he slammed on the brakes.

            But we were a lot tougher back then. 😉

            1. You were inside? Sissy!

              I remember riding in the back of a pickup truck with neighbor kids while my dad and the neighbor sat up front. Good times.

              1. We rode in back during rain and hail storms, ya whimp.

                1. Jesus. You guys got to *ride*. My dad used to tie the leash to the bumper and I had to run on behind the car. ‘Gon boy!’ He’d yell, ‘make something of you yet!’


              2. Pickup truck rides in the back were cool. And quite frightening.

            2. I learned to drive a farm tractor on public roads between 2nd and 3rd grade. I remember the sheer joy of once passing some old fart, having to stand on the gas pedal going downhill, tractor shaking like crazy. I also remember trying to get cute turning into a driveway by using the split brake pedal, only turning too late cuz I couldn’t get the catch up which held them together, hitting a tree at 2 mph, and having to go get help because I hadn’t learned reverse yet 🙂

            3. Progressives were largely considered commie scum in the old days. IT also was;t that far out since blacklists had been keeping the progtards down. We need to bring blacklists back for progressives again. Among other things.

            4. ^This

      2. streaming. video.

        podcasts/internet radio.

        As for status, you don’t think there would be Auto Uber and Auto-Uber Elite?

    2. Why would people choose shared driverless vehicles at any higher rate than they do taxis

      Yeah, I’m not seeing that either. But the one thing it will do is get rid of all the shitbag union cab drivers, so that will make me happy.

      I have a LOT of personal shit in my rig. Tissues, flashlights, motrin, spare deodorant, sunglasses, guns, dog leashes, survival gear, nail clippers, gum, leatherman… When I go somewhere with someone else, I’m lost without it. I’ll always require my own vehicle. But I’ll be very happy when it drives my drunk ass home by itself.

      1. I have a LOT of personal shit in my rig.

        Me, too. I keep it in a go-bag. I shift the go-bag for long trips in other vehicles.

      2. Shared vehicle has the potential to be vastly superior.

        How? In a market saturated with shared vehicle companies, you could request a car as you would with Uber, but it would be ready immediately. And it would be much more extensive. Need a ride with 6 friends? Here comes the mini-van. 12 of you? Here comes a full van. Cargo? Pleasure cruise with the top down? Cross country trip in a luxury van?

        Basically you could have every vehicle you’d ever imagine, for far, far less money. Doesn’t mean it will actually play out that way, but it is plausible. So you take a Prius type car to the mall, and a minivan picks you and all of your packages up.

        With advanced logistics software, companies would be able to pre-position vehicles and anticipate your needs…. kinda like a predictive dialer works for call centers. If they know you always leave work at 6, they could keep a car nearby – and if someone picks up the car they had planned for you, they could move another into position immediately.

        The potential is there for something that is a vast improvement in most every way, at a fraction of the cost we are currently paying. I’d say there’s a chance that you could hire cars this way for the whole year for less than the cost of insurance in some areas.

        1. The savings in parking space would be gigantic.

        2. Fuck all that. Keep shit the way it is now. Anything that any of you think will somehow be better will not come to pass. it will be worse and cost more. Don;t fall for this bullshit.

    3. The costs of operation/ownership will change drastically. Right now owning a car and paying for its use 24/7 is cheap compared to paying for a rental/taxi – even an Uber.

      Once the cars are fully autonomous then the costs of renting/operation will drastically drop – no more paying for labor, just upkeep on capital.

      That’s why people *will* choose shared vehicles (in greater proportion, not exclusively, compared to today) and why they don’t today.

  10. I can’t believe anyone even wants a driverless car.

    I won’t even ride in an elevator.

    1. I can’t believe anyone doesn’t.

        1. Good God does driving suck. You’re jockeying for position among a bunch of assholes who, much like yourself, just have somewhere to be. Except they’re going too fast, or too slow, for your taste. You’re blinded by sun, or you’re flipping on your high-beams, but in any event you’re pretty much blind. You have your hands on instruments you’d rather not think about, especially when you have a device at hand that reveals much more consequential information than who just cut you off. Driving is enraging and should be left to automation. You know what should be hand-crafted in this day and age? Masturbation and shitting. Everything else, automate it.

          1. Some people really enjoy driving. My old man was that way. One of his favorite activities on a summer or fall weekend was to “go for a drive”. Me? I don’t dislike driving nor do I overly enjoy it. It has always be a utilitarian task of commuting from point A to point B.

            And I sure as hell never drove when I lived in Bangkok, that shit is crazy.

            1. Good God, look at that wasted human potential. Hanging out, waiting for a break. You know what? Maybe the moties have it right.

            2. I enjoy driving.

              That thing I do 2 hrs a day M-F is not driving. It is commuting.

          2. The jackasses who like to cut across four lanes, no signal, 40 miles over speed limit, on their cell phone, manage to fuck up my commute at least a couple of times a week. And like you said, the chance of getting everyone to drive the same speed is zero. On my commute to my office in the city, the 8 mile stretch of highway I drive, the speed limit is 50, so you have people driving 85 and people driving 25 with seemingly no in between.

            I personally like to drive, but the traffic here is so fucked, there’s just no way to enjoy it. Instead you’re focused on watching the every single move of everyone around you, because you can be 100% sure that someone is going to do something stupid at any given second and you just want to make sure you’re not a victim of it.

            1. I used to love driving, back in my Mustang days. Not any more. Now it’s just an incredible waste of time, not to mention the frustration that you so aptly describe. I’d prefer a mode of transport that would get me there 10x faster, but I’ll certainly settle for being able to do other things while enroute.

            2. My dream (after I become famously rich) is to become the Rusty Avenger.

              I’d buy a bunch of shitty cars and a ton of insurance. Then I’d drive around the roads looking for assholes. When the asshole you described, Hyperion, cut me off I’d just follow him and then smash into his car with my beater. I’d leap out (in tights and cape) and run away while shouting about incurring the wrath of the Rusty Avenger.

              My sidekick would stay behind and tell the asshole it was all my fault and here is our insurance info. So the guy would get his car fixed, but he’d have to wait a couple weeks and deal with a bunch of insurance bureaucrats. Lesson learned.

              Once my legend grew, the side benefit would be that anytime people saw some shitty car coming down the road, they’d start driving more courteously in order to avoid the Rusty Avenger.

              1. Rear-Ended By The Rusty Avenger

                Coming to porn theaters this fall!

              2. Can you name your sidekick Lug Nuts? Please?!?!

              3. Fuck that, self-insure with the required amount in an escrow account. And put some really high quality 6″ pipe full of concrete welded to the frame. Fuck crumple zones

      1. I hate driving. You can’t go as fast as you can, and the roads around here suck. But rural America won’t benefit as much with driverless cars and since I doubt I’ll be able to nap on any commute, I don’t see much of an advantage for me.

        I would, however, love to see a driverless car attempt to navigate my isolated, bumpy and winding country lane to get to my shack.

      2. Probably 99% of my driving is mindless boring commute or freeway. I know when I am a passenger, I see things that I have passed by for years with my eyes straight ahead or swiveling at the cars around me. I would LOVE to be able to gawk while driving.

        The few times I enjoy driving, taking the back roads or such, I would not be surprised to find were only fun because they provide a break from routine boring driving. If I could read or nap or gawk, I would probably still take the back roads, but for the view instead of driving something different from a freeway.

        And if I found that driving itself was still fun, I could rent a driving car just for that purpose and probably have a much better time than driving my compromise vehicle that has to be everything at once and does all of them poorly.

      3. Nor I. I barely passed the driving test on the third try (at which we got to the parallel parking part and I said “can we just go on? I can’t do this”). I drove for a short while until one evening when I was rear-ended. I decided the world would be a safer place if I didn’t drive.

        You have to pay to maintain a personal car, and a lot of the time pay for a place to keep it while it’s not in use, which is the vast majority of the time. I would happily pay for a service that would let me summon a driverless car to take me where I want to go–no need to park it, it could drive me up to the door and go off to serve someone else, or if I’m doing a surgical strike it can let me out, park itself, and then come back to get me when I come out.

        What worries me about driverless cars is that eventually some bureaucrat or congresscritter will try to impose a backdoor that the government (or eventually any script kiddie) can use to control them in the name of controlling crime or the war on terror. No need for cops to drive up behind you and flash their lights–just take over the car and tell it to lock the doors and pull over, or lock the doors and drive to the nearest police station.

    2. I won’t even consider using a staircase.

        1. Especially then. I still don’t trust banister technology.

          1. You’re railing at nothing.

            1. He’ll improve a step at a time.

              1. That’s a riserable assertion.

                1. I’m not even going to stoop low enough to respond here.

                  1. Hopefully this conversation will soon come to a soft landing.

                    1. It spiraled out of control.

            2. Tread carefully, this could spiral way.

              1. Is there room here for a newel post?

  11. It’s misleading to think of the capital costs saved by ot having as many cars because there will be so much sharing and so many robotaxis. If each car is used only 4% of the time now and lasts for 11 years (I think the average car is now owned for 11 years) at 15K miles per year, that implies that increasing usage to 50% would put close to 200K miles on every new car in the first year. While it might be nice to always have a new model with the latest features, it won’t decrease the number of cars built. The only way to do that is reduce the number of total miles driven, which was mentioned.

    1. But think of the savings on body work if no wrecks. Also no car washing, because who cares if the car you don’t own is dirty?

      The real savings will be on parking spaces. Just need enough space for pickup & dropoff. During lull times the vehicles will still be parked somewhere, but all the extra spaces the vehicle would occupy during a day would be eliminated. So consider the amount of urban & suburban real estate that then gets opened up.

      No designated drivers, so everyone can get blasted.

      But still pretty conservative in view of the possibility of flying cars, & extremely so in view of the eventual development of teleport’n.

      1. There will be more car washing, not less. No one will want to rent a dirty car.

  12. First of all:

    In the federal government we have a critical role

    This is the problem, they believe that have a critical role in everything we do down to the smallest minutiae, despite the fact that the constitution says their role is limited.


    Unless lawmakers and regulators manage to screw everything up

    That could easier be said like this:

    Unless lawmakers and regulators manage to screw everything up get involved at all. The screw up part is an automatic.

  13. “Nelson’s words should strike fear in the hearts of those who are looking forward to playing Scrabble, applying makeup, or reading a Kindle on the freeway.”

    I would add that this should probably strike fear into the hearts of those of us who wish to go on driving our own cars without automation, as well.

    The principle at stake here is whether people should be free to make choices for themselves, and the time to make the stand on that principle in regards to being free to drive yourself without automation is right freaking now. If you care about being free to drive yourself around, stand up for the right of other people to go driverless.

    Otherwise, once it becomes safer to ride automated and people who are driving without automation are more of a danger than driverless cars, they’ll lose their freedom to drive themselves by the default assumption that these decisions should be made by Congress rather than individuals for themselves.

    1. Ken, meatbags like you are the reason that driverless cars are getting into accidents.

      Driverless vehicles have never been at fault, the study found: They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes by inattentive or aggressive humans unaccustomed to machine motorists that always follow the rules and proceed with caution.

      1. Study is wrong.…..ash-report

        1. You ever hear about one of those exceptions that proves the rule…

      2. “Driverless vehicles have never been at fault, the study found: They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes by inattentive or aggressive humans unaccustomed to machine motorists that always follow the rules and proceed with caution.”

        That means driverless cars are inferior to me and my ability to avoid being rear ended on my bike.

        In fact, in motorcycle school, they teach you how to avoid being rear ended like that.

        If driverless cars can’t avoid being rear ended, then driverless cars suck.

        I’ve never been rear ended on a bike once.


        Ken Shultz 1

        Driverless Cars Nil.

      3. In other words, driverless cars can’t keep up with human drivers and cause accidents.

  14. Oh, and to all of those who would take away my ability to drive my own motorcycle around because I’m a threat to myself and others, know this: How Second Amendment freaks feel about their guns has nothing on how I feel about my motorcycle.

    My dog, my motorcycle, my girl–leave those things alone, or I swear . . .

    Hell, I’ll only keep a girl around if she doesn’t try to get between me and my dog or my motorcycle. One of the things I like about my dog and my motorcycle is that they never try to make me choose between them and my girl–just to make themselves feel important. Girls, however, will do exactly that just to make themselves feel important. I don’t think there’s anything a chick can do to make themselves less important to me.

    I got up early just to work on my motorcycle today. When I was done, I sang a song about it.

    You are my sunshine
    my only sunshine
    You make me happy
    when skies are gray
    You’ll never know dear
    how much I love you
    Please don’t take my motorcycle away.

    1. Not my fetish, but I won’t judge.

      You be you, Ken.

    2. I’ll just leave this here.

    3. You think driverless cars are something? How about shooterless guns?

      1. We already have shooter less capable of assult all by themselves.

  15. If you drive for a few years in Maryland, you will definitely want driverless cars. You might not want one, but you will definitely wish everyone else has one. I for one, welcome our new driverless overlords.

    1. Your southern neighbors feel the same way. Mixing in half aggressive and half clueless drivers is not a great combination.

    2. This would all be so much easier if we just got together and euthanized all the progressives.

  16. In the federal government we have a critical role to make sure that the regulatory environment and legal environment in which American business does business is able to develop and manufacture these vehicles.

    I mean, those winners and losers aren’t going to pick themselves.

  17. UN panel says ISIS is committing genocide against the Yazidis

    The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011) says ISIS has been killing, raping, sterilizing and enslaving Yazidis as part of a plan to eliminate them as a people. The commission calls for action by the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court.

    (includes autoplay video at the beginning of the article)

    1. And this being the NY Times, they stick this in:

      “Secretary of State John Kerry said in March that the United States had determined that Islamic State had committed genocide against Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims, but Andrew Clapham, an international law professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said the rigorous analysis presented by the commission of inquiry would carry more legal weight.”

      Ugly Americans, getting it right but in the wrong way!

    2. Does a driverless car packed with explosives get 72 cherry mopeds in roboparadise?

    3. UN panel says ISIS is committing genocide against the Yazidis

      When UN people use the term “Genocide” it has less to do with any actual concern that there’s a process of ethnic extermination ongoing, and more to do with the fact that its a trigger/signal to other aspects of the bureacratic security state that there is willingness to intervene.

      The term itself obligates action, in UN lingo.

      I doubt the UN would ever have even formed a committee unless the US and other EU nations hadn’t said, “why don’t you look into that and see if it meets the criteria”.

      There’s been a gradual uptick lately in the willingness to increase direct engagement against ISIS; i suppose its partly an effect of Russia getting mostly out of the way… and the increased pressure they’re getting from Iraq in the East.

    4. And the U.N. reports and recommendations will be complete in time to mark the graves.

    5. UN panel says ISIS is committing genocide against the Yazidis

      Not going to do anything, but the feelz are there.

  18. OT: We have to outlaw pipes, they make teabaggers go nuts.

    Right wing extremists strike again

    1. Those are left wing extremist!

      1. There’s no such thing. According to our media It’s ‘the center’ or ‘far’ left, and right wing extremists, ‘extremists’ being the only type of right.

        1. I know, that was the joke. But seriously when they call National Socialist whose managed economy has been the inspiration to progs desire to do the same thing to this day “right” wing, that’s bizarro world level lying. I’m going to call all violent thug groups left wing going forward.

          1. There’s nothing extreme about wanting to turn the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen into Venezuela. But just wanting to keep more of my own money, retain all my constitutional rights, and in general be left the fuck alone, that’s somehow extreme.

    2. I’m perfectly fine with outlawing Radiohead instead.

      It’s what the Chinese call “win-win”.

      1. I’m suprised the pipe weilders didn’t like the new album.

        1. Nice animation, but the music is bad, really bad.

          1. That’s what I thought as well

        2. I think they prefer “Steam Fitters”. Huh? Oh, carry on.

      2. Except they attacked them because they were drinking alcohol during Ramadan. I’m not sure the choice of music mattered to them.

        1. I know. Thing is I think assholes like this beat people because they like beating people. They’ll always find a reason. If they hadn’t have gone after them, it would have been someone else for some other lame ass reason.

          1. This. Billions of this.

            All the navel-gazing about whether the Orlando asshole was an Islamic ISIS asshole or a homophobic asshole or a domestic terrorist asshole is missing the point by a wide margin.

            Assholes are gonna asshole. They don’t need a reason, they only need an excuse. And if an asshole looks for self-justification, s/he/xir will find it.

            ISIS, homophobe, domestic terror… potay-toe, potah-toe. All of the above and none of the above.

            1. It’s politically important to some people whether it’s called terrorism or not. There is money involved and the opportunity to shred more civil liberties. Of course, it’s such a broadly defined term you could really call almost any crime terrorism. Which is just the way the politicians like it. He was influenced by Isis propaganda, Roof was influenced by Skinhead propaganda. They’re the same asshole.

            2. Assholes are gonna asshole. They don’t need a reason,

              Not so sure that, without a mental and social support system that encourage/validates violence, that assholes are going to get murderous.

              Not to Godwin, honestly, but virulent anti-semitism was a feature of European life for decades before the Nazis. But, it took the mental and social support system of Nazism to escalate that to mass murder.

              Assuming the distribution of assholes is pretty uniform across populations, its no accident that some countries/belief systems have more violence than others.

              1. “without a mental and social support system that encourage/validates violence”

                Those support systems can be found everywhere in one form or another. Granted more widespread in some places. The internet certainly expands on what is available to angry mentally unstable assholes to stew on but they’ll find something to set them off regardless.

                1. Those support systems can be found everywhere in one form or another.

                  i’m not sure if you’re saying that

                  (a) the toxic systems can be found everywhere due to the internet and whatnot (trivially true),

                  (b) every mental/social system generates equal amounts of violence from the assholes that adhere to it (seems contrary to the evidence), or

                  (c) the systems don’t matter, its only assholes that matter (also seems contrary to the evidence).

                  Christians, Buddhists, even socialists and communists, haven’t been killing gays in job lots both in their native societies and, now, in the US. That seems to be mainly a radical/fundamentalist Islamic thing. From this, I conclude that radical/fundamentalist Islamism is a toxic ideology unlike others. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Multi-culti moral relativism just doesn’t pass my sniff test.

                  1. This was from the Black Lives Matter thread a couple weeks back.

                    What is systemic racism? The policing, laws, lack of opportunity and an assortment of other things are not confined to one race, nor do they originate with one. Those things, which can be defined as systemic racism, can also be recognized as mere tools of social engineering. When applied to pressure points, these tools cause stress fractures along the lines of the culture’s weak points.

                    The same tools that could explain black unemployed criminal dependence can be used to explain a poor white skyrocketing death/suicide/drug abuse rate. Policing, laws, a lack of opportunity and an assortment of other things.

                    Peoples is peoples.

                    Bolding mine, which is fine because the words are mine too. You appear to be saying that Islamic assholes are uniquely fracturing along stress lines of violence and bigotry – as opposed to, for example, black assholes or white assholes or non-denominational Baptist assholes of mixed Finnish/Native American princess descent.


                    1. Pt 2.

                      In which case I agree conditionally. A cursory examination of the racial war activist culture and the Islamic culture would suggest similarities except by degree and honestly we could pick another comparison. Try looking at police culture and then Islamic culture. Still works. The cultural rhetoric is eroding/erodes civilization, and violence and tribalism emerge and are actively fomented by cultural elements. So. If you’re saying that the Islamic culture at this time is resulting in these specific stress fractures, I agree completely. If you’re saying they are uniquely resulting in these stress fractures at this time, I agree completely.

                      If you’re saying that they are and will continue to be unique in these specific stress fractures, then I do not agree. There seems to be evidence that a culture resulting in violence and bigotry is not unique over time, or in the future, to Islamic culture.

                    2. I think we are largely in agreement.

              2. Assuming the distribution of assholes is pretty uniform across populations, its no accident that some countries/belief systems have more violence than others.

                Put a pin in that. I wrote something for just such a topic a while ago, but I’m in the middle of chores. I’ll get back to you.

            3. Then why do we see more assholes running along ideological lines like communist or Islamists? If they’re all just assholes who will always find a reason then assholism would be evenly distributed not more or less common based off ideologies that give justification.

              1. There has been plenty of assholism before Islam and Communism were ever created. Communism has certainly been the most efficient murder ideology we’ve seen to date though.

                1. I’m most interested in who is doing the killing now, not who was doing the killing decades or centuries ago.

                2. There has been plenty of assholism before Islam and Communism were ever created.

                  Which certainly doesn’t support your point. You are saying that the world is filled with some x percentage of assholes and they will find a justification for their assholery by seeking an ideology. If that’s true than America should be a despotic shithole like Russia or Saudi Arabia because assholes exist here like everywhere and WILL find a justification. Except it isn’t, and they didn’t. So there’s a huge disparity in assholism there that you need to explain for this theory. Is the U.S. Is maybe just genetically filled with fewer assholes, that’s all that you could really say.

                  You understand that for that to be true the communist countries would be just as bad as the others, or only slightly worse as assholes migrated there to be asshole communists. Did every asshole on earth just happen to migrate Germany in the 30’s? That particular form of rabid assholism came and went with the ideology while the population remained unchanged.

                  There’s just no evidence for your theory.

                  1. Which is why I stated “Granted more widespread in some places.” Particularly when conditions were right.

                    If you don’t think there are plenty of assholes in America I suggest you check out the daily news.

                    1. Here’s my worldview:

                      Lots of assholes in the world. They are pretty much evenly distributed.

                      Some belief systems/socieities/cultures justify/provoke violence from assholes. Others repress it. Historically, communism, nazism, various forms of racism/colonialism were the toxic ideologies. Currently, Islamism (the radical/fundamentalist flavor of Islam) is the premier toxic ideology.

                      Islamism is a very big part of the problem. Failure or refusal to recognize this is a failure to diagnose. What you don’t diagnose, you can’t treat.

              2. Then why do we see more assholes running along ideological lines like communist or Islamists?

                Cuz there are no Christian assholes. There are no Jewish assholes. There are no capitalist assholes. There are no progressive assholes. There are no conservative assholes.

                For the love of Christ, there are 12,000 homicides in this country a year and 1.1 million violent crimes and you are picking out the handful commited by Muslims and calling it an epidemic.

                False premise
                Cherry picking

                1. The low level of Islamist violence in this country probably has a lot to do with a couple of things:

                  (a) Not many Islamists.

                  (b) They are embedded in a remarkably non-violent society, all things considered.

                  Comparing the raw numbers of violence by Islamists to the raw number of violence by others doesn’t look at the rate of violence, which is the more useful number.

                  Its hard to know how many Islamists there really are in this country, so its hard to come up with a rate. But, when I look around at mass killings and attempted mass killings in particular, they sure seem to be disproportionately committed by Islamists. And for explicitly Islamist reasons.

                  Sure, mass killings are committed by non-Islamists. But I believe Islamists are disproportionately, even vastly disproportionately, responsible for them. I’m not finding an easy reference for mass killings since, say, 2002 that lets me do a count, so this is impressionistic. But given the low number of Islamists, and the fact that I can think of five mass killings or attempted mass killings by Islamists off the top of my head (Ft. Hood, Boston, Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland), it sure looks disproportionate to me.

                  This could be confirmation bias. I’d love to look at some research/analysis, but analyzing the role of Islamism is so disallowed by our media and government that its hard to find.

                  1. you are picking out the handful commited by Muslims and calling it an epidemic.

                    As per the NYT’s own chart….50% of “extremist” killings (you can debate their definitions with them*) are being committed by 1% of the population (Muslims)

                    This would support RC’s contention that “Islamists are disproportionately, even vastly disproportionately, responsible for [mass killings]”

                    (*note: I think that their analysis is retarded, and the org is trying to make the point that islam is in fact less worrisome than “Right-Wing” violence. when you look at their miscellaneous-bin of incidents that constitutes RW violence, however, you realize how desperate they are, and that they really end up just inadvertently making the opposite case. most of the ‘extremist’ events they cite are not mass-killings, but things like ‘sovereign citizens’ committing sideline-crimes, or racially motivated murders, etc.)

                2. Cuz there are no Christian assholes. There are no Jewish assholes. There are no capitalist assholes. There are no progressive assholes. There are no conservative assholes.

                  Where did I say that? I said there are more, and you came up with none. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to come up with Islam not being disproportionally more violent. Your life would be easier if you just looked at the facts.

                  1. Islam is a political tool used to gain power and murder political enemies throughout the Middle East which very much remains tribal and medieval. It is the means of power and control over the ignorant and the superstitious throughout the middle east. We’ve seen this movie before with Christianity in Europe in the middle ages. Certainly Rome and Nazi Germany had their own tools and commited terrible violence. Communism is in a whole different league. I think in addition to the true believers groups like ISIS attrack a criminal element who love the excuse to rape and pillage as well like the Mongols in their hayday.

                    1. There was a whole lot done in the days of the Crusades and Spanish Inqusition that wes done in the name of Christianity that had nothing to do with religion. It was about land and loot aquisition and power abd control. Certanly there were true believers involved as well. My point really is that while Islam is a pretty slick tool for assholes to get other assholes to do their bidding and middle east is fraught with violent tribal upheaval, it’s not uniquely so as I believe history does prove. The fact that we have over 3 million Muslims in this country not running around decapitating people tends to also support the fact that the ancient religion can be practiced in more positive ways by non-assholes.

                    2. My intial feeling about this American born asshole in Orlando is that he’s a lot more like Dylan Root then he is like you average ISIS asshole in that he was mean and angry and found something external to feed it

                    3. I dunno, I see one difference. His dad is pretty radicalized. The dude looks like Saddam Hussein. Maybe he is Saddam who actually escaped and had his body double take the fall. Have you seen that film about Uday and the guy who was his body double?

                    4. I hadn’t heard much about the dad. Yeah, like, I said just my initial feeling from hearing about his ongoing mental issues that seemed to go beyond just religious ferver and predated ISIS. I don’t know though he could be just another run of the mill Jihadist

                    5. If you believe this Christianity was the evil and now it’s just Islam then you need to look into more history. The Spanish Inquisition killed 3,000 people over 400 years, it’s nothing- 9/11 was worse. And the Crusades weren’t even started until The Islamic caliphate had taken half of Europe and Africa. Christianity has just never been as dangerous an ideology as Islam, it’s not even close. It’s why the entire West is advanced and enlightened but the Islamic world is all 3rd world. The reason Muslim countries are barbaric is because of Islam.

                      So yeah, if you work on false assumptions about history where Christianity and Islam were the same on different timelines then I guess I can see how you could believe that. But those assumptions are wrong. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are all pretty much the same today as they were 1000 years ago.

                    6. The Spanish burned the Mexicans alive after the Cortez conquest in the 1500s, for refusing to convert to Christianity, so there’s that. There was also the more recent Salem Witch Trials, when women were burned alive for ‘consorting with the devil’ and practicing witchcraft.

                      So Christianity has been responsible for some pretty heinous crimes in the past. I think Islam is pretty much the same today as it was in the 7th century. Throwing gays from building, stoning women to death, chopping off the heads of infidels, honor killings, etc.

                      So, I think to be honest, we have to say that although Christianity has been very brutal at times in the part, the religion is almost entirely peaceful today and Islam is still full of 7th century savages.

                    7. So what you get is the religion that inhabits the most peaceful parts of the world and has largely since its existence is the same as the one that inhabits the most barbaric parts of the world and has since its inception. Good call. And FDR is the same as Hitler because he but Japanese in internment camps. As long as we ignore the scale and frequency amongst all people we can make everything equally bad I guess.

                    8. Largely since it’s existence? That’s not even remotely true.

                    9. “although Christianity has been very brutal at times in the part, the religion is almost entirely peaceful today and Islam is still full of 7th century savages.”

                      I agree. I don’t think that applies to all Muslims in the middle east that are like that is cetainly multitudes higher than those living here. Internationally what percentage are boom boom muslims or their supporters vs intelligent rather people, I have no idea. Given the population hopefully it’s lower rather than higher.

                    10. …to all Muslims. Muslims in…

                    11. Rational not rather. One more week to upgrade

                    12. Considering they’ve sworn that they abide by a book that calls for Shariah, and holds up a murderous warlord as the perfect man the percentage is probably quite low.

                    13. It’s interesting though that you have ISIS fighting a war to establish a Sunni Caliphate that will follow Shariah law which you would think unite all Sunni Muslim extremist to band together and yet 99.9999% of Sunnis are not participating at least directly.

                    14. Seriously, if we just leave them alone (in the ME) the Shiites and Sunnis will kill each other off, or one of them will win and oppress the others, keeping them in check.

                    15. Yeah, I agree. I don’t think we should be wasting American lives for a bunch of sociopaths. While I’m not totally opposed to letting Marine snipers use ISIS or Taliban scum for target practice, we don’t need to be in the middle of their shitshow. Our focus should be on keeping them out of the U.S. Not making their problems, our problems. Fuck the whole Middle East. Gtfo and stfo. We should still be monitoring communications and collecting intelligence. If we get wind of any planned atracks on our assets, do our best to prevent it from happening and then retaliate with extreme prejudice.

      3. I’m perfectly fine with outlawing Radiohead instead.


        I haven’t been a fan since [The Bends-through-OK Computer], but i’ve never considered them painfully bad. I never hear them on the radio, or forced on me via-soundtracks or something, so if they’ve gotten much worse i hadn’t noticed.

    3. Fuckers wouldn’t have tried this if Lou were still here.

  19. I wonder what we’ll call driverless cars in the future.

    We often seem to name important innovations for what they aren’t.

    Wireless used to mean radio.

    Then wireless became using a mobile phone.

    We still talk about wireless internet, but eventually, i suspect we’ll just call it “internet”. “Wireless” will be for the gear heads and a meaningless distinction for most people.

    They used to call them “horseless carriages”. That was the advantage. You didn’t need a horse.

    Then we started calling them “automobiles” because they effectively drove themselves.

    “Driverless automobile” is from the Department of Redundancy Department. And “driverless” will soon be about as relevant as “horseless”.

    I was thinking we should call them “robotic cars” but that doesn’t really capture its essence either.

    I’m thinking we should go with “pods” or “capsules”.

    1. Mobile Civilian Locators and Containment Boxes. Regulations will include GPS locatirs and tge ability for law enforcement to remotely shut off the cars and lock the doors and disabile the ability to unlock them or roll down the windows.

    2. Wireless still means radio. That communication ain’t happening by telepathy.

    3. Just like we still call digital video recordings “footage” when there’s no film.

  20. “We should be concerned about automated vehicles,” University of South Carolina law professor Bryant Walker Smith told the Associated Press in March. “But we should be terrified about today’s drivers.”

    Really, that could have been the whole article.

  21. Pipe dream

  22. Real motivation for Team Blue: reduces need for choo-choos.

  23. A journalist tries to enlist poor William Penn to defend the European union and urge the UK to stay in it.

    Back in 1693, Penn had a dream – a European Diet, or Parliament, which would settle disputes among states. The plan was to avoid war by having would-be warring parties submitting to the justice of the Diet rather than waging war.

    Of course, there are a few differences between Penn’s proposed Diet and the modern EU.

    -His Diet would resolve disputes which would otherwise lead to war, not punish grocers for labelling their products in pounds instead of kilograms.

    -Each country’s voting strength would be proportional to its wealth, or in modern terms, Germany would have like a jillion times the voting strength of Greece.

    -Decisions would be made by a three-fourths vote of the delegates, not by a committee of civil servants.

    -And one of the proposed benefits of the system? “The Great Security it will be to Christians against the
    Inroads of the Turk, in their most Prosperous Fortune.” A united Europe would be an “Over-Match” for the Ottoman Empire.

  24. Preet Bahara is a jackass a-hole, and he’s spearheading the fight against Ross Ubricht’s appeal.

    Yesterday, Preet Bahara, who is a jackass, made this a-hole statement in presenting its rebuttal to Ubricht’s appeal

    “But nowhere, either below or here, has Ulbricht explained, other than in the most conclusory way, how the corruption of two agents?who neither testified at his trial nor generated the evidence against him?tended to disprove that he was running Silk Road from his laptop.”

    —-Preet Bahara, Jackass, A-hole

    Isn’t this something a jury and judge should have found out before a verdict was rendered?

    You tell me:

    “After Ulbricht’s trial concluded in late 2014, the government unveiled criminal corruption charges against both federal agents. The government concluding that agents Force and Bridges worked independently to extort money from Dread Pirate Roberts (Ulbricht’s online identity) and rip off Silk Road as a whole. By the end of 2015, after taking plea agreements, both Force and Bridges were sentenced.”

    —-Ars Technica

    This is the same agency that was prosecuting him!

    At the very least, might that not speak to the whole agency’s credibility and their testimony regarding this investigation?

    O.J. Simpson got off for less!

    The credibility of testimony isn’t for Preet Bahara, who is a jackass and and a-hole, to decide. That’s for a jury to decide–and the jury never got to hear a word about it.

    1. How do we know other agents weren’t involved?

      The two witnesses never testified.

      Are we supposed to take Preet Bahara’s word that no other agents were involved?

      He’s a jackass and an a-hole–why would we take his word for it?

      1. Preet Bahara? Isn’t he that AG who is a jackass and an A-Hole?

        1. Yeah, that’s the one.

          He’s the guy who squandered millions in taxpayer money going after banks for something they never did.

          He also went after commenters here at Hit & Run for making inane comments.

          He’s a jackass. And an a-hole. And he can’t seem to do anything right.

          I don’t know how such an incompetent person ever got to his position, but anybody who can’t see why pleading out to corruption charges in an investigation–might tarnish the credibility of that investigation in the minds of jurors.

          Incidentally, why wasn’t the testimony of the two corrupt agents used in the trial? Did Preet Bahara know there was a corruption investigation ongoing before or during the trial? Doesn’t it seem odd that two investigators’ testimony wasn’t used–just because?

          If Preet Bahara knew there was an ongoing corruption investigation in the department in regards to the officers who were going after Ubricht, and he didn’t give that information to the defense team, then isn’t that withholding potentially exculpatory evidence?

          Maybe a new trial is the last thing we should be worried about. Did Preet Bahara commit a crime?

          1. If people on Ulbricht’s staff engaged in an extortion scheme, I bet Bahaha would have found a way of letting the jury know about it

            1. I just want the answers to two questions:

              1) Did Preet Bahara know about the corruption investigation before or during the Ubricht trial?

              2) If he didn’t know about the corruption investigation, then why didn’t he use those investigators’ testimony?

              Incidentally, I’d also like to see someone put together a FOIA request in regards to Preet Behara’s communications with the judge at the center of the Hit & Run commenter chillathon.

              1. Maybe the judge should think about it this way: How could two agents have evidence so good that they could extort money from Ross Ubrict because of they had it–and not have evidence good enough for Preet Bahra to use in the trial?

    2. Preet,

      I think you are an intelligent and handsome individual, and I appreciate all the work that you have done.

      Remember, commenter Crusty Juggler is on your side, you big studmuffin.

      1. It’s a tr—-never mind, carry on.

    3. What about operator-less woodchippers?

      1. Fully automatic assault woodchippers?

  25. DHS. Keeping us safe since never. Are all federal agencies just a subset of the Ministry of Leftwing Extremist Propaganda?…..haria.html

    1. “The Homeland Security Advisory Council report recommends that the department focus on American milliennials by allocating up to $100 million in new funding.”

      How about a hot chick frying an egg and saying, “this is your brain on extremism. Any questions?”

      1. Set the commercial in a gay nightclub, and have her start whacking people with the frying pan, and you’ve got a winner.

    2. DHS. Keeping us safe since never. Are all federal agencies just a subset of the Ministry of Leftwing Extremist Propaganda?

      Just remember the sorts of people they hire. Think: John.

      1. Mary you are so pathetic. Can’t you just freak out and get banned. You know it’s going to happen eventually

  26. You know who else didn’t drive his own car?

    1. Regrettably, the answer isn’t Ted Kennedy.

      1. Actually some believe that was indeed the answer to you-know-what/where. My friend David Lindelof laid it out pretty well from his reading on the subject.

    2. Come on, Eddy, you know the rules: the answer has to be in the form of a question. Like this:

      Hillary Clinton?

    3. Boss Hogg?

    4. Michael Knight?

    5. Terry Schiavo?

    6. Paul McCartney

    7. Robert Moses?

    8. Every character on GTA?

  27. SJW white privilege fix…..privilege/

    1. Holy crap.

      Issues. That person has severe issues.

      It begs the question, “why would the father allow a 2-yr-old to wander more than 3-feet away near a lake? Only the intellectually deficient would not wonder.

      So, the good news is the established precedent for autonomous self-identification means we can be something besides humans. Reject the species controllists! OPTIONS, people, we’ve got options!

      1. It’s funny because they killed the gorilla because white privilege too. These people are mental.

        1. She’s getting beaten up pretty badly in the comments there. That is one sick cunt.

      2. It begs the question


        1. Yup, and people always (wrongly) use that phrase when trying to sound like a smart fuck.

    2. I was just waiting for something that stupid to come out of the dumbest people on the planet.

    3. “I can be just as evil as a man!” Seems to be the goal for some feminists. Yes, and then some. Good job?

  28. Government loves the driverless future. It will be centrally controlled, kill off the car as symbol of individual liberty, replace it with a rational top-down solution. Autopia?

  29. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with ti.

    1. Aha.

      I like Jo-bot better. But not bad at all, JT-bot.

  30. Or put another way, someone/thing will still drive your car, but it will no longer be you.

    Why are libertarians cheering for “driverless” cars?

    1. Because there is no bigger waste of time than driving?

      1. So ‘waste of time” is now the standard by which things are judged? Giving up your privacy and independence is okay just so long doing so saves time?

        When you get into a driverless car, you are not in control the car and whoever programmed it is in control. The reason why Google is wanting to make these things is because they could be a river of advertising dollars. Which route does your self driving car take? The one that goes by the businesses that have paid google to get priority. And while you are sitting in your self driving car, you won’t mind listening to advertising. You will see and hear what the manufacturer wants you to see and hear.

        1. As long as it’s voluntary I don’t care. If I want to fear monger I would say the debate will occur at some point about outlawing driving. The auto cars will be safer and those that refuse to use them are immoral child murderers. Ban ban ban

          1. That is where that will lead. Why wouldn’t it? Why wouldn’t the driverless car companies want to make it illegal not to use their product?

    2. It’s a choice. You can still own and operate a conventional automobile.

      1. For how long will that be the case?

        That is the question. Make no mistake, I like the idea of engaging auto at my choosing, but I demand the right to switch back.

  31. most members of the Commerce Committee made it clear that they’ll be hard-pressed to stick to a hands-off approach to regulating

    Imagine my surprise.

    1. They didn’t major in central planning at the Kennedy School of Government to let you live your life as you see fit.

  32. Gettysburg College seeks to preserve a delicate balance in its policies on offensive speech.

    A new speech policy says “Any effort by members of the college community to limit openness in this academic community is a matter of serious concern and militates against the freedom of expression and the discovery of truth.”

    But they also created a “bias response team.”

    “”It’s not a part of our charge to prevent free speech,” [Chief Diversity Officer Jeanne] Arnold said. “The best response to speech is more speech. Even though free speech is protected, it doesn’t always fit with the values of a community.”

    “And that, she said, is where the bias-response team comes in: it will organize educational opportunities — like town hall meetings or speakers — that students can choose to attend.”

    (The particular “bias” to which the college is response-ing is a poster pointing out the disproportionate number of black babies aborted. The poster also makes use of the hashtag #blacklivesmatter, which isn’t supposed to apply to black babies, only adult black robbers.)

    1. Somewhat out of character for a liberal arts college. You’d think they would have met with the student who would have been prohibited from having counsel where they would have forced the student to withdraw and agree to not come back or they would threaten expulsion and prosecution for violating the enacted speech codes.

  33. Only central committee know what’s best for you.

  34. I had a conversation with a colleague that started to touch on the Orlando massacre. She’s a pretty straightforward squishy liberal and a Hillary supporter, so I cut it off, saying that I was convinced that our assumptions about how the world worked were so fundamentally out of sync that I couldn’t see us having a productive discussion.

    She was gobsmacked, but didn’t press the issue.

    1. Sadly this is the conclusion that I reached a number of years back. If you start off with the assumption that there is a proper place for massive government regulation and I start off with the opposite assumption, there’s no way you reach any agreement on individual policy issues (sidenote: this is why bipartisanship is bullshit). Not to mention that most of the liberals I know don’t believe they hold partisan/political views. They see themselves as simply looking for “common sense” solutions to problems.

      So, I gave up on conversations with most* of my colleagues. Instead, I work on indoctrinating students.

      *Exception: I actually have some really good conversations with hard core Marxists. My working assumption is that this happens because they, too, have been forced to think through and defend their beliefs.

      1. What I find with my liberal friends is that they get their information entirely from the major media and liberal sources. You can’t agree on basic facts. So, it makes it very difficult to have a productive discussion with them. For example, most of them honestly believe that the Tea Party were a group of fanatics that were impossible to work with and that Obama was a reasonable President faced with an impossible opposition. If you examine the Obama Presidency with that as your assumption, it is going to be pretty hard to understand how divisive and bad for the country he has been.

        1. My problem is that their “facts” are mostly, well, not. But they accept them as true because of their basic assumptions, and they have feedback loop from assumptions (government good. Obama smart.) to “facts” and back again, all reinforced by their cognitive bubble and confirmation bias.

          I think a more honest examination of the facts and the way the world really works doesn’t allow you to hold the basic assumptions that they have.

          Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

          1. Most liberals I know read the New York Times and the Washington Post every day and honestly believe they are getting an unbiased presentation of the world. It is totally dumbfounding that they could believe that but they do.

            1. One of my profs in grad school was dumbfounded when I told him one day that the NYT was a leftist paper.

              But, he replied, “it’s the paper of record.”

              To which I said, “so was Pravda.”

              1. They all think exactly like that. And it explains a lot. Read the NYT for a few days. If that was the only information you ever got and you honestly thought it was the unbiased truth, you would probably be a Prog too.

              2. To which I said, “so was Pravda

                +1 excellent response

            2. Yeah, I have a liberal coworker who literally said she thought NPR was unbiased. It was really hard to continue that conversation while trying to not insult her.

              1. Did she also often start a conversation point by saying “I heard on NPR today…..” instead of how normal people talk, which would be more like “did you hear about….?”

                One of my pet peeves is those people who are always trying to signal others how enlightened they are because they listen to NPR.

                They say it almost as often as a Harvard alum mentions how they went to Harvard in every single thing they say. (“Do you know where the restroom is? Oh, how funny, just like the place where they had a restroom back when I was at Harvard.”)

                1. Good guess, the conversation was about how smart she is because she watches documentaries (on public broadcasting, naturally) and listens to the news (on NPR) instead of music.

                2. We used to call that the “H Bomb” when our P Chem teacher used to drop it at random times. The best was, “I brought you candy on Halloween because that’s what we did at Harvard.”

                  1. We used to call that the “H Bomb”

                    My friend, who teaches at, well, you know, also calls it that when he invokes it to get consulting jobs or grants.

                    1. So those of us who are unfortunate (soon to be) graduates of state universities should just fuck right off, or what? Honest question. I’m curious about the extent and pervasiveness of classist assumptions in the working world.

          2. Case in point: something I posted earlier this week was a meme doing the FB rounds which suggested gun violence problems could be solved by registering guns like cars. To my liberal academic friend who posted it, this was non-political and not a threat to constitutional rights. Everyone “liked” it because they all live in the same echo chamber.

            It is, of course a shitty analogy in two directions. First, if it’s not an attack on rights, then let’s register speech (for example) the same way. Second, and I missed this but a number of others here pointed it out, registering guns like cars would make them more available than they are now and less restricted in use.

            Conservatives, of course, also operate in echo chambers. I think libertarians can fall into echo chambers but it is less likely as (i) there is disagreement within libertarianism that forces people to think and (ii) we have to engage a lot with other ideas that we’re constantly having to intellectually defend ourselves.

            Echo chambers, of course, are the major problem in academia. It’s not that liberal academics are wrong about so much, but that they rarely have to think about anything.

            1. There’s somethin on FB right now about some comedian whining about Congress not making gun anti “assault weapon” laws to make us all safer. It’s the NRAs fault obviously because they gave 3 million dollars to lobby since 1996.

              To even comment to my frien that posted it I would need to point out:

              1. The NRAs contributions are nothing, that is an exceptionally small amount over 20 years.

              2. The NRA is doing what its members want.

              3. Giving to candidates that support you is not corruption and every side does it.

              4. Congress’ job isn’t to “make us safer.”

              5. Banning guns doesn’t make us safer

              6. There’s no such thing as an assault weapon, and even if there were it wouldn’t include an AR-15.

              7. The second amendment is there for the people to own weapons just as dangerous as an AR15, and more so.
              I mean they work from so many false premises that to just wade into their bullshit is to attack on multiple fronts. It’s not even worth it.

              1. I saw part of that. My reaction at the time, “Three million dollars in eighteen years? Three WHOLE million?”

                The DNC calls that lunch. Republicans won’t even get out of bed for less than that. Try again, Dr Evil.

            2. I always like to ask what the difference is between a gun owner registry and Trump’s proposed Muslim registry.

              For starters, they are both impossible to implement; they are certain to be riddled with errors. But let’s suppose that they could create a list that is somewhat complete. Both lists would create a government database of people who are just doing what the Constitution protects. Both lists would fail to provide any public safety benefit, yet they would provide massive opportunities for further abuse of these rights.

              I pointed this out to a left-leaning relative, and he said, “but a Muslim database is unconstitutional, unenforceable, and Nazi-like”. I replied that this is exactly why gun owners don’t want a government registry.

          3. I am currently hammering the local progressives in the comment section of the area liberal paper about Obama’s drone strikes, Obama and Hillary’s ISIS assistance, and Hillary’s vote on the Iraq war.

            I get some “Buuuut Boooosh” replies but get other ones such as (paraphrased) Obama’s drone strikes are ok because he is an outstanding family man and you have to go along with it because of saying the peldge of allegiance.

            1. I get some “Buuuut Boooosh

              Well, this one of their fav fall backs. You can count of such deflection, along with obfuscation, and other avoidance methods.

              Call Obama Captain Murder Drone and talk about him bombing wedding parties and children’s hospitals in poor countries, this really enrages them. Captain Murder Drone and his sidekick, the Butcher of Bengahzi.

              1. Buuuut Boooosh = Hairy Ass?

              2. I think the term is cognitive dissonance. When they finally devolve to just saying “you are lying” I ask for cites and get crickets. For years the worst they got was neocons as hypocritical as them disagreeing. Now they get “You knowingly voted for a war criminal and you wonder why I don’t accept you having a say in which firearms I can own?”

                It is like when Bobby Fischer used to play chess simultaneously against a dozen or more opponents. One articulate, reasoned libertarian can take on a battalion of progs.

  35. As someone pointed out above, people are not going to choose shared driverless cars anymore than people choose uber or Taxis now. The problem with a feet of driverless cars replacing privately owned cars is rush hour. It would never be profitable to maintain a feet large enough to serve rush hour. You would end up with a bunch of cars that only were used twice a day and couldn’t generate enough revenue to justify their cost. And if you can’t serve the entire demand for rush hour, people will still need to own their own cars.

    The question regarding any new technology is what marginal benefit does it provide. If it doesn’t provide enough marginal benefits over existing technology to justify the cost, it won’t ever be put into wide use. The marginal benefit driverless cars produce is not having to drive. For some people, the blind, people who for whatever reason just hate driving, that is going to be a lot of marginal benefit and worth the cost. For most people, however, it isn’t going to be much of a benefit. You are stuck in the car anyway. Think of it this way, is being on an airplane for four hours reading and playing scrabble or whatever really that much more relaxing than driving for four hours? For some sure but for most not. Plenty of people would rather drive, even if it means fighting traffic, than fly and that is not just because of TSA.

    1. “You would end up with a bunch of cars that only were used twice a day and couldn’t generate enough revenue to justify their cost.”

      Just like buses, light rail and such are now. Those Who Know What is Best For Us will buy fleets of these things and tax us to pay for them.

      The surveillance state will be happy to provide you fully monitored transportation at the convenience of the people running things.

      1. I went and got my emissions inspection for my car today. Rather than stick a probe in the tailpipe, they just hooked up to my car’s onboard computer and checked it for errors. Imagine when our cars track our every movement. The government could just download that and save it for future use if necessary.

  36. The danger of these things is not that legislators will stop them. The danger is that legislators will require them and ban human driving. There are a million reasons from privacy to the national security concerns of having our entire transportation system networked and subject to cyber attack why that is a terrible idea. As long as they don’t do that, this technology is likely to result in cars being safer but still mostly being driven by people.

    1. Agreed. The rhetorical tactic of pointing out how driverless cars are safer might backfire and lead to that. Ban human drivers!

  37. Muslim for Trump vs. lefty trash humper:

    Get your Godwin bingo cards ready!

    1. Just because you are Muslim doesn’t necessarily mean you want more Muslim immigration. Maybe you came here to get away from certain people back in the old country and don’t want them following you here.

      1. “Maybe you came here to get away from certain people back in the old country and don’t want them following you here.”


    1. I can’t think of a better cartoonist than Gary Larson.

      1. Bill Waterson is rolling his eyes somewhere.

  38. The other thing I would point out about driverless cars is that liability concerns are going to mean they always obey every traffic law to the letter. No manufacturer is ever going to risk the liability associated with allowing its cars to speed or break traffic laws. It is difficult to imagine how you would even work in an emergency override. How does the car know that it is really an emergency? And these things will be manufactured products, meaning they will be subject to strict product liability. So if there is an emergency override to get the things to speed or ignore traffic laws, the first time someone engages it for fun and hurts someone, that is going to be a forseable misuse and the manufacturer will be on the hook for everyone’s injuries. Manufacturers are unlikely to take that risk.

    So ask yourself, would you rather have the car drive and have it obey every traffic law to the letter all the way there or just say screw it and drive yourself and obey the traffic laws where you judgement says you should? Think about how maddening it would be to be stuck in a car that never so much as rolled a stop sign or exceeded the speed limit by a single mile per hour. Screw that, just drive.

    1. Well, if you called 911 to tell them, say, “my wife is having a baby, and we’re in car #554gf-08″, you’d think they’d let your car speed and direct all the other cars to yield.
      And cars that are computer driven could drive faster and closer together, so the speed limits and tailgating laws would change. And, one of the reasons to have the cars ” talk ” to each other would be to eliminate the need for stop signs/lights.
      Of course, as you point out, that wouldn’t work if some cars were still being driven by people.

      1. I never hear about “automatic lanes” like some places have HOV lanes. Why is that?

  39. Alright, this left a mark:

    Its “Twitter in 4 sentences”, but it applies to most internet commentary just as well:

    ? How dare you talk about A when B is infinitely more important?

    ? If I disagree with you, you’re almost certainly arguing in bad faith and probably evil as well.

    ? You are personally responsible, in toto and in perpetuity, for everything that your friends, colleagues, and/or ancestors have ever said, done, or thought.

    ? Sentences #2 and #3 do not apply to me.…..ences.html

    1. I find that about 99% of arguments are ad homs, strawmen, and whataboutisms.

      1. That covers one, two, and four.

        1. Is #3 not really just a backhanded Ad-Hominem?

          Suggesting someone individually carries the collective guilt of their ancestors and their ethnic/gender peers seems to me just ‘blaming a person’s identity’ while also putting their own identity beyond their control (i.e. no matter how ‘good’ the individual is personally, they are stained by collective sins).

          or is it a “collective-terms fallacy“?

  40. Self driving cars are just leaving the driving to the government. That ought to work out well.

  41. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

  42. Won’t somebody *please* think of the children?

    My friends, Hillary will think of the children:

    note the dislike bar.

    1. Jesus Christ she never, ever sounded feminine.

    2. I might have left a comment. Maybe.

  43. “Unless lawmakers and regulators manage to screw everything up.”

    I think they meant to say ‘until’

    1. It saddens me to think that that advertisement/endorsement will sway some voters.

    2. At 0:45:

      “[Hillary Clinton is] a champion for all of us!” *

      * Unless you happen to be a a gun owner, a business owner, a taxpayer, an ambassador to Libya, a male, a Caucasian, or anyone who gives a shit about individual rights

  44. Driverless cars have the power to make us richer, less stressed, more independent, and safer.

    How can Ron possibly think this would make us more independent? It is a technology that if implemented on a wide scale would make people dependent on it for their transportation without any real gains over what we have now. It is not like a driverless car will enable us to go anywhere we can’t already or get their that much quicker if at all. Meanwhile, the price of them is losing our ability to drive ourselves and drive without there being some recorded record of where you went.

    These things will make us less independent and more easily controlled.

    1. Yeah, the “independent” thing is weird. I don’t see it either.

      I suspect that this is of a piece with Reason’s apparent belief that convenience = liberty. I can think of no other reason why periodically hear that liberty is increasing in this country, even though the metastasizing government is plain for them to see.

      1. Ron in particular but all of them can’t seem to ever see a downside to technology. If it is new technology and makes something easier, it must be good and worthwhile. They have a blindspot a mile wide for technology or gadgets.

  45. In other news, Chesea Clinton has given birth to a presumably ugly baby.

    1. Jesus! The kids gotta look like Shrek!

    2. Have either of the parents ever washed their hair? What is it with Democrats, is there a fear of shampoo or something?

      1. Bernie wants only one brand of toothpaste and apparently no brands of shampoo.

  46. Is the H&R staff taking an extended break today or am I somehow missing the articles following the one we are commenting upon?

    1. Moon, Summer solstice, doom, something, something…


    Gay voters feel afraid to come out for Trump. Talk about a testament to leftists taking over the gay community. The gay community really doesn’t have a dog in the Trump fight. What we do about Muslims or immigration doesn’t really affect “gay” issues. The gay community ought to break down for or against Trump about the same as the rest of the country. Apparently, being leftist is not what it means to be gay. I don’t think that is a very good idea.

  48. I can’t feel happy about driverless cars. Maybe this is a result of live through the Personal Computer’s early years. I guess I feel that, while any mistakes may be less frequent than those caused by human drives, I am leery of those mistakes being multiplied by the number of individual copies of any specific model.

    I guess that as long as I am allowed to trust my own (poor) driving ability instead of somebody else’s programming foresight, I’ll be ok. You want to trust some Microsoft employees to get it right? Fine. Leave ME alone.

    1. Would you bet your life on your desktop working properly every time you need it to do so? That is basically what you are doing with a driverless car. Hopefully if it gets a virus or some kind of code failure it just won’t start, but there is no guarantee that it won’t put you in real danger.

      Why Ron thinks that just because Google can make one of these things that can operate flawlessly it can make millions that all will do the same is beyond me.

      1. Given the almost daily reports of security breaches in everything digital from Target’s customer database to money theft via hacking into the SWIFT network, Bailey is most worried about government regulation as the main impediment to his magic cars,

        Of course, this is Reason, where just about every problem is government regulation.

        1. These things are not going to work by dead reckoning. They are all going to be networked together. The hacking opportunities are going to be endless. There is already a good living to be made extorting people by hacking and holding their documents for ransom. Imagine if you could do that with someone’s car or better yet with a truck full of cargo.

          These things are not going to deliver as promised.

  49. Air Force Wants New Plane to Replace A-10, Fight ISIS

    “I’d love to build a new CAS airplane right now while we still have the A-10 [and then] transition the A-10 community into the new CAS airplane,” Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said Wednesday at a Defense Writers Group breakfast. “We just don’t have the money to do it and we don’t have the people to keep flying the A-10 and build a new airplane and bed it down.”

    Welsh, who is retiring at the end of the month, said that the Air Force might seek a new aircraft design or adopt an existing one, depending how much money it wants to spend and how quickly it wants to move.

    1. There would be money if the Air Force didn’t insist on buying Ferraris so they can deliver pizzas.

      Buy some old Skyraiders and have at it.


    2. Here you go. Its cheap, virtually impossible to shoot down with small arms fire. Its low and slow and can stay on a target for hours. It can land on virtually any airstrip. And it can deliver a huge amount of lethality on demand.

      And we don’t even need to do any R&D.

      1. Great minds think alike!

        1. You beat me too it. They used those things all the way up into Vietnam. And the Marines and Army loved them. If it had been up to the ground forces, they never would have been retired.

          1. The problem has always been that much of the Air Force brass hates that mission profile for putting the AF into a support role. They seem to have an historical insecurity about whether they should be a separate service.

            1. Yes. My high school was named after Billy Mitchell. It’s a good story. If you an want to Google it, don’t do Billy, look up Gen William Mitchell.

            2. There’s a non support role portion of the Air Force?

            3. The problem has always been that much of the Air Force brass hates that mission profile for putting the AF into a support role. They seem to have an historical insecurity about whether they should be a separate service.

              You have no idea what you are talking about. The AF has been doing nothing but CAS for 13 years now.

    3. my impression of the whole A-10 thing (air force = wants to retire it vs. congress = wants to keep it) was that they were letting it die so they could wait a few years, then demand an entirely new program to fill the suddenly-rediscovered “gap” in capabilities.

      its like budget-judo. I think public-school districts do the same thing all the time. reject/redirect maintenance funding, then declare facilities ‘too far gone’ to save, and demand huge new spending program for new buildings.

      something like that. one might argue that’s just how things work in giant bureaucracies; you need force a crisis in order to effect some major decision-making.

      1. Wrong thread below

        No defense contractor ever got rich maintaining an existing platform. The money is in R&D and creating a whole new platform. Remember, there is more to it than just building the plane. It affects every aspect of the service it is delivered to. You have to have facilities to work on it. You have to train people to fly it and work on it. You have to develop doctrine on how to use it. You have to have a supply chain that accounts for it maintenance. The defense contractors make money from all of that. And they don’t if you keep using the same platform.

        1. I understand that completely –

          that said – i think its unusual that if the issue is being pushed by “Defense contractors”… that the AF is the one saying they want to get rid of it, while congress is the one pushing to keep it.

          Normally its the other way around – the AF would say, “but it works” and wants to keep the existing capability, but its congress who insists they need a huge new technology injection because it will bring massive pork back to their states.

          1. That is because the AF is in bed with the defense contractors.

            1. Where do retired AF generals and colonels end up? Not flying planes for Delta.

    4. Stand alone CAS platforms have been rendered obsolete by precision weaponry. ALL bomb dropping combat platforms (except the B-2) do CAS now and do it well. Fielding, manning and maintaining a CAS specific platform would be an egregious waste of taxpayer money.

  50. Islam presents a real problem to someone who believes all the evil in the world is the fault of white men, capitalism, and Christianity.

    I think this is the reasons leftists are so reluctant to acknowledge the role of Islam as a cause of terrorism.

    1. Why are so many Libertarians reluctant to admit that?

      1. A few reasons. One is the standard Enlightenment idea of freedom of religion. Which is not a bad idea, exactly, but it assumes that no religion is trying to dominate and exterminate the others.

        The other issue for libertarians is that we tend to see humans as bundles of rights and as economic units. In that view, a million angry Muslims is not essentially different from a million happy Amish. The idea that cultures are different, and that some are better than others, is an intellectual challenge to their basic beliefs, so libertarians want to hand-wave it all away. All Islamic cultures suck in many ways, but they don’t want to admit it.

        1. Libertarians cannot account for a group of people who have no respect for the NAP and cannot be deterred by the threat of death or imprisonment into doing so. Such people should not exist in the Libertarian world view and Libertarians are defenseless when confronted with such a group.

          1. “A radical Muslim wants to kill you. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to kill you.”

          2. The NAP still applies to them. And one thought is should this country start following a libertarian foreign policy a lot of the Muslim extremist problems go away.

            We supported Israel, we put mitary bases in their holy land without following theor traditions, and we invaded several of theor countries. Aren’t these generally their three biggest complaints with the US? We go libertarian and two of those likely go away and one likely is at least diminished.

            1. Not all the problems go away. Islam has been an aggressive and expansionist religion from the very start. That can’t be explained away by American foreign policy.

              1. Yeah, they also attack in countries that don’t have any connection whatsoever to any colonialism. They tell us why they hate us, I believe them.

              2. Libertarian policies do not “cure” militant Islam. But I believe we won’t be their focus. Like Christians (English Protestants and Irish Catholics) they also fight amongst themselves.

                And stop pretending that libertarianism is pacifism.

                But I’m not buying the mental gymnastics needed to get to “we need to kill them over there because they are coming over here in waves” Sean Hannity reset.

            2. So, when they were attacking Americans before we even had a Navy, that was about American foreign policy.

              1. I’m trying to think we the US didn’t have a navy. And we have always had one.

      2. Good question

    2. I think this is the reasons leftists are so reluctant to acknowledge the role of Islam as a cause of terrorism.

      I think it is truly bizarre how much many progressive lefties fetishize Islam for its so-called “victim-status” (which i assume stems from their perception of moozies as the ‘oppressed’ by Israel – despite that affecting only a tiny population of palestinians who were never really all that religious to begin with)…. yet routinely announce that Christianity is some horrible anachronism which deserves purging from the universe.

      Its the inconsistency that gets me; i can understand douchey-militant-athiesm – i just don’t get why they’d want to apologize for one of the very-worst religions on earth WHILE maintaining this default stance that ‘religion’ is such a scourge.

      never mind how Islam is the most virulently hateful to all their other “protected classes”; the assumed ‘tolerance’ for racial diversity which movies like Malcolm X portray is something i’ve not seen much on display by Arab fundamentalists. Egyptians, Saudis, Gulf Arabs, are notoriously racist, and it was only a few years ago that the left seemed so concerned with Darfur – which is basically a genocidal racist campaign by arabs to get rid of the black minority groups in Sudan.

      1. No defense contractor ever got rich maintaining an existing platform. The money is in R&D and creating a whole new platform. Remember, there is more to it than just building the plane. It affects every aspect of the service it is delivered to. You have to have facilities to work on it. You have to train people to fly it and work on it. You have to develop doctrine on how to use it. You have to have a supply chain that accounts for it maintenance. The defense contractors make money from all of that. And they don’t if you keep using the same platform.

        1. This is why we replaced the perfectly good M60 A3 with the pork barrel project known as the Abrams.

          And now that there is an upgrade kit for the M60 which can put the Abrams’ gun into the M60’s turret there’s really no reason for the Abrams to be fielded any more.

          The kit is “export only” for what I assume are the usual mil-ind crony reasons. But that can be changed.

      2. … the role of Islam as a cause of terrorism.

        I would go farther than this, Derp, GIL, and John, and posit that “Religion and ideology have, can, and always will, play a role in human on human violence.

        Okay, I am adding this about myself: When I was a teenager I spent quite a lot of my time on a lifeguard stand, waiting and fearing for an individual under my watchful eyes to need my assistance. I had innumerable hours to ponder and one day I concluded that there will never, ever, be “peace on Earth” until there are no people inhabiting it.

        (I chose to address Derp, GIL, and John since the three of you seem to be the ones actively discussing this particular. If I’ve left anyone out I apologize.)

      3. If Israel were composed of violent, totalitarian, illiberal, yowling fanatics (you know, everything the left accuses then of being), leftists would adore them, just like they adore the Palestinians (who are all those things).

    3. Yes, this is a big part of it. Progs suffer from a mass delusion that everyone on the planet who is not a straight white male of European descent is automatically on their side about everything. Eventually, deluded thinking like this will come back to bite you in the ass hard.

      1. Progs suffer from a mass delusion that everyone on the planet who is not a straight white male of European descent is automatically on their side about everything.

        Or, i think there is an assumption of the inherent virtue and goodness of the “oppressed”. they may not have the ‘right ideas’ or agree with the lefties, but that’s only because their bad-ideas are a product of their defensive nature.

        1. This too. Everyone is a victim except those of us who enjoy the white privilege of the patriarchy.

  51. Revealed: Only 1/3 of U.S. Army Brigades are Ready for War

    budget cuts have forced the Army to choose between readiness (training the troops and maintaining the equipment) and modernization (buying new equipment to improve capabilities).

    Allyn also explained that approximately 100,000 soldiers today can’t be sent into combat. That means that the Army has about 380,000 active duty soldiers that it can deploy for operations. And about 162,000 of those soldiers are currently supporting operations. In effect, almost half of our deployable Army is engaged in operations today. That means that the Army has very little ability to respond to a new crisis.

    I hope we don’t get invaded any time soon.

    Instead of continuing to allow it to shrink, it is time to start growing the Army and investing the funds necessary to ensure that the Army is trained and equipped to protect our country.

    Bigger budget. Got it.

    1. “Allyn also explained that approximately 100,000 soldiers today can’t be sent into combat.”

      Then maybe we have 100,000 too many soldiers?

      1. A good many of them are women, so the replacements are going to be less deployable since we actively recruit more now to be welfare cases soldiers on perpetual profile.

    2. Its always like this unless actual war breaks out and the only 1/5 of the units are combat ready.

    3. Yes, heaven forbid we stop manning bases in every corner of the globe (I know, globes don’t have corners).

    1. Full on retard, for sure. It reminds me of some of the tin foil hat wearers who like to use dates and random numbers to predict their particular doom scenario. In this case, to prove someone is a Nazi.

    2. “People all over the world have come together to express their” social credentials among friends and fellow travelers. Much like the thoughts and prayers that certain lefties get irrationally upset about, your gestures are nothing but. Signalling won’t bring back the dead. Sorry.

  52. OT, but a comment from that totally sums it up:

    After Orlando President Obama’s position is clear and, as he and supporters (including the Republican establishment) see it, non-controversial: we’ve decided to create a larger Muslim population in America as part of a process of ethnic diversification for its own sake as well as economic growth; attacks such as Orlando will have to be endured to achieve that goal, but we’ll lessen their severity through greater surveillance, stricter gun laws and early suppression of any right wing reaction to this policy or its effects.

    1. we’ve decided to create a larger Muslim population in America as part of a process of ethnic diversification

      A large percentage of the above ‘may’ decide that they want Shariah and want to live under it. This is something that is 100% incompatible with Western civilization. But don’t take my word for this, just watch and see. Someone might start taking a look at what is happening in Britain right now regarding this topic.

      The fact that the left think a large Muslim population are suddenly going to become liberals is so laughable I don’t know where to start. I would like to see one example of this in the known world. I’m not saying that doesn’t exist, but I don’t have any links, so I’d like to see some. I do know that a lot of countries with large Muslim populations have Shariah and I don’t think most western women and gays will like the consequences of that. Oh well, at least women won’t be able to vote or drive anymore, so there’s half our problems gone, derp.

      1. And they don’t all have to be willing to kill to obtain it. As long as there is some small percentage willing to terrorize the rest of the population, the non violent part will get what they want without having to risk anything and always be able to claim “it wasn’t us that did those things but society is certainly better now that it is more Islamic”.

        Every time I hear someone claim this has nothing to do with religion, I just want to scream. How can people be so fucking blind?

        1. There are 2 sides of Islam and one is political, the Shariah. They are getting a lot of acceptance and sway in Britain and the PC idiots in the parliament dare not make a voice against them.

          I’m going there to start a new political party, the BFB, ‘Brits for Burquas’, we’re going to be a wild success. That’s when I start my burqua factory to supplement my monocle factory, I’m getting my orphans lined up and trained in burqa making.

        2. It’s basically a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine writ large.

          1. Oops, posted this is the wrong thread above: “A radical Muslim wants to kill you. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to kill you.”

    2. ——we’ve decided to create a larger Muslim population in America as part of a process of ethnic diversification for its own sake as well as economic growth——

      Sure, because nothing promotes economic growth like shooting up a business.

      This must be part of Paul Krugman’s ‘alien attack’ theory of economic growth.

  53. The “driverless car” is the perfect thing for the growing number of facey-booky-tweety-facey-tweety-booky snowflakes in our society.

    I think I’m going to puke, then blow my brains out.

    1. Me too. It is just another example of the infantilization of society. People want to be driven around like they are children being driven everywhere by their parents.

      1. Most of young adults these days do seem to actually be children, emotionally and mentally. ‘Safe spaces’, sometimes there’s nothing more that needs said.

  54. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..


    1. On second thought, maybe we do need to keep an eye on some of these Muslims /progs

    2. Have you seen the red bearded, fair skinned, British Muslims? They are native born Brits, obviously. But many of them are more radical than the guys who came in from the Middle East. I guess that’s Limeytardia’s version of Muslim Hillbillies. We have to think of a name…

      Sand Billys? That so mean, not PC, derp.

      1. Halalbillies?

        1. stands and applauds

        2. You’re beautiful and you should love yourself.

  55. Damnit, I hate cross posting, but I accidentally posted this in an older thread:

    Slow day at H&R. But at least things are getting better in Venezuela. Now there is nothing left to loot:

    Nothing left to loot, the cupboards are bare!

    Well, now these greedy merchants have time to become artists and poets. Viva la revolucion!

    “This area is 100 percent Chavist,” said Rafael Gutierrez, a community leader in the north of the city.

    “We have stuck by it in good times and bad. We do not understand why people in the community want to get involved in the MUD. They have been rejected more than once in elections.”

    Ummm, yes, dummies, you keep voting for commies and now you’re still wondering what is wrong. Just grub some roots for chewing for a while and keep supporting the revolution, comrades.

    1. “Rafael Gutierrez, a community leader in the north of the city.”

      And a future Presidente, right?

      1. Maduro definitely has that tinpot dictator look down. His predecessor had the jibe. Maybe this guy has both and is the true savior of the Bolivarian revolucion? It’s going to work this time, just need the right strongman.

    2. He is a “community leader”. If the country ever rejected Chavez, he would end up at the end of a rope or at least back to the bottom of the barrel again. Better to rule in hell you know.

      1. Well, the people he’s ‘leading’ in his community, are starving. Epic FAIL!

        1. I bet he isn’t starving. So what does he care if they are?

          1. If he’s high enough up in the ruling class, he’s swimming in champagne.

      2. “Better to rule in Hell than surf in Heaven.”

        Keanu Reeves in Point Break (secret director’s cut)

      3. You know who else was a community leader organizer?

    3. “This area is 100 percent Chavist,” said Rafael Gutierrez, a community leader in the north of the city.

      Ugh, chavs.

    4. “This area is 100 percent Chavist,” said Rafael Gutierrez, a community leader in the north of the city.

      You’re chavs, all right.

    5. Before the cabbage was confiscated, the area was 100% schav.

    1. I don’t see why there’s such a flap about it.

      1. You’re such a cut-up

        1. I like you lap83, you are razor sharp.

    2. If only Trump would come out on one side of this issue, it would be the ultimate reason thread; The Trump Dick Thread.

      1. I’d buy Trump brand shoes, but they don’t come in wide sizes.

      2. Not to worry, John, we’ll have memento moris aplenty come November.

    3. You guys need to stop making a mountain out of a mohel.

      1. well played

        although – you’re aware that word is pronounced more like “oil”? (‘moy-hill’)

    4. The Danes have been testy since Amleth.

  56. For the sake of making an on-topic comment for once = I would never own an autonomous vehicle.

    i enjoy driving unlike some. traffic sucks, but still, in general i think its not just a means to an end but something which is an end in itself.

    1. *re: never

      caveat = when i get old and creaky i’m sure the view will be different

      1. Ah, like St. Peter: “Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” (John 21:18)

        1. Well, hopefully you won’t get crucified, but according to my version, this is also a generic saying about old age.

    2. “For the sake of making an on-topic comment for once = I would never own an autonomous vehicle.”

      I think the current model of car ownership might become quickly outdated for most urban commuters. Why buy a car when GM/Lyft will have one waiting for when you’re ready for it and just debit your card for the ride?

  57. Automatic cars and automatic weapons.

    I invite each and everyone of you to not discuss the differences and similarities.

    1. Well, a car has a thing on the front which goes up.

      1. Much like men, which makes it another source of toxic masculinity.

        1. Figureheads, back in the day, were comely ladies with spectacular tits. Cars today don’t have them anymore. QED.

        2. “toxic”

          This word means basically nothing. its just a way of saying “X is bad” while avoiding having to say why.

          at least that’s the way people use it these days. Its also based on a linguistic idea that things are inherently bad rather than in the technical idea that “toxicity is based on the dosage levels” which so few of the same people seem to understand – everything can be bad at the wrong doses.

          1. …everything can be bad at the wrong doses.Even whiskey?

            1. Hmm. Didn’t close my tag. Don’t care.

            2. Hmm. Didn’t close my tag. Don’t care.

            3. You should already know the answer to that.

              “too much whiskey” stories tend to involve scars, broken bones, & some very bad behavior.

              1. No, those are “just the right amount of whiskey” stories.

      2. Yeah, my thumb when I’m riding on the hood drunk.

        1. You too?

  58. I have a delivery fleet and lots of liability insurance. I can’t wait for driverless trucks.

  59. The mass outbreak of mental illness shows no sign of stopping:

    1. Based off 100’s of years of violence towards trans people of color


      1. Let’s be helpless before a lunatic.

    2. “What are your thoughts on the #PulseOrlando shooting?”

      Uh… horrified?

      Oh, right, we have to make this about ourselves.

      Wouldn’t it be funny if most of the victims are white men?

    3. I don’t know the exact history of the killer, but for whatever reason, he identified as an ISIS jihadi type.

      If he’d identified as a woman, we’d have to respect that, wouldn’t we?

      So when he identified as an ISIS warrior, then assuming he’s sincere, let’s deal with it in those terms.

      ISIS isn’t merely about killing gay people, they’re much more kill-y than that. They want to kill Christians and Yazidis who don’t submit to them, so should the gays, Yazidis and Christians hold solidarity rallies?

      I mean, they should, but I doubt the people in the video will be attending.

      1. Expecting consistency from progressives is like expecting a puppy to piss outside. These things have to be taught, and progressives are adamantly anti-education as far as logic is concerned.

        1. *anti-logic as far as education is concerned.

          1. (“Data Safety Monitoring Committee”? Are they making sure the data is safe, no. “Safety Data Monitoring Committee”, goddamit)

            1. Brent Spiner is VERY confused right now.

        2. Expecting consistency from progressives is like expecting a puppy to piss outside.

          So, what you’re saying is that it’s OK to hit them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper?

          1. Or rub their muzzle in the mess they created and say, “No.”

      2. He claimed that he attacked in support of ISIS, ISIS claimed responsibility. What the fuck more do we need? For this to happen a few more hundred times, while we look for mythical radical teabaggers, the Christian Taliban, bigfoot, martians, and the tooth fairy?

        1. At this point, ISIS could suicide bomb MSBNC and afterwards Rachel Maddow would be explaining to us how it was really the fault of the GOP and Trump.

          1. Maddow can rest assured nobody would bomb MSNBC. Population density is a key factor in bombing targets.

            1. And all 3 of their viewers might not even notice that they’re off the air.

          2. Muslims

    1. Almost as dumb a name as Death Star. Oh, Jeez, you’re going to be raiding some skies? BETTER BRING YOUR SKY RAIDER.

      Looks like a sexy machine, anyway.

  60. I wish all this stuff was under my Christmas tree this year…..urt-house/

    1. 90% of that “Weapons Cache” is evidence of nothing more than a enthusiastic hunter/shooter.

      and re: the drogas, that’s a lotta weed, but the rest seems to be enough to fit in one’s pockets.

      I continue to be irritated by the fact that modest degrees of weed-legalization for yuppies in a few western states gives a lot of people in the impression the Drug War was ended and we don’t need to worry about it anymore.

      1. Yeah, it’s still going strong in Ohio.

  61. I wonder if the protesters are going to try any violence this time? Should be interesting. I already have popcorn, maybe beer is in order.

    Leftists vs Bikers

    1. My money is on the Bikers.

    2. Oh Hyp I’m glad I caught up with you. If you are looking for a good American made Lager check these guys out.

        1. There are many others. We are really spoiled in the Northeast when it comes to Lagers.

        2. There were several of the Banded Horns I would definitely try. A couple of the Stouts, the weiss, the red, the saison.

      1. That’s in MA? Not sure if I can get that here. I don’t remember seeing it anywhere.

        1. You may be able to trade for it on craft beer forums.

      2. That Smoke & Dagger looks quite interesting.

        1. Rauchbier is the shit. It also goes good in a chili. =)

          1. I’ll have to look for that. Thanks!

            1. No worries. =)

              OG Brewery.

          2. Ah, for chili I rehydrate the dried peppers in this. They’re also closest to home.

            1. Reads ” … for chili I rehydrate the dried peppers…” Scratches head. Keeps roasting fresh chili peppers.

              1. Those chilis are in the garden right now – won’t be ready for a couple of months.

      3. My second nearest brewery – the pilsner is awesome; haven’t worked my way thru the others yet.

  62. Pants shitting Democrat shat his pants.

    News at 11.

  63. Big news: Women Are Fighting Back Against Street Harassment With #NoWomanEver

    Be strong, ladies! Stand up for yourselves on the Twitters!

    1. “Can I touch it? You wouldn’t be walking like that if you ain’t want me to touch it.”


    2. #nicetweetrack

    3. That’s actually pretty funny. Mockery is a good weapon for social change.

    4. The real progress being made is that they’re actually joking about their issues, rather than simply whining

      Also I thought some of them were amusing.

  64. No more fresh meat today?

    OK, well, then…I can hardly wait for driverless fire engines. Ding, ding, ding!

  65. Wow. This shit just keeps coming.…..ry-school/

    1. Now that he’s dead, can we deport his parents?

      1. His father at least.

    1. Oh, come on. That’s fake. It has to be.

    2. Yah, I’m not so sure about the 10 and 36 thing there… mabye they missed that.

      1. They average out to being 23, so it’s all good.

        1. …if you’re in the Illuminati, that is.

        2. …if you’re in the Illuminati, that is.

          1. Blame not the squirrels, for my finger stuttered.

            1. I’ll blame whoever the hell I want, thank you very much.

    3. Those are just the numbers on the back of their sports jerseys. He’s on the basketball team, she’s on the woman’s volleyball team.

      1. Wait, why assume we’re using earth years? If the woman is 19 in earth years, she’s 10 in Mars years. And if he’s 68 in Earth years, he’s 36 in Mars years.

        1. Still violates “the half plus seven rule”

        2. Yeah, a 19 year old is definitely with a 68 year old because of love “we both like talking, and not talking…”

  66. I believe that all cars should be driverless except mine.

  67. Donald Trump is getting schlonged.

    If you want a driverless car get one, if you don’t, don’t. A driverless car might be a good thing some times either as a rental or a purchase, other times you’ll want one you can control. I could see the roadway communication system needing a certain amount of traffic to make it cost-effective so maybe the interstates get automated first, urban highways next as cities or states adopt the system. A networked traffic control system would be a good thing if the highway can monitor all the traffic and where it’s all going and get traffic set in long lines of closer-spaced cars – all the through traffic in the left lane, right lane is for cars getting off at the next exit or two, other cars queued depending on when their exit is coming up. You get on the highway and tell the system where you’re going and the system merges you into the proper line of cars and you go with the flow. Suddenly decide you need a pit stop? Tell the system you’re taking control of the car back and it moves the traffic around you to a safer distance and turns you loose. Heavy commuter traffic could definitely benefit from a master traffic control system. Not that different from my own idea to have different speed min/max limits for individual lanes and have them strictly enforced. Driving fast, stay to the left. Driving slow, death penalty for getting in the left lane.

    1. Driving fast, stay to the left. Driving slow, death penalty for getting in the left lane.

      This should be the standard anyway. You’re a mother of seven on your way to a church function in which you’re feeding the homeless and finding homes for stray kittens? Sorry, you merged into the fast lane ahead of my car and I’ve places to be. Death to you.

    2. Depending on which profits them more and gives them more power, our great leaders will either decide we can’t have driverless cars, or we all must have one.

    3. Get your electric out of the way of my fossil fueled monstrosity.

  68. Municipalities will soon recognize that this impending consumer switch will make their inflexible and costly public transit systems obsolete.

    Have you MET any big city politicians?

    1. So these damn Columbians now want to openly sell drugs right in the middle of our cities?

    2. An ivy-league grad wants to open a business and serve customers? Yes, that is surprising.

  69. I’m working on a new slogan: a libertarian is a liberal who got audited yesterday.

    1. Or a republican who finally figured out that when other republicans would say that they are for limited goverment and the constitution they are lying.

    2. Or fat guy takes clothes off on stage.…..55751.html

      The party needs to go. Love the ideals but this is pathetic.

      1. Dude, you’re not helping.

  70. Will I be able to buy a driverless car with the money I make working only 94 hours a week on my laptop?

  71. Oh, and Autopia is horrible if you’re an adult with kids.

    My kids loved it. When we lived down there we were a 90 minute drive in traffic to the park and then they would insist we do Autopia which was another hour plus of standing line just to be stuck in fake traffic for five minutes.

    1. I googled it and was immediately bored. WTF is autopia?

          1. Disney did. They own Pixar now.

  72. Looks like the protesters at the Trump rally were very peaceful today. I wonder why?

    1. Where was it located?

      1. Arizona. And there were a bunch of bikers and vets there who said they were there to make sure it remained peaceful. I guess it worked.

        1. My guess was “Not California”, therefore “Less Retarded”. I was only partly right (see below)

        2. I’ve always found bullies to be the biggest cowards. There not going to mess with people they know will fight back.

          1. Yeah, I knew they weren’t going to cause any problems this time. Trump, in my opinion really fucked himself with the Sheriff Joe endorsement and getting him on the stage. I didn’t think he was that dumb, but apparently I was wrong. Maybe Johnson will get more than 10%, although oddly enough, he seems to be pulling more from Hillary than he is Trump. Politics are getting increasingly hard to figure out in a world seemingly gone insane.

            1. in my nonprofessional just making shit up out of thin-air opinion, the polls right now mean very-little/nothing, and – barring any major news-events, won’t until August.

    2. Because they have a giant-inflatable-KKK-Trump doing their work for them?

      1. I wish I would have put money in pinatas and kkk inflatables last year.

        1. I wish I would have put money in pinatas


          1. No love for the money filled kkk inflatables? This is why libertarianism will fail.

      2. They make me want him to win which is sad.

        1. I’ve had to deal with this myself, but then I was able to console myself to a great extent by finally realizing that I don’t want Trump to win, I want Hillary to lose.

          BTW, Cruz come out strongly in support of the 2nd today. Funny how since the election is over, he’s gone back to being libertarian. I guess we can keep him in the congress, where’s he’s been pretty good compared to most of the dicks and cunts.

          1. Cruz’ campaign was facepalm worthy, but I don’t know if it would have mattered in the Year of Trump.

          2. I think that I agree with every sentence above.

          3. Was Cruz ever against the second amendment?

  73. Am I late *raises pinky and drinks out of a can of busch light*

    We talking about robot cars?

    1. You know, if you’re going to drink a domestic beer, Busch is not a bad way to go. It comes out of the exact same kegs as Budweiser, and is two bucks a six-pack cheaper.

      1. Also, a good way to stay sober, because there’s no alcohol in light beers.

      2. Or more depending on where you live. I have done the research, Busch is the best cheap American lager. There are some that are not that good but I have never come across a domestic lager that was bad. If you like the style. Most of it is marketing bullshit

        1. When I first started drinking beer, in my mid/late 20s, Busch was all I drank. You know, because I didn’t have any money and that was to me, the best tasting cheap beer. It tasted fucking wonderful to me back then. I drank a can of it a few years ago and I didn’t think it was so good.

          1. It’s not good. It’s party beer. Probably the best one out of the bunch but if friends come over, guess what they’re getting.

            1. Free beer is always good beer.

              1. The more the merrier.

    2. That was my mom’s beer when I was growing up. Not bad beer.

  74. I thought this was cute

    I know The Rebel (or any “right” media) have axes to grind themselves… but i think the value of partisan media is realized when they start pointing their cameras at *each other* like this, and expose each other’s attempts at spin/fraud.

    For those not interested in clicking on the link = in a camp with hundreds and hundreds of Sudanese migrants (read: nonwhite) men, major news outlets picked the only 3 children they could find…. and pulled them aside to film them separately, in an attempt to create the impression of “refugee families”, rather than hordes of young, listless men.

    Because that creates sympathy.

    Contrast to AlmightyB’s local-news story linked above – where cops bust some dude for drugs…

    …and decide to lay his entire hunting-rifle/shotgun collection (including what looks like vintage single-shot guns, and a black powder revolver) on the ground to create the impression of some Drug Lord’s Military Arsenal…

    …never mind the fact that everything in the associated story indicates that there are ZERO weapons charges, that the search-warrant and arrests were executed peaceably and without any force, that none of the suspects were considered dangerous, etc…. basically, the guns have absolutely nothing to do with the drugs except for the fact that it makes a very nice photograph for crime-fighting stories.

    Narratives; how do they work?

    1. For those not interested in clicking on the link = in a camp with hundreds and hundreds of Sudanese migrants (read: nonwhite) men, major news outlets picked the only 3 children they could find…. and pulled them aside to film them separately, in an attempt to create the impression of “refugee families”, rather than hordes of young, listless men.

      Because that creates sympathy.

      That’s a time-honored Pallywood trick.

    2. She’s fantastic (Lauren).

      Seriously, this is what the media do. Covering the refugee crisis in Europe, they show us one dead kid on a beach, and completely ignore the thousands of young males crossing the land in huge waves and then causing trouble wherever they wind up. And then they keep repeating ‘These are women and children! How dangerous can they be?’.

    3. Yeah, I loved that. It is nice to finally have people calling out the media on their bullshit propaganda. Hopefully we can get more and more of that and it can reach more eyeballs. It’s no wonder the opinions of the average person are so far off from reality. They are never getting the truth. Just the spin.

  75. Man, I had forgotten just how fucking awful a bunch of fascists the Fox News talking heads are. I had to turn that shit off. That should do it for another 5 years or so.

    I’m gonna sip on some of this Square One rye vodka. Very smooth stuff. I kept eyeing some high end bourbons this afternoon, but I get a hangover even thinking about bourbon, which is why it’s been more than 10 years since I’ve touched the stuff.

    1. I don’t drink much liquor any more mainly just beer. Used to drink a lot of bourbon though. Still enjoy it occasionally. Just had a bottle of 1792 which was very smooth. I’ve never aquired the taste for straight vodka and I’ve never had rye vodka. Sounds like it might be interesting.

      1. I don’t drink vodka straight either and the cheapest stuff I will drink is Titos, which is damn good for a $20 vodka. The one I’m having now is much better, but for more than twice the price, it should be. I’m mixing it with cranberry and grape juice and tonic water. I know that sounds weird, but it’s really good. I might switch to just tonic and lime.

        I love the buzz from bourbon, but holy mother of gawd it gives me a horrendous fucking hangover, and I don’t get hangovers from anything else.

        I’ve been drinking mostly beer for a long time. It’s really weird how different alcohols affect me differently. A few beers and I feel relaxed and great. Cider with the same amount of alcohol, nothing. Same amount of wine, nothing. Vodka, same as beer, very pleasant buzz. Gin, ok. Bourbon, same as beer, but gives me hangover. Rum, ok. Tequila, man that shit kicks my ass, lol.

        It’s actually about time for me to give drinking a break for a few months again so I can lose some more weight.

        1. I was never much of a cranberry fan but the Bacardi hotties showed up one night at a bar and turned me on to their blueberry infused Wolfberry rum with a splash of cranberrie and sprite. Very tasty. I know what you mean about different buzzes. Rum always mellows me out in a good way, Gin picks me up, Vodka gets me drunk, Bourbon gives a decent buzz, beer just makes me happy:)

        2. 1. Now that I am older, beer just seems to bloat me, and I’d have to drink at least a six-pack to get buzzed.
          2. Tequila is not drinking. It is it’s very own category of drug, and yeah, it will kick your ass.
          3. I prefer sour mash to bourbon.
          4. The gin drink sounds yummy.
          5. Enjoy

          1. 1. Now that I am older, beer just seems to bloat me, and I’d have to drink at least a six-pack to get buzzed.

            Same here. Which is why I often prefer vodka, or gin.

            1. Ditto. 2 beers and I’m buzzed AND bloated.

              Vodka Dews here.

              1. And yeah, anything in the whiskey or tequila families hurt my head, and even gin now. And the less said about rum, the better.

                1. My wife brought me a bottle of high end sugar cane rum from Brazil one time. It was aged in barrels 20 years or something like that. Anyway, it was really high end liquor. I drank maybe 3/4 of a 750ml bottle. I just wanted to appreciate the gift you know. It was 80 proof and so smooth you could drink it like water, straight. Man, it really wasted me. That was probably the first hard liquor I had drank in 5 years or more. I woke up the next morning and I was thinking, holy shit, what the fuck happened? My head felt really fucked up and when I went out to the living room, my wife is sitting their on the sofa with her arms crossed, looking at me, which is not good I was feeling. She then lectured me about drinking almost an entire bottle of rum and how silly I was, which I remembered very little of, lol.

                  1. Rum & coke was my first go-to drink but after one too many bad experiences I can’t even stand the smell of the stuff anymore. Haven’t touched it in 20+ years.

          2. Yeah, if I’m going to drink, I’ll do a very light dinner and no more than two craft beers and then straight to miller light. Otherwise, I get full and am home early. If I drink at home which is very rare, I drink a lot slower so not as big an issue.

        3. There’s been something about Tito’s that I just haven’t liked. Perhaps it’s the brand name, which sounds like it should be for margarita mix, or the fact that it’s the only vodka you can get on a United flight. But it has an unusual taste in it that doesn’t seem to me like it belongs in vodka, perhaps you like that though — viva la difference.

          For the same price as Tito’s you can get Skyy which is superfiltered, and IMHO, much more drinkable on the rocks.

          For true icy straight, though, I’m usually pretty happy with Belvedere (there’s your rye vodka) but don’t mind Grey Goose.

          1. You know how I found out about Titos? Some old Russian guy was in the store when I was looking at the vodka, and he told me to try it. I don’t think any other vodka in the price range is that smooth. To me, it’s better drinking that either Grey Goose or Belvedere, or Absolut. Which are 3 I typically drink. I know what you mean by that taste with Titos. I noticed that the first time I drank it, but I don’t mind it, I sort of like it. The stuff I have now, the Square One organic rye, is far better and smoother than Titos, but for price, like I said, it should be.

            1. Oh, and as I was saying, I cannot drink Vodka straight. So I can’t comment on it. I typically use 2 shots to an 8 oz glass of whatever I’m mixing with, so it’s pretty strong. I cannot stand any liquor watered down too much, reminds me of some horrible wine cooler girly shit, blech!

          2. +1 for Skyy. The filtering takes out the congeners, so it reduces any hangover.

            At the last H&R meetup in SF, after C. Anacreon left, some guy bought a round of drinks for the bar: Fireball cinnamon whiskey! Great stuff.

            1. I like fireball. Better than jack Daniels cinnamon forgot the name.

        4. Tequila is a man’s man’s drink. It’s nectar of the gods, and not just the lame Azteci gods. It’s the drink you want to put hair on your chest. It’s what you drink when you’re feeling low and want to get high. It’s the drink you drink to enjoy when you’ve had your beer and you’re getting ready to party. Tequila is the ultima ratio ebriis.

          1. When I was a young immortal, living in the desert of southern New Mexico, I drank tequila. I got an education in tequila: the different types, brands, ages, and cacti.
            I moved back to Colorado, and continued drinking tequila. On my 40th, I hosted a kegger.
            All my friends, having no idea what to buy me for my birthday, presented me with various tequilas.
            I have not drank tequila since. Not have I have been on a trampoline since (drunk 40 yr olds should not be on trampolines).
            Incidentally, the very first time I got throwing-up-drunk, in my teens (waaay back in the day), was also a tequila night.

            1. Some spirits like gin or whiskey hurt my head, but tequila is probably the only one that I’ve blacked out on.

              1. but tequila is probably the only one that I’ve blacked out on.

                Yep, you and me both. Ten years ago was the last time I really ‘drank’ tequila (other than having one of those impotent margaritas you get at a Mexican chain restaurant). It was at a party in honor of my niece’s wedding, two nights in advance of the actual wedding day, (it was one of those multi-day wedding monstrosities), and my then 80-year-old father-in-law and I both were sampling the punch the hosts had made, wondering if there was any alcohol in it because it didn’t seem like it. Next thing I knew I woke up in my hotel bed still wearing my suit — and apparently father-in-law found himself in the same full-dressed way in his bed. Our embarrassed wives had carried/brought us home somehow, and my wife didn’t talk to me, only glared at me, the rest of the weekend.

                Luckily at a big wedding like that no one remembered my antics, except of course my wife, who I know would bring it up in two seconds (and in a very unkind way) if I so much looked at a bottle of tequila.

                1. LOL yeah (almost) nobody cares if you blank out a wedding. That’s what they’re for if you’re not the bride or groom.

                  1. And getting laid; don’t forget getting laid.

                2. You sure it wasn’t Versed?

                  At least you woke up in your own suits, not each other’s.

            2. Socorro? Cruces? I’m a life-long Albuquerquian.

              And that’s a shame. Tequila is without a doubt the best shooting liquor on the planet, and some of them are damn fine for sipping.

              1. I lived close to, and worked in Socorro. I was living in San Antonio, NM (had to call the IRS one year cause they sent my tax return to San Antonio, TX).
                Most of my time down there was spent in Truth or Consequences and Elephant Butte.

                1. Cheers, man. New Mexico is a place I love and I’d love to escape from.

                  1. I’m not a fan of Albuquerque. First major city along I25 corridor after all the border patrol checkpoints ( the last one is north of Socorro!), so it seems like there is as lot of crime there. Very pretty, though.
                    Come to Denver. Expensive housing, but there’s a reason (drink) for that.

                    1. I’ll be up in Denver sometime. Cold, though. Come bike with me on the Bosque. It’s lovely.

                    2. Ah, the Bosque del Apache. Very nice.

                    3. True story: while living in San Antonio (NM), was raising chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese. Was fishing in the Bosque one day, and a Canadian snow goose was going by with her chicks. Me and my friend may or may not have (felony) chased down and kidnapped a snow goose chick. The thing grew up to be one mean SOB: terrorized my blue heeler pup.

                    4. I don’t doubt it. I love watching the things fly overhead every autumn, but geese are hell on earth. Fuck those guys.

              2. The best shooting liquor? You mean like it has the least effect on your accuracy?

            3. The first thing I ever drank like that was just called ‘Mescal’. I don’t know if that’s the same thing as tequila, but I suspect it is, or anything distilled from agave. The Mexicans drank it with me and it totally fucked me up, damn bastards. Their weed was good though.

              1. Mescal is the name of a cactus. The cheaper brands of tequila are made from mescal, as is mescaline. There’s a clue, right there.
                Agave is also a succulent, not really a cactus, more like Aloe Vera. The finer tequilas come from agave.

                1. Mescaline is from Peyote if I’m not mistaken. From the buttons. Is that the same plant? Yeah, I know agave is a succulent, I’ve been an avid gardener for a long time.

                  1. No, mescal and peyote are two different, but similar/related plants.
                    Never done peyote, but, I do know where there is a while bunch growing about an hour or two from here.

                    1. OK, I Wikipediaed it. I’m wrong, you’re right. Mescaline is indeed made from peyote, and mescal is not a cactus, but the name of a concoction that you have apparently drunk before.

                    2. I thought that mescaline is the chemically extracted (as in THC from cannabis) alkaloid from the same plant. But I think that native Americans eat the bud… I think called ‘buttons’, not sure if that is the bud or something else, and that is called peyote, and that it actually IS a spineless cactus. Oh well, that’s just from memory way back when. A lot of sources back then, in the days of no intertoobz were wrong and no one had much means to prove it. I’ll google it again one day when I remember.

          2. It’s the drink you want to put hair on your chest

            but i already have lots of hair on my chest. What can i drink to make it more Ryan Gosling-esque?

            1. Protein shakes and/or Gatorade.

              1. Both of those things are disgusting. I’m sticking to bourbon so the chest-hair will at least remain glossy and fragrant.

            2. I have none, so… tequila and coffee, I’d guess?

    2. I can’t watch any of the news talking heads anymore. It’s just not worth it. I’ll hit fox or cnn or bbc website to see if anything major going on but I don’t watch the lies of the beautiful people.

      1. Fox made me want to smash the fucking TV, that’s when it’s time to turn that shit off.

        1. The combination of sanctimony and stupidity is hard to bear.

  76. I think you have it the other way around. Liberals more than anything hate cars, because they represent freedom and individuality – you can go where you want, when you want.

    Autonomous cars are the first step in getting rid of cars altogether. At least privately owned ones. You’ll be able to use government owned ones for approved locations

    1. I’m getting to where I don’t even care anymore. When I was young, driving was the greatest fucking thing ever. It was pure freedom and exhilarating. I loved just driving, being on the open road. I’ve driven completely across the country and back several times and loved it. Now, it’s just a fucking pain, and expensive, and mostly a liability. I’m sure I’d change my mind if I lost the ability, but it hasn’t been fun in a long time.

      1. …but it hasn’t been fun in a long time.

        That is sad. I love driving. I love cars and trucks and bikes. I’m a little bit of a motorhead. I know commutes in a city can suck. Perhaps, you need a midlife crisis car and a road trip to bring back what you know was your first true love…

        1. Yeah, I’m seriously thinking about it. I keep mentioning to the wife a couple of cars I’m looking at, and she’s sort of giving me that look of ‘why do you need that?’. But I think I’ll do it, if not this year, then next.

  77. Eventually, we will have self-driving cars everywhere. But I don’t think you can blame people for being cautious at first. After a few years in which self-driving cars, with controls that licensed human drivers can take over in emergencies, have been on the road, and the number of such emergencies has been minimal, the requirement to always have human controls and someone able to use them in the car will be lifted. Some decades after that, human drivers will probably be prohibited from using the interstates, or even from driving at all. I’m glad I won’t be around to see that.

  78. Two points:

    1) I made a comment on Ars Technica about how there’s a difference between whether Ross Ulbricht committed a crime and whether Ross Ulbricht got a fair trial–saying that he should get a fair trial even if he’s guilty.

    Last I checked, my comment is voted down to the tune of a minus ten.

    That doesn’t really bother me, personally, but it does make me think the people over there are twice as dumb and twice as evil as I thought they were.

    I don’t want to think people are stupid and evil. Especially people on what used to be a hardware blog I’ve been commenting on since the ’90s. Ars Technica has morphed into a techie version Salon. Not the good Salon from the ’90s either. The one from today that isn’t worth your time even when you’re sitting on the john.

    2) We should never have a system to vote comments up or down at Hit & Run.


    1. +1 down vote.

      Or should it be -1 up vote?

    2. Who needs down voting when you have sarcastic replying available.

    3. Look, both the writers and commenters at Ars Technica are pretty much pro-state regulation in all things. The support Net Neutrality, the NHS, etc.

      1. But I remember before the guy that sold it.

        It didn’t used to be that way. It’s sad, really.

        On that one Ars Technica article, too, it was like the writer had no knowledge of the American judicial system, either.

        He wrote the whole article as if he’d never heard of juries or beyond a reasonable doubt before, the standards of evidence, etc.

        The only other time a site has completely deteriorated like that on me?

        There was Van’s Hardware.

        That guy was a real heavyweight among tech writers and hardware reviewers in the go go /90s. At one point, he crushed Intel’s stock. He practically destroyed Rambus.

        Then one day, he completely went haywire. He used to work for Tom Pabst, over at Tom’s Hardware, I guess, and there was this giant blow up between them. His site went dark for a while.

        When it came back? It was like it is today. It’s basically like a conspiracy site for his own private . . . interests.

        I guess Sharky Extreme went that way, too. That was an awesome website. Alex “Sharky” Ross must have sold the site 15 years ago. There are still people posting in the forums, but I don’t think it’s been administered in ten years. They stopped putting new articles up years ago.

        It would be like if stopped being updated and regulars just kept posting in old threads here for some 15 years afterwards.

        1. Well, there’s Popular Mechanics and Scientific American – both have drunk the state regulation kool-aid.

          And we will – until either the servers die or we do.

  79. On another topic, the preview for this week’s GoT episode looks epic.

      1. Everybody keeps talking about how’s he everyone’s favorite character. I think that’s only media people who haven’t watched the show.

        He’d be lucky to come in fourth or fifth.

        Erya, the dwarf, the blonde oath keeper, John Snow’s fat friend, And there’s that other guy I can’t remember his name . . . there’s the broken man’s lesbian sister, . . .

        John Snow would be lucky to come in seventh.

        1. Arya is my favorite, followed by Tyrion and then Jon. But Jon or Dany should get the throne.

        2. He did leave a pretty corpse though.

          1. The series is remarkably open about sexuality.

            I think I’ve seen everything from L to G to B to T to Q to I to +.

            And the only homophobe is a religious fanatic that’s so bad, he made me feel sorry for Cercie.

            1. Yeah, that fucker needs to be flayed.

            2. I only watched season 1 and I don’t remember much of that but I do recall the hot guys being as free with showing themselves as the hot gals.

              1. There have been actual gay sex scenes among really well liked characters, actually.

                More than one character is gay, bi, somewhere on the rainbow, what have you. And it isn’t really central to the story or anything. It’s just that the gratuitous sex scenes are remarkably spread out over whatever orientation.

                Black Sails isn’t really like that.

                Peaky Blinders either.

                1. I take that back about Black Sails.

                  You don’t find out until like Season 3, but it’s central to the plot.

              2. I think, until this season, season 1 was the only one to show dong.

                1. I don’t want to ruin it for people, but . . .

                  Don’t forget the guy from the Moorish Spain kingdom who fought the Mountain.

        3. I think Tyrion wins the Best Character contest because he’s really one the few genuinely complex people who isn’t bound to anything by the narrative. everything he does is pretty much his own call and isn’t ‘just to further the plot’.

          (*unlike Good Jamie vs. Evil Jamie, both sides of which seem to be dictated by who he happens to have scenes with; he comes across as ‘forced’ to be complex, rather than naturally so)

          Arya is… well, she’s cute and refuses to be a victim, which make her appealing. but some of her stuff makes no fucking sense at all. she leaves westeros to join an assassin-death-cult after everyone she knows has been murdered…

          …which she arbitrarily decides to abandon because she saw a *good play*?

          …and then, knowing she’s going to be stalked by the world’s greatest assassins for betraying them…. she decides to take a stroll through the middle of town without a care in the world?

          She’s maybe one of the more-appealing actors, but the character seems to suffer from motivation-flip-flopping

          Bronn isn’t an especially deep-character, but he gets lots of the best lines, and is played incredibly well by whatshisname. him & tyrion were a great match for the season they were a pair.

          1. I think Arya’s motivation is difficult.

            She was killing people indiscriminately in the assassin’s guild, even offered a cup of poison to a little girl that killed her and told her it would make her better.

            She never gave herself over completely to the guild. That’s why she kept needle instead of throwing it in the sea. And in the very last episode, when the head assassin said, “Now a girl has no name”, I’m not sure he was saying that about Arya. I think he might have been saying it about the girl with her new bloody face on the wall.

            Tyrion is my favorite character. Being a dwarf is the least interesting thing about him, and that part of his character is interesting.

            And he makes me laugh, too.

            He once described himself as, “The god of wine and tits”.

            I love that guy!

          2. “The Lord of Light wants his enemies burnt. The Drowned God wants them drowned. Why are all the gods such vicious cunts? Where is the god of tits and wine?”



            “I am the God of Tits and Wine!”


              1. I mastered the first part. The second part is elusive.

        4. I think Jon got a lot more love as the Wall storyline picked up steam and he became more of a badass leader. The battle at the Wall, taking command of Castle Black, the fight at Hardhome, then dying. Tragic death does a lot for a character.

  80. So I guess this is the Katherine Mangu-Ward era now, eh? The whole Reason website goes down all night last night, and then we get no posts after 830am today. Is her idea to thin the ranks of web traffic? Perhaps hoping that people will get bored with the internet and turn on to see her as a panelist on Stossel once more instead?

    1. I wonder if she finds our humor as tasteless as what the ice queen… what was her name?

      1. Lady Voldemort

      2. what was her name?

        You’re not getting me to drink that easily.

    2. (she’s editor of the print magazine, not the website)

    3. Would this happen if Bob Poole were in charge?

  81. Ah, Kaley Cuoco in a bra and hot pants. That was a nice distraction.

    1. Pretty rude not to give the link

      1. Was on the TV. I have the sound turned down and looked up and was like damn.

        It was this here…..84243a.jpg

        1. Oh I see they have the clip at the bottom if your link. Nice:)

  82. Never mind all that…will drivers block our politicianless future?

    1. politicianless future

      Now you’re talking!

  83. If this development’s slow enough, it may be leapfrogged by teleportation. The effects of the latter on civiliz’n will be huge. There’ll be hardly any need for anything to be close to anything else, if teleport’n turns out cheap enough.

    1. How do you know what goes in is what comes out? What comes out, thinks it is, but what goes in may just be dead.

      1. I think I’ll hold off on volunteering during the initial trials.

      2. In most cases, who cares what it thinks? The water going in 1 end of the pipe isn’t the water coming out the other, most of the time, but we still use plumbing. And even if people are afraid to teleport, they’ll teleport stuff, & they can stay still while others teleport to them.

        People will have less fear of these abilities once they can be done mentally rather than requiring apparatus.

    2. How do you know what goes in is what comes out? What comes out, thinks it is, but what goes in may just be dead.

      1. Sometimes dead is better.

      2. If you cut and paste a file from one drive to another, is it the same file?

        If you replace the parts of a car one atom of a time – does it remain the same car? If not, at what point is it a different one? If you use the removed atoms to make another car, is *it* the original car?

        What defines what a car is? Legally its the VIN. Same with a gun.

        What are you? The particles that are bound up in your form or the information that tells those particles where to be?

        1. I don’t know.

          Will you stand on the pad without knowing if you’ll be dead in a second and replaced by duplicate particles that think they are you?

          How would anyone ever know? How could you prove it either way?

          1. I’ve already been replaced by duplicate particles that think they are me – and think they are the me that existed 20 years ago.

            If you can’t *prove* a difference then the thing to do is assume there *is no* difference. Unless there’s a whole in your observation that needs a difference to fill, why would you go looking for one?

            We don’t spend out time looking for invisible pink unicorns (unless there’s a government grant for that) because there are no observations that would be explained by there existence – so the default assumption is that they don’t exist.

        2. 1 atom at a time?! Can you imagine the bill for labor?

    3. There’s a whole lot of ‘if’ in that Robert.

      *If* teleportation is possible, *if* its practical, *if* its economic, *if* you can manage the energies involved without worrying about a misteleport freezing your or boiling you or having you come out of the teleporter moving as several hundreds of miles per hour relative to the ground or having a tiny fraction of your mass not converted properly and ends up destroying several square miles of the surrounding area.

      The world will experience massive changes *if* Christ returns. *If* cheap FTL travel is possible. If, if, if.

  84. It will be a cold day in hell before i trust a computer to run my cage. And never when im on the two wheels. I will stay way wide of any driverless cars.

  85. It will be a cold day in hell before i trust a computer to run my cage. And never when im on the two wheels. I will stay way wide of any driverless cars.

    1. -paul walker

      1. #NotTooSoon

    2. I will stay way wide of any driverless cars.

      Which may be an inadvertent point which shows why they will be far slower to be adopted (or far slower to actually function-well) than people think.

      because the “driverless-car-future” really only works best when everyone’s using the same kind of vehicle.

      And the system will probably have the most problems when you’ve got 60% drivers, and 40% non-drivers sharing the same roads.

      I think the period of “experimentation”, where they’re slowly being introduced, and represent a significant minority… could in theory last a very very long time. because all through that process they’re going to be learning, and drivers will also be learning about what happens when you mix the two.

      I don’t think its going to be as smooth a ‘gradual transition’ as people think.

      Part of the “why” driving my thinking? i was writing research reports about “The Future of Telecommuting” in 1996. And “experts” we estimating about how within 20 years, 30-50% of the labor force will be working “remotely” and never have to even see their co-workers, and how corporate real-estate is going to crash in value, and commuting will cease to exist….

      lets just say it hasn’t quite worked out that way.

      1. It’s like nobody foresaw that “working from home” was going to be more akin to a “day off”.

    1. “I want what they’re having.”

      Love that song.

    2. Sweet. Can’t tell you the last time I heard that.

      1. It’s my happy place. That and The Birds and the Bees. And OK Go.

        1. *blisses out to some of their greatest hits during Copa America half time*

    3. Fun fact: the title of the first ELO album No Answer came about like this. The American record company had a secretary call the UK to ask what the album should be called. She couldn’t get them on the phone, and so wrote down… “No answer.”

      1. Beautiful. I wonder what they’d have named it if the secretary had said, “Who?”

  86. I am generally 1000% in favor of innovation. However, to say I loooove driving would be an understatement. Even in DC traffic, it is my yoga, a chance to reflect about my day or not even think at all except about whats in front of me. Also, on family trips, its about the only time my wife doesn’t nag me is when I am at the wheel. My fear is that driverless cars will be mandated once the proggies realize that they can control where people go and when.

    1. Well, that’s the problem isn’t it? When I got my driver’s license I was free to to drive wherever. There were all sorts of parties and shit I could drive to without my parents giving me static.

      And now I am an adult, and I have to drive an hour to go to work, and then another hour to drive back home. That’s 14 hours a week wasted, dealing with assholes who can’t be bothered to zipper in on traffic. Along with the guys who try to zip ahead in traffic jams, and then I feel morally obligated to fuck those guy, because, seriously fuck them..

      I look forward to the day when some AI has to deal with that shit instead of me, and I can spend that time writing a novel, posting conments, or playing Candy Crush.

  87. I am generally 1000% in favor of innovation. However, to say I loooove driving would be an understatement. Even in DC traffic, it is my yoga, a chance to reflect about my day or not even think at all except about whats in front of me. Also, on family trips, its about the only time my wife doesn’t nag me is when I am at the wheel. My fear is that driverless cars will be mandated once the proggies realize that they can control where people go and when.

    1. If you’re driving in NOVA, I have no idea how you find that relaxing. I mean, I don’t get like some people who want to go road rage, but I don’t find it relaxing either.

      1. Now, if you’re driving A Nova, esp one with a 350 or a big block, that’s sometimes kinda awesome….

      2. I do not like the traffic in NoVa. But I do strangely enjoy the challenge of figuring out the least congested route for my commute. I know I may be weird, but thats me.

        What could I do in a driverless car? Post more stuff here I guess, or watch porn…

      3. I do not like the traffic in NoVa. But I do strangely enjoy the challenge of figuring out the least congested route for my commute. I know I may be weird, but thats me.

        What could I do in a driverless car? Post more stuff here I guess, or watch porn…

    2. NoVaNick|6.18.16 @ 10:50PM|#
      “…My fear is that driverless cars will be mandated once the proggies realize that they can control where people go and when.”

      I’ve got doubts that’s even possible. Any time in the next 50 years or so, it would take confiscating and disposing of millions of human-directed cars and it’s doubtful even the dumbest watermelon would see that as a enviro-gain, regardless of any other considerations.
      I’d be happy to use an autonomous car for trips to the grocery or a restaurant. Parking would be no longer an issue; tell it to go home and return at X, or for groceries, cruise the ‘hood for 20 minutes (I presume you’ll be able to remotely program it).
      Other than that, I enjoy driving too, and it might increase that by getting that car in front of me moving when the light changes instead of the “driver” staring blankly at his ‘phone. I’d bet they’d be programed to pull into the side lane when a passing lane appears!

    3. You’re 1000% wrong. Driving is an abomination. Mankind was never meant to do it. My God, how could you enjoy being entombed in a box you have to pilot? That is a hell I wouldn’t wish on anyone else.

      1. Well, that’s, like, just your opinion, man….

      2. I just want antigrav so I can fly, Superman-style. If I could that, I’d only drive if I needed to carry cargo or it was raining.

    4. Imagine what happens if the Squirrels start getting into car AI.

  88. Article starts referencing an Economist what if we had a parliament game but also has a blurb about how Trump could potentially try and use Johnson to his advantage.…..ry-system/

    1. Of course they put Donald Trump, the guy who shares half his policy ideas with Bernie Sanders, *waaaaaay over on the Far Right Wing*

  89. It’s an Agile Cyborg kind of night. The day’s heat has passed, it’s cooled to humane temps, the stars are out….as are the pharmaceuticals.

    It’s an Agile Cyborg kind of night…

    1. Aims the AC signal at the clouds…

  90. Nearly 600 comments, What are you ladies fagging off to?

    1. What SIV said. But I guess this was literally the only article posted today.

  91. Sara, smile. Won’t you smile awhile for me, Sara?

  92. You ever wish you heard Hall and Oates songs sung by a woman? Well, consider your curiosity satisfied.

  93. Will blockers politick our futureless drive?

  94. Hey, I’ve encountered another of that rare species: a female libertarian! She says she has to keep it secret to avoid being shunned by her coworkers and (semi-rarified) social set. And she’s smart, single, good-looking, in my age range, and interested….

  95. Evan . if you, thought Gladys `s story is impossible… on saturday I got a new Alfa Romeo since getting a check for $5834 recently and-in excess of, ten thousand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best work Ive ever done . I began this 4 months ago and almost immediately started bringing in at least $80.. p/h . you could look here …


  96. it would take confiscating and disposing of millions of human-directed cars and it’s doubtful even the dumbest watermelon would see that as a enviro-gain, regardless of any other considerations.

    Cash 4 Clunkers.

  97. Sure, they’ll agree to driverless cars…in exchange for annual checkups with a mileage tax. 39 cents per mile your car has driven.

    Looks like Uncle Sam’s found a new way to take our money…

  98. Sure, they’ll agree to driverless cars…in exchange for annual checkups with a mileage tax. 39 cents per mile your car has driven.

    Looks like Uncle Sam’s found a new way to take our money…

  99. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  100. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  101. Card carrying Libertarian here, but sorry, this is one time I say hooray for the DMV.

    Read the articles in Slate. The cheerleaders for self-driving cars are the progressives who have always hated, hated, HATED the freedom that the mass produced affordable automobile has provided for the masses.
    Ostensibly for “traffic management” or “safety”, your self-driving car will be networked into central authorities that will have the power to limit where and when you can travel.
    I wouldn’t bet on a one minute response time from the fleet of robotaxis; that won’t be considered “sustainable”.

    Yeah, my own car sits idle 90% of the time. So does my bathroom, but I’m not going to put myself in the situation of calling Uber every time I have to…

    Let it be poetic justice if this progressive dream is undone by the progressive’s own bureaucracies.

  102. Just posting to be comment number 666. Also, I DO NOT want a self-driving car.

  103. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..


  104. get paid 75 bucks every hour for work at home on my laptop. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my good friend HUe is earning 14k /monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website

  105. RE: Will Politicians Block Our Driverless Future?

    Of course the ruling elitist turds will block our driverless future.
    It’s what they do.
    It’s why we pay them.
    It’s why we no longer have a constitution.
    Choice is not for the masses.

  106. It’s far more basic than that. Government both stunningly greedy and incompetent. In the age of autonomous cars they will see this as yet another opportunity for more taxes, fees, tariffs, fines, levies they can use to suck money from people. They will allow state insurance boards to roll over when insurance companies have exactly the same thought. They will maintain it ‘could’ safer but not yet. The states will require new expensive inspections and registrations. And because cops are worried about ticket revenue they will institute a bevy of new restrictions and laws guaranteed to make up the difference, such as special lower speed limits and so forth. And don’t forget the in loco parentis role the government will assume. No driverless cars without a licensed adult in it.

  107. Nelson’s words should strike fear in the hearts of those who are looking forward to playing Scrabble, applying makeup, or reading a Kindle on the freeway.

    The euphemisms are on autopilot.

  108. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  109. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    =======> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  110. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??.


  111. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  112. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below

  113. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below

  114. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  115. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  116. If You Have Any Problem And You Are Not Get Out From Your Problem Than It May Be Someone Black Magic On You So If You Want Remove Black Magic Than Contact Our Black Magic Specialist Baba .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.