EdEarl

True, but having been close to a lightning strike, I can say there is no perceivable difference between flash and sound, and that up close thunder sounds like a loud spark, "crack."

I think it is not a preposterous idea, but is before its time. One day, I'd expect AI to solve the unified field theory, but we aren't there yet.

We don't allow interspecies marriage now, and it seems unlikely marriage to robots will be condoned. Moreover, it is not likely robots will require sexual procreation; thus, there will be no biological reason. Robot sexual toys probably will be developed to a high degree of realism, and they may give sexual predators pleasure without harming people, among other reasons. We will use robots as slaves for other purposes, I see no reason why they cannot be designed and deployed just as successfully as sexual slaves. Their sensual system will not be human, and it seems unlikely they will react with the same kind of moral indignation, because we can train them to accept anything, at least the ones that are not sentient.

I believe batteries will be powerful enough to make electric airplanes, cars, trucks, and heavy equipment in little over five years, which means solar PV, now the least expensive power, and batteries are beginning to replace oil and coal. It will take more than 20 years for the replacement to be complete, and there will be lots of clean up to do. Low emissions technology is assured. Oil and coal are on their last legs as major power sources.

As robots take our jobs, they can recycle and restore the environment. It's just a mater of robots making robots until there are enough to restore the environment. It may take 100 years or more, and maybe it will be a continuing effort forever. Our current ideas about economics will be obsolete soon.

An AI driver that allows occupants to rubberneck or not, and selects a rubbernecking lane or not, so people who who want to move quickly can avoid slow lanes. Since accidents should be rare, I expect there will be many who want to see whatever carnage occurs.

In the short term, humans can drive in all environments and scenarios, and AI is limited, e.g., to highway without lane changes, but it is not distracted and doesn't fall asleep; thus, it has a few advantages over people. As time goes on, AI will learn to drive in more and more environments and scenarios and drive better in all cases.

A human driver faced with running over a child or crashing into a wall killing several occupants will not make the same decision each time. An AI driver is fast enough to make a consistent decision each time, for example kill the child to save the occupants. In this case, the insurance would pay for one death instead of the car and several deaths.

I imagine insurance companies will lobby to reduce their pay-out in the event of accidents by AI drivers. That means laws, cars, and AI drivers will be designed to reduce insurance pay-out.

The senate democrats only need three republican votes for a majority vote. However, Indivisible focuses on local constituents visiting their congressman's and senators' office to lobby for or against legislation that affects the constituents, whether the office holder is a Dem or Rep. This lobbying can sway a few votes in the congress or senate to give the democrats some republican support.

Trash input will yield trash output, whether human or AI. Although, most people have similar senses, and are, to some extent, capable of filtering input to eliminate trash. An AI may or may not have reliable sensors, depending on how they are built.

Or walk. People might get healthier.

AI will monitor everything everyone does, 24x7 using security cameras, drones, and internet presence. In home in bed you may have a little privacy, but privacy enough to purchase and build bombs is doubtful.

This document is four chapters. 1. is about grassroots advocacy. 2. is about how your members of congress think 3. is about identifying or organizing your local group 4. is about local tactics that the Tea Party used to block Obama. We can use them on Trump.

I don't fear death; rather, I fear dieing will be painful. And, I'd push off dieing till another day. Perhaps, I'll become wracked with pain and decide it is better to be dead, but that time hasn't come yet, and I suffered a lot of pain for about 8 years. Now, I'm almost pain free without taking anything but an 81 mg aspirin and fish oil for inflammation. Maybe, if I lived long enough, boredom would drive me to wish for death, IDK.

I edited the mention of dark matter particles out of my post, and expounded on, "Perhaps, but in a vacuum there is neither spark nor sound, merely subatomic particles moving," and probably said too much with additional omissions of other relevant info.

True, I didn't fully expound during my previous statement. A potential difference in a vacuum moves electrons between two conductors (anode and cathode), but no spark is produced. I don't think other subatomic particles would move between them, nor photons. But, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, so some atoms will exist and can become ionized. They would emit photons. Electrons hitting the anode would cause heat, and at some point atoms from the anode would be released into the vacuum, probably as ions. Eventually enough anode material would be in the vacuum to cause a spark. Often cathodes are heated to allow electrons to flow more freely. Atoms might escape from the cathode, too. This isn't on-topic, but is a more complete explanation of a potential difference in a vacuum. I'm not sure it's all correct.

Perhaps, but in a vacuum there is neither spark nor sound, merely subatomic particles moving. The spark is ionized molecules, which must be moved by a charge. The sound is movement of molecules. I don't know if anyone has investigated what happens in the first nanoseconds of a spark. It is an interesting question.

Lightening is a spark, like when you touch a door knob after walking across a carpet, and you get shocked. The sound and spark occur at the same time. However, sound travels slower than light, so at a distance you see the lightening and later hear the thunder.

I've enjoyed this thread; it is funny but sad. The word salads are funny, but the lack of understanding by the OP is sad.

What situation would have gone out of control? Do you mean the priority of the current government, a previous government, a future government, the current public consensus, or what? Pacts frequently have more than two parties involved. It is unlikely various people understand anything identically, especially when their native languages are different. Moreover, neither you nor I can vouch for how someone else understands anything; it is impossible to know what another thinks. We can listen carefully to what they say, but cannot know how accurately their words portray their thoughts. I think I've not answered your question correctly, because I don't understand the focus of your question.

THC alters perception. What do you mean by thought amplification? probably not.

I don't think I said anything skeptical. I showed you how you might calculate fuel savings from weight reduction, whereupon you boasted your idea would save 80% of the engine weight. I calculated the fuel savings from 80% reduction in weight and said there could be additional savings in vehicle weight. I also pointed to a Toyota engine that might achieve 80% weight reduction. Finally, I said that the industry seems to be moving to electric vehicles, which may make your idea difficult to sell. Your comment, "I don't need skepticism," and no other, seems to indicate you think you can make a lot of money from your idea. I doubt it, because you don't seem to understand what a person with money to back ideas wants. They want a person who can take an idea and develop it into a finished product. They don't invest in ideas, they invest in people, people who have more than one idea, because starting and running a company to produce an engine will require a many ideas and hard work.