I would love to go on a road trip with these two in the backseat. That's not a loaded statement.

I would totally go on a roller coaster road trip with her

I love the EIA tag, but not for the usual Darwin Awards type reasons. I wonder if this is an example of adaptation. I'll have to look it up, but my guess is that pigeons (or any bird for that matter) can't maintain 90km/h in a horizontal line for any extended amount of time. I'm thinking that they are learning how to draft cars on the highway.

It would be awesome if it confers some adaptive advantage and it starts catching on so that I can go on a road trip with a flock of birds in tow in a flying V formation.

Worst road trip ever.

I can still remember, back in the seventies, taking a road trip through Mexico and being a bit taken aback by the number of little guard shacks along the way where we, and all other travelers, had to stop and satisfy the federal police.

That could never happen in the US, I thought. And sure enough, our guard shacks are much larger and more imposing.

My dad bought one and the more I hear about it the more it sounds awesome. I just love long distance road trips too much to think about an electric car, but that doesn't mean it's not really cool cause it is.

Yep, I'm in Canada and to see that done in hours is kind of depressing. I've never seen it done in 8 days, and that is no exaggeration sadly. It's something I've always noticed though between American and Canadian road crews. Up here, the same stretch of road or high way will be under construction for an entire summer(without exception). On road trips through the US, the crews working a road have plainly completed and moved on through several miles of new road in the mere time I'm on my vacation of a week or two. Props to you guys getting this stuff done the right way.

My dad has one, it's a pretty cool car but when I want to take a road trip of 1,200 in a day it's not gonna do it. It's great for 90% of the driving I do, but that final 10% I need something else.

Dad bought one, it's a very good car. The only problem is you can't take it on a road trip really. As a regular everyday car though it's great.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Nothing like a good road trip

I'm happy that Romney is already making excuses for his inevitable loss.

Someone should strap him to the top of a car and take him for a road trip. Maybe he'd learn some empathy.

I have to say that however reluctant I was to participate in one of the many public abortion debates that recur continually without really going anywhere, but felt it would be indecent to allow that discussion to unfold without some token objection raised against common delusions, I'm even more reluctant to talk one-on-one where there's still less opportunity for progress.

One reason these kind of debates, not just on abortion but any political or social topic, don't advance is that they concern questions of applied ethics that really belong very late in our philosophical development. It's as futile for adherents of varying ethical theories to clash on single issues as it is for travellers to row at a crossroads about which way they should go when they all set off from different places, following wildly differing maps, with compasses that all point in different directions. Why not agree which way is north first?

There's so much metaphysical and epistemological groundwork to be done before a sound consensus can be reached. I say 'sound' because with broadly binary questions there will appear to be a lot more agreement than there really is.

So rather than go on a trip with you I'd prefer to tell you where to start. You have to resolve subjectivity (you say that consciousness is "illusive and scarcely understood" - ultimately that's true of everything, which is the fundamental problem; I did give you a definition, in fact - perception and understanding, cognition and identity) and choose the fewest and most basic axioms on which to construct a nominally objective philosophy. That's where the debate belongs; what should those axioms be and what proceeds directly from them?

If you want me to give you a way to distinguish between mind and not-mind, the ability of a candidate to engage with that process would be a pretty good indication.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
I wanted to continue this discussion, but it's going off in a different direction, so I figured I'd bring it here onto your home turf. You've obviously traveled this road before, but I'm coming along for the ride this time. (Road trip!)

We'll start here and see where this takes us: What's your reasoning for saying that a baby (or someone with a cognitive disability, or hell, an animal) is not Mind? I know where I'd like this to go, but I'll let you drive.

I wanted to continue this discussion, but it's going off in a different direction, so I figured I'd bring it here onto your home turf. You've obviously traveled this road before, but I'm coming along for the ride this time. (Road trip!)

We'll start here and see where this takes us: What's your reasoning for saying that a baby (or someone with a cognitive disability, or hell, an animal) is not Mind? I know where I'd like this to go, but I'll let you drive.
In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
So the question you ask yourself when considering the rights of a creature is 'what is the condition of its intellect; to what extent is it conscious; is it Mind?'