Your aware that any binary data can be encoded in text to send on platforms that don't support non text links. The alt.binary.* groups on Usenet have been doing this en mass for decades. So no not having pics would be no impediment.

Something has to be done about this however. When >50% of calls are robots or hang ups the system is already broken.

First off, there is nothing saying that a visit to the thing would be the best course of action right now. Further study from ground based and space telescopes are probably a better place to start. We could map it's orbit and find the best spot to intercept it, and possibly find out what it's made of. Secondly, given it's retro orbit, a flyby mission makes much more sense, probably on the way to something else.

It's not that I disagree with your conclusion, but seriously that was how you go there... Of all the shit google has done that's the one that makes you not trust them?

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" -Mark Twain, 1897

How are those two things possibly related?

Downs syndrome is a lot more than a mental handicap. Seizers and heart disease occur for about half of all Downs afflicted people, and there are lots of other complications as well. Your idea of somebody with downs is a reasonably lucky person, the unlucky ones don't live long enough, or spend much of their lives in the hospital. More over, do you have any idea what it's like to have a child with Downs? I fault no one who chooses to abort such a child.

Also check out the Q&A after the lecture where this very topic is discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

In the case of dark matter, the the observation is called the missing mass problem. This is the name we gave to the fact that at very large scales, gravity seemed to act like there was more mass than we had observed. There are two solutions to this problem:
1) There exists more matter that we cannot see, scientists are cheeky so they call it Dark Matter
2) Our existing theories of gravity are wrong.

Scientist have perused both of these the first by hunting for dark matter and the second through modifying gravity to fit observations. Dark matter is an easier theory to work with as it makes a nice, simple, consistent, testable hypothesis; find the missing mass. Modified gravity on the other hand has had it's greatest success by simply statistically fitting new terms to newton's laws and messing with them as new observations are made. Dark Matter has enjoyed more success as a theory, and is considered the most likely solution, but a modified gravity has not been ruled out, and of course there is absolutely no reason it can't be both, and many modified gravity theories posit that neutrinos or other particles contribute to the missing mass problem.

The biggest feather in DM's cap, is that in some observations have shown a center of gravity that is not at the center of observed mass, something that would be very difficult to explain by any modified gravity alone. So while the question is still open saying that Dark Matter is unsupported isn't true.

This lecture, Dark Matter is not Enough at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... is really interesting and worth watching for all the you Dark Matter haters.

This is absolute bullshit, everything you just said, is totally false.

Organ donation isn't even considered until after a patient has been pronounced brain dead. It actually requires more neuro tests before organ donation than would be required to pronounce someone dead. Patients who are to donate are often cared for for over a day before donation, during which time all of their organs are tested and they are under the care of the organ donation doctors.

Literally everything you just said couldn't be more false.

The price of oil is set, like the price of all goods by supply and demand. There are two ways to influence the price of anything, alter supply or alter demand. Demand is set by many independent actors all buying things, this is very hard for any entity to control. Supply on the other hand is often controlled by a few entities, restrict supply the price goes up, allow more supply the price goes down. This was OPEC's game for years. The price of oil was sky high for years, encouraging more production, which in turn created more supply, which brings prices back down. Not to mention demand decreases as people were driven to more fuel efficient vehicles, and explored alternative energy sources. Add in tough economic conditions around the world causing a softening in demand, all of this combined to crater the price of oil. But that low price will spur demand and that will cause the price to go back up. I know it's not as sexy as a conspiracy theory, but supply and demand curves accurately describe the way prices are set. (Which isn't to say there AREN'T conspiracies, they usually focus on limiting supply however, and how successful they are usually comes down to solidarity).

Obama can't control the price of oil, if he could, he would have dropped the price before the midterm elections that saw his party loose control of the senate.

While it certainly benefits the US that many nations price oil in dollars, it is mostly because the dollar is a strong, stable currency, that maintains it's value. Nobody want's rupels or yuans when they can have dollars instead. Russia's current currency crisis is all that is needed to show why.

Many counrtires, including Russia and China keep reserves of US currency and bonds, to use to prop up their own currency if need be. This is also the only real reason to keep large gold reserves as well.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The price of gold is up, not down. The dollar's strength is mostly due to the euro being week. Putin and the Chinese can buy all the gold they want, they can keep it in a big vault and swim in it Scrooge McDuck style, who cares?

I think this would actually be good. Perhaps then TV quality would go up, the cable channel market is way over crowded (Do we need multiple food network channels? More than one history channel? 3/4 ESPN's?) Most of what would be lost is chaff.

I don't think anybody seriously expects to spend $0.50 a channel, but 5$ each seems reasonable for most with a few (like ESPN) being 10. I'd rather spend 5-10 dollars on a channel I watch than 100 bucks for 100 channels 95 of which I never use.

It's up to the network owner to decide who is abusing the system, not some network user. It's not his system, not his decision who gets to do what.

So you honestly thought that they would elect a new pope who would didn't agree with long standing church teachings? What is interesting is that the new pope is a non European. As for what it means, or what will change, that has yet to be seen.