False parallel as blowing something up causes physical damage while surveillance does not.

Another false parallel as I am generally alone and doing something very private. Anything that happens in my house is very private. Once it gets out of my house it is a different matter.

By that logic search warrants are also flawed because they could plant evidence.

Of those hundreds of years there has only been thirty where large numbers of people can communucate and plan operations without ever meeting. The criminals are allowed to use modern technology by the police are not?

Surveillance does not make people less free. Does an audience at a theater make an actor less free? If repressive things happen with the gathered data then that would be a problem but not the surveillance itself.

Physically intrusive searches are very different than electronic surveillance.

I am not sure what you mean by this. You might mean something like "Will you personally apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that occured even though these searched were allowed?" To those families I would say "We did the best we could and used every means possible. I am sorry for your loss." Which is much better than "Your family died because I didn't want a computer scanning my email".

How do you get probable cause when everything up to the actual act is planned and discussed over the internet. People used to have to physically get together to converse between many people. Now it can be done over the internet. The criminals are allowed full use of modern technology to plan attacks but law enforcement is hogtied.

How do you find the communications that are related to crimes without looking at all communications?

Nice personal attack. It just shows how little faith you have in your argument that you feel the need to stoop to name calling.

How does someone get a warrant to bug a suspected terrorist without evidence that they might be a terrorist? How does one get that evidence on a new organization without mass surveillance? It is a catch 22; You can't get a warrant without evidence and you can't get evidence without a warrant. Will the EFF be the ones who apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped?

Sorry but a Banana Pi is not a desktop computer. It is a motherboard at best. Most computer users do not have the skills and/or do not want to spend the time to turn a Banana Pi into a functional computer. Most people just want to open a few boxes, plug things together and have it work.

But the components of ULA did. All they did was change the name.

But a significant amount of institutional knowledge live on.

When you can chose between 90% and closer to 100% which would you chose when dealing with very expensive payloads.

You must really be an insider to know the insurances charged for each Space X launch. You have nothing to back up those statements. For all you know these launches have no insurance. Again, it may be an issue of supply and demand. Companies need satellites launched to keep business going. They may take a higher risk option to stay in business.

The residence of the person is irrelevant. The issue is the location of the data. If the data is stored on US servers then the warrant applies.

Can you tell the difference between foreign data and data stored in the US?

If the data is held in the US the Us warrant has jurisdiction and the Microsoft battle does not apply.

There are at least two instances where commercial satellites went up in Atlas vehicles. You also misses all the NOAA launches.

There was no other option at the time. It was either a Delta IV Heavy or it didn't get launched.

And a much shorter one. Five of those were Falcon 1.0 and nine were Falcon 1.1. The Falcon 9 Heavy has not even launched yet. ULA has been launching for over 50 years; Space X less than 5.

Thanks for correcting me.

Care to cite any evidence of that?

The Ross Ice Shelf is open to the sea on one edge. It is possible to access the same site by going deep under the edge of the self and then in. It is not "sealed away".

Given 1 foot clearance on each side of the vehicle and a vehicle width of 5 feet gives a 3 foot clearance for the pedestrian. It the pedestrian is in the 3 foot area in the middle of the lane there is not enough room to go around. Many accidents are causes when pedestrians panic at seeing the approaching vehicle and stop in the middle of the lane.

You are assuming visibility is perfect at all crosswalks. There are many obstructions such as parked vehicles, telephone poles, other people, etc that obstruct your view of crossing pedestrians. If you add night, rain and/or dark clothing it gets even worse. In one instance I was traveling in the same direction as a pedestrian who was playing with his phone. He turned left into a crosswalk without stopping or even looking. How was I supposed to anticipate that move? Luckily I had time to stop. Had I been ten feet closer we would have hit.

I don't see how you can defend not stopping and looking before entering a crosswalk. Yes, some drivers need to be more attentive but some pedestrians need to be more attentive as well.

Sorry you are off by a factor of 10. Ten time faster rotation means ten times the lift not 100 times.

The more accurate numbers are 100 *.38 = 38. So the rotors would have to rotate 38 times as fast.