Only now, suspicion of being in the country illegally is justification enough to stop someone and ask for identification. The Supreme Court has upheld that you can't just go around and randomly stop people and compel them to produce identification. You had to be able to show cause, although even that was pretty flexible. Now, "looking illegal" is considered cause enough to stop someone and ask them to produce their papers. Don't try to pass this off as verifying the ID of people who have already been detained. This is stopping and detaining people SOLEY to force them to produce their documentation.

Not at all. Trying to perpetuate ignorance by misrepresenting the facts, then implying others are ignorant, now THAT'S ironic.

But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not the "no-fly" lists serve a legitimate purpose (they don't), what should they have done? If information indicating a particular person may be dangerous comes in while someone is already in transit, should they have just said "Damn, if we had been a little quicker we wouldn't let you in, but you beat the buzzer. We suspect you're a terrorist, but since you had already left you can come in this time. But next time, forget it!"

Strictly speaking, all of it.

If there is life on any moon of Saturn, what makes you think they'd be reliant on solar power? For all we know this life could be decades behind us technologically, and still burning wood and coal. Or they could be more advanced, and using fusion. After all, if they have liquid water they have the necessary materials to put out fires AND cool reactors!

Looks like I'll have to buy the White Album again.

I don't remember if it was covered in the original movie or not, but it was (IIRC) covered in the book. The "distress signal" that the Nostromo picked up had been discovered by the company and found to actually be a warning. Ripley realized it was really a warning to stay away, and that's when Ash tried to kill her to cover up what the company was trying to do.

In software versions, all the numbers are awful.

How about we try it out here first? We have plenty of extra CO2 floating around that won't be missed, and I don't think anyone on Mars would complain if we do ours first.

You just have to modify the deflector array to rotate the shield harmonics. Problem solved, but you'll have to do it again every few episodes.

Yeah, you're probably one of those people that insist on spending a fortune on glass syringes with exotic wood plungers and gold-plated needles, because they feel healthier.

In just a few years we'll be forced to upgrade to Monkey HIV Digital, which will make Monkey HIV Analog look like crap anyway.

Wow. You better hope the Buddhists aren't right, otherwise your next life is going to suck a lot for that one.

Yes, I know he never said that. But "an old quotation often mistakenly applied to Bill Gates" sort of takes the "offhand mock" out of it, don't you think?

Because 160 characters should be enough for anybody.