It's been a long time since /. has been about breaking the news. It has transformed into a place to discuss recent news. The news isn't reported first on /. but it is still timely. I certainly talk with coworkers about items in the news a few days after they are initially reported. /. is less like the newsroom at any of the big networks and is more like the local coffee shop shortly after the networks report on an event. Yes, most people have heard the news already, but they've gathered together to discuss it, and that is the value /. brings to the table - it's the place to talk about the news, not the place to learn about the news as it happens.

Close, but not quite. Step 1 is secure the information from further unauthorized access, but do not destroy if it can be safely secured in another manner. (i.e. all copies remain in the possession of a cleared person with need to know, in a locked and opaque case.) Step 2 is call the security folks, so that they can determine the ramifications of the exposure of the information. Step 3, I will admit, is generally destroy the information.

Funny enough, if you only look at total particulates and not their composition, rural Ohio is dirtier than downtown Beijing. (Or so says my cleanroom certification engineer.)

I'd bet that they never patented it, but instead kept it as a trade secret. While the composition would probably be easy to determine, reverse-engineering the process to make it is likely nearly as difficult as inventing it in the first place.

What I don't understand is why we don't have a direct successor to Hubble. James Webb will be an infrared satellite, not visible light, so I don't see how it's a direct successor (IANAA I Am Not An Astrophysicist). I know of no other satellites that overlap but improve Hubble's coverage. Yes, I understand that today, adaptive optics beat Hubble, but Hubble was launched in 1990. Twenty years later the ground-based coverage bested space-based, but what could we conceivably learn from a visible-wavelength orbital observatory in the next 20 years before the ground-based ones catch up?

Beyond that, visible-light satellites have the capacity to excite the public like no others. Humans see the visible spectrum directly, and are just more impressed by visual wavelength images than false-color imagines of, say, X-rays. Non-visible wavelengths may be more scientifically important that visible ones, but the visible wavelengths are the ones that the public will pay for.

There are two major problems with classified information, one real and one practical:

Realistically, unclassified information can be combined to deduce classified information. For example, let's suppose that the F-22 combat radius was classified. If its max fuel load, cruising speed, and fuel consumption at cruise were unclassified, the classified information could easily be determined from unclassified information. Toward this end, many things end up classified higher than their individual information may warrant.

Practically, separating classified and unclassified information is difficult and costly. Say there is a program with only a small amount of classified information. Yes, it is costly to set up the classified network and facilities to process only that, and leave the rest open. But say the program is mostly classified. In that case, it's more expensive and difficult to access the unclassified information than the classified info (due to having separate networks, facilities, etc, for the unclassified info. Remember, anything electronic that accesses classified info is considered to be classified at that level. So if your computer accesses Secret information, anything that ever gets onto that computer is presumed Secret.) So in practice, everything used on that network ends up classified, for ease of use and lower cost.

Between these two reasons, yes, many things are classified that should not be. No, generally it is not a malicious coverup.

Disclaimer: this applies very much at defense contractors for the systems they design, especially for build processes, designs, capabilities, etc. Needs and reasons for operational classification may be different.

If this is the case, why would they want a third trial? Seems it would only serve to further reduce the judgement, if anything, and certainly incur more costs.

FTFY. Guns are pretty much designed for killing, though animals get included along with people.

I'd say you trained your bookmarks menu every time you added something to it or organized it.

Well, O'Brien was a non-com, which kinda counts. Still, no enlisted crewmen come to mind.

Generally when someone refers to "Free Software" they mean free as in freedom (libre), not free as in beer (gratis). Wikipedia. In that regards, Opera is free (zero cost) but not Free (users have the right to have and modify the source code as they see fit). In that sense, GP is right that Opera is not Free Software.

I dunno, Buzz has a pretty mean right hook.

Space itself is cold, yes (high vacuum means there are very few particles to vibrate, so low temperature). HOWEVER, the solar radiation heats objects up rather nicely. If solar radiation didn't heat things, we'd be frozen here on earth too. To keep this instrument cold by exposing it to space would require a giant sun shield.

(Some) states think exactly that, and will pay wrongly incarcerated people for the time they spent behind bars. I've only heard of this for wrongful murder convictions. I assume that the money comes with a contract signing away the right to sue the state.

The races were reverse-seeded by world ranking. In other words, the best skaters were last, so it was expected that the people who skated after the break placed higher.

That being said, there may or may not have been an effect from the ice, but this isn't the evidence you're looking for.