What do you mean? Is the lag on satellite Internet connections too high to do anything interactive? Low-orbit satellites would avoid that. Or is the uplink capacity too low to do anything other than request downloads? I'm not sure that there'd be any technical reason for such a limitation.

Personally, I'd love to have more options in Internet connectivity. Not every location in the world is supplied by the perfect ISP at a low cost.

If I remember correctly, they did have a scientific explanation for that. The explosion that separated the Moon from the Earth was so powerful that its relative velocity was close to the speed of light, so distance was contracted according to the theory of relativity.

However, I don't remember any explanation for how the moon and its inhabitants could survive intact with such a powerful explosion and rapid acceleration. Maybe I need to go and rewatch the series to find out.

In theory, since the "free market" is suggesting that that's where the greatest labour shortages are, and you'd think companies would be keen to cut their costs in this area. However I'm not really sure that these people's salaries are set by anything resembling a free market, and they don't seem to have much trouble crossing national borders anyway.

Immigration systems are always unbelievably complex. The intention is apparently to allow immigrants to fill labour shortages. Labour shortages can be seen when people are getting paid well over the median wage. So create a visa that allows working in any job paying over three times the median wage, or whatever.

How many laptops still have DVD drives these days? The last one I saw doesn't even have an ethernet port (and the laptop was too thin for one to fit anyway).

Can they make backup bootable USB sticks?

Artificial life forms could be resistant to many kinds of accidents. All they have to do is keep an offsite backup of their mental state and restore to new hardware after the accident.

There's no reason to think that every form of high-speed data transfer must be susceptible to viruses.

I don't think games are the answer. Sure you can concentrate on a game for hours on end, but games are designed to be addictive and hold your attention. You can't expect that experience to translate to any real-world activity, and the game will just be an additional distraction.

I don't see anything wrong with queuing up a few web pages to read because they load slowly, as long as there's a good reason to be reading those pages in the first place.

Same with my Nokia from 2007. Keeping it switched off unless you are using it does wonders for the battery life. I use a prepaid plan that costs $20 a year, which is fine since I don't generally make outgoing calls.

Never say never. But how about they stop extorting royalties from software patents first? That's pure evil by many programmers' standards. I'd also like to be clear that they are no longer in the business of inventing "standards" that are intended to make their own products incompatible with anything else. I see that their office software still doesn't use the Open Document format by default.

Google can't select for public domain (or CC0) however. On the other hand, the Bing search seems to be pretty bad, missing images from Wikimedia Commons for example.

If you think a wallet is too bulky to carry then would you really want to lug around a smartphone instead?

I think it's obvious that you can't work if you have serious health problems that prevent it. But what does that have to do with age discrimination at age 35? Many people remain in good health well into old age (which I consider to be 70 plus, not 40 plus).

What stops a poor psycho from leasing one?

A vacuum has space, time and a certain amount of energy. If none of those exist, how can anything ever happen? What does "ever" mean if time doesn't exist?

However the Communcations Act of 2003 is interpreted, is seems. See Wikipedia:

Malicious communications

Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[8] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[9] The section has controversially been widely used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[10]

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[11][12][13]

Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[14] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.