You're absolutely right. And as a matter of fact sex is positively ancient, we should probably abandon that as well.

Your hypothetical NAMBLA bill raises some major issues regarding the age of consent, which complicates things significantly. So it's a pretty lousy comparison.

As for normalcy, gays are clearly not normal in the same sense that red hair is clearly not normal: only a small percentage of the population possesses the trait, and "normal" is generally based on the majority. On the other hand, unlike red hair, as best we can tell most every culture in history that hasn't actively persecuted gays (and thus driven them into secrecy and out of the historical record) has shown roughly the same percentage of gay members, so it would appear that having a certain percentage of gays in the population is normal for our species. The question is simply should that percentage of the population be denied the right to get the same legal recognition for their long-term relationships as we have for ours.

They're not asking us to celebrate anything. They're not demanding that your pastor perform the ceremony. They just want to be able to go down to the county courthouse and establish the same legal rights of inheritance, medical visitation, etc. than heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't see how them doing so harms society in any way, and so I see no rationale by which society can claim a legitimate interest in denying them such rights. Maybe if being gay was contagious then you would have some good arguments for suppressing it's spread, but it's not.

And how exactly is that different than in "civilized" society? Except that the elite are far more powerful here, and more socially stratified from "normals", so the odds of them ever noticing you personally are far smaller.

If the deaf are worried about losing their culture perhaps they should endeavor to share it with the world so that it gets absorbed rather than abandoned. My brother took a few semesters of ASL courses for his foreign-language requirement, and just from what I've picked up second-hand I'm seriously considering taking a few semesters myself - the language has much to recommend it over the spoken word, and the combination of spoken and signed language can be *extremely* potent.

On the other hand, I'd gladly take them over the 400lb person in speedos.

Every bit as bad as paintbrush mustaches. We're just luck Charlie Chaplin got distracted by show business rather than causing serious problems.

You are presuming that individual procreation is the only biological goal, while you need only look at ants, bees, etc. where the vast majority of the population doesn't reproduce at all to see that this is a flawed assumption. Having some individuals promoting the welfare of extended family at their own genetic expense can also be a winning strategy for a gene-line, and we need only look at the numerous historical cultures that harnessed gays for various social roles where having children is a disadvantage to see the potential. One of the most dramatic being as berserkers/shock troops, where having children who will suffer hardships if you die can dramatically decrease your willingness to take large risks.

Where are you getting 300mph as the terminal velocity? And what does terminal velocity have to do with horizontal motion anyway? It's strictly a relevant concept to objects falling in a gravitational field (or subjected to some other constant force fighting friction). Unless you fired this thing straight up it's not going to be much of a factor. And frankly if you *did* fire this thing straight up, well I doubt it'd spend enough time in thick air to slow to anywhere near its TV.

The shuttle is also going *much* faster, so the kinetic energy is far higher.
Low Earth Orbit velocity: 27,400 km/h = 29MJ/kg
mach 7: 8,575 km/h = 2.9 MJ/kg

So basically the shuttle needs to shed 10x as much energy per kg as the projectile. Of course air resistance scales with the square of velocity along with the kinetic energy, so it's not a simple comparison to make. Especially when you consider that the shuttle is shedding most of it's energy at high altitude, where it's practically in vacuum compared to ground-level air resistance.

But yeah, I doubt the projectile's slowed to anywhere near terminal velocity "at range", after all the range of a weapon tends to be listed as the distance at which it can reliably hit a target and do serious damage. Compared to what this thing could do on the firing range I doubt it's terminal velocity damage could make the cut as "serious damage"

Are you including roads, parks, stores, and all the rest of the public spaces around us in that current avcerage? I didn't think so.

More to the point, you appear to have completely missed the point that elbow room is *not* the problem. We're consuming 40% more natural resources than the entire planet can sustainably provide.

I was thinking more in the case of a *specific* action - say a handful of cops conduct a relatively minor raid/arrest and one of them gets hit, breaking his recorder. Does that mean he immediately has to sit out the rest of the raid as a civilian, putting his comrades at elevated risk because they're now under-manned? I think that's asking a lot. On the other hand he should no longer be considered a cop for any *other* purpose not directly related to the raid in progress until he gets his recorder fixed. If he happens to pass an assault in progress on the way back to the station his authorization to intervene is limited to that of any other concerned citizen with a gun.

Generally speaking "burning" refers to chemical reactions of the form "X + oxygen -> Heat + Y". but X can't be more oxygen - there's no reaction possible, it's already in it's lowest-energy state. You can make ozone under the right circumstances, but that consumes heat rather than creating it.

I doubt the capacitors are actually much of a risk either - after all there's no need to have them charged until right before you fire. It'll only be that brief window when they've got a large charge but haven't yet fired that they'll be dangerous. Unlike missiles, conventional explosives, propellants, and fuel which are all a continuous danger as long as they're on board.

Air resistance is a bitch at mach speeds, I doubt that round is going anywhere close to 5000mph after going through 100 miles of air.

Source?

I would think these would be a much more natural fit for nuclear-powered vessels, where the capacitors can be recharged far more quickly. Not that I doubt they'll be used in other scenarios as well, but for high firing rates you'll want *real* power.