I once used Genomics as the name of a boardgame I developed, where the basis of the game was earning money by breeding gnomes.

I think, however, I spelled it Gegnomics.

So, you've discounted the fact that we won't be using a flammable substance for the ship's skin, and we won't be using a flammable gas for lift ? Helium doesn't burn/explode, and neither does the intended skin.

Those that dies in the Hindenburg were burned by diesel fuel spilled when the skin and lifting gas ignited. So on the whole, I'd say we have learned from History in this case. Of course, we still drive to work knowing that this is the least safe commuting option.

Sadly, I feel your pain.

Unfortunately, the law would compel Bob to testify, IF the law knew Bob was a witness. Such testimony would be to Bob's disadvantage.

Of course, the legal teams would need to learn about Bob's information. Bob is not required under any law to indicate that he was in possession of such information. However, once he admits that he was a witness he can be compelled to testify.

I'm sorry, perhaps the quoting the actual wording of the amendment confused you.

You cannot be compelled to provide testimony that may incriminate yourself. It doesn't matter if its your trial or someone else's.
However, the premise of TFA is that a witness can be compelled to incriminate a third party. The 5th clearly places restrictions against self-incrimination, but does not offer any such restriction on the incrimination of others.

If I am giving testimony as to another's guilt or innocence and the defense asks me a direct question (to cast doubt to either my honesty, or if I have an issue with the defendant, for example) that would have me admitting to my own criminal behavior (connected or not to this case) or committing perjury, I may refuse to answer this question.

In this case I am providing "third-party" testimony and am covered by both the intent and the letter of the Fifth Amendment.

As a note, in many countries this protection is also included in civil cases, not just criminal ones.

I agree to your definition of immorality, but again, I don't see how it applies to human living on another planet. Are you are indicating that because humans will not be living in (earthly) optimal conditions, that having them there is immoral ?

You have indicated that we are part of Earth and not Mars, so living on Mars is immoral.

Do you believe that having astronauts living on the space station is immoral?
Do you believe that humans living in the Arctic is immoral?

Would denying the opportunity for people to live on other planets be considered immoral ?

"Immoral" ?

Ignoring the concept that good and evil, and right and wrong are not germane to the discussion, but why have you decided that it is "immoral" ?

If I may simplify something for you, the heavy elements that form our bodies and the Earth did not come from within this solar system. We are no more tied to the Earth than anywhere else. The elements that were created in a supernova explosion and deposited within our solar system came from 'outside' our system. We are stardust, as much as we are Earth's children.

Parents had trouble with geese years ago. They started letting the dog out to clear the beach head of geese. He'd charge down the lawn and put the binders on just before he got to the shore, but the geese would have moved into the water. Now years (3 or 4) after the dog has passed on, the geese are all over one neighbours lawn, get into the water, swim around their lawn and come up the beach onto the neighbour on the other side. It seems that avoidance of our place is embedded deeply now.

I do miss the "apricot flash".

E-mail has never been secure or private? Which court decided that? Oh wait, it was never decided. Someone in the telecom industry recognized that if e-mail was to be treated as snail mail (private and secure) they would have to develop technologies to make e-mail secure. When letters were first introduced, they were private but not secure. Only couriers were deemed secure, and only if they were your couriers. Then, with the advent of state (or crown) post offices, the demands to keep private communication away from the prying eyes of the state (or crown) set the agenda to make it that way. The only reason why we had folks legislate e-mail NOT to be secure and private is become the state (or crown) decided that it would be in its best interest to have electronic communication declared "different" than snail mail. Governments hate court oversight. They hate having to prove the need to get a warrant. What if they could just get the people to accept that private e-mails aren't private. Bingo ! We'll just tell them that this is what we all want. Sorry. I do have an expectation of privacy with my private e-mail correspondence. It works with surface mail. This utter claptrap about "no one should expect privacy or security when data is passed to 3rd party" is bullshit. You need a warrant to tap my land line. You need a warrant to intercept my mail. Both cases involve data handed to 3rd party. Hospital records move between doctors hospitals and me. They are private. You may argue that e-mail is not secure. You may not argue that not secure means not private. the text I write on the back of a postcard is not secure, but it is still private.

Tie your horse to a post (you can carry one) then it won't wander away. Geez, just like a real horse. I agree on horse armour, but I don't worry too much about it. I'm much more concerned about the inability to craft saddles. I agree with the horse/boat issue - I don't see a way around that until they code the ability to use larger boats. Mind you, the ability to travel endlessly without suffering hunger is a huge boon to those of us who play on hardcore mode. Whining about the inability to craft a specialty armour that only aids your horse (a renewable resourse) against attacks that are completely avoidable is rather petty.

Care to name another game that lets that many pilots engage in single battle ?

Except for those of us who do own the mineral rights below our land :)

Also, vegetation growing on the land is considered an improvement, and hence belongs to the landowner. Formal grazing is a land use, subject to zoning.

You are correct on water, but then only a complete idiot would try to claim water running through his land.