It could work in the US, which has its own deserts. But do you really think that we in Europe want to give Muammar Qaddafi and his neighbors a big red on-off switch for our entire electricity grids? We cannot rely on these unstable states, which means that we must generate our own power.

I'd call running lights pretty important, especially where I live (see below).

Only in daylight, which in December/January lasts roughly from 9 am to 3 pm here in Stockholm, Sweden. When it is dark 18 hours each day, you need lights.

Of course, in the summer the reverse happens. In June/July, dawn is roughly 3 am and dusk is roughly at 10 pm, and the sky isn't completely black even in the middle of the night.

So you think your car doesn't use electricity? Ever heard of spark plugs, starter motors, instruments, electric fuel pumps, electric cooling fans, lights, not to mention electronic engine control units? There are hundreds of electrical systems in a car.

I'd say that it probably doesn't have to use any fuel for that. The ISS is at a similar altitude, and it is boosted to a higher altitude a few times a year, but the ISS is intended to stay in orbit for a long time. Since the X-37B is only intended to stay up for nine months, it is possible that it does not need any boosting. Besides, it is also possible that it can minimize the drag by using a certain attitude profile, such as pointing the nose forwards. If horizontal w.r.t. the ground (inverted or not), it might even be able to use its wings to counteract the aerodynamic resistance, like a glider.

I read the book, and the method seems reasonable, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible. It is highly likely that different plants around the world will generate material with slightly different isotope ratios, thus enabling the tracing of the material if a sample could be obtained from each plant. But even if (as is highly likely) hostile states refuse to give you a sample, a sample from just friendly states would be better than nothing, since then you could rule out those as sources.

And their violent reaction has a potential to radicalize more people in the opposite direction than the nationalist and neo-nazi groups could ever dream of. A dozen or so more violent actions, a few murders in the name of "protecting Muhammad", and even reasonable people might start thinking that a Holocaust on all Muslims wouldn't be so bad.

Never forget that not only Muslims can be(come) violent radicals. Nationalist parties that want to stop immigration and deport Muslims are on the rise in Europe, and the Muslim extremists are helping them more than any propaganda speech ever could. Non-extremist Muslims should keep this in mind when defending or supporting the extremists.

Doing that alone would just be immensely stupid. Doing it with a thousand friends, all armed to the teeth and willing to use their weapons, would be fine.

Mostly by Islamic imams, trying to incite hatred and violence. The cartoons were published in local newspapers, but imams living in Denmark felt offended and wanted to use their connections in the middle east to really stir things up, thinking that they could get the Danish government to harshly punish the cartoonists. That the Danish prime ministers stood up for the cartoonists, and explained that freedom of the press is non-negotiable, infuriated them even more. But anyway, the blame rests entirely with the Danish imams, who spread the cartoons in the middle east. Because of the extreme reactions, many people around the world started publishing the cartoons themselves.

Had the imams just swallowed their anger, the cartoons would just have been known to the local newspaper audience. They made sure that they would become famous around the entire world.

I think you meant "seized power" (i.e. hijacked power). Ceasing power would mean quite the opposite, as in abdicating from power.

So you are living in fear, despite claiming the contrary in another post.

Not necessarily true. You can have a baseline amount of respect for people you don't know, but whether they lose respect or gain respect is decided by their actions. Islam hasn't made anything to earn respect for a very long time, while doing everything it can to lose whatever baseline respect we might have. In fact, Islam has lost so much respect because of its actions that it is approaching negative infinity on the respect meter.

So you don't give a rat's ass about Muslims threatening or assaulting people over a few cartoons? I mean, "as long as they don't impact your life".

When they assault our freedoms, they impact my life, despite the fact that I have never drawn any Muhammad cartoon. I cannot accept that our rights are encroached by their silly "sensitivities".

Sensitive Muslims are free not to go to the site and watch the pictures, so it's not a good analogy. Blasting your music would be more in line with dropping leaflets with the cartoon of Muhammad with the bomb in the turban on every major Islamic city.

They are not politely asking us to respect their religion, they are demanding us to respect their religion, or else... Demanding respect is like asking for contempt. Respect is earned by those who make themselves worthy of respect. People who demand respect are the opposite. They get nothing else than contempt, and they have only themselves to blame.

I don't think that it can be understood by civilized people. Only barbarians can understand killing someone over s cartoon.

Respect has to be earned, and Islam is not earning any respect with the current actions of its minions. They look like crybabies that scream aloud when not everyone does what they want. They threaten people with death and destruction left and right because of a few cartoons. That does not earn any respect, it does the opposite. It makes more and more people feel repulsion against Islam, which is obviously trying to turn back the clock to the dark age. Hopefully, Islam will fail.

Yes, I think that denying the Holocaust should be legal. But why does that mean that it should be encouraged, and why would that help preserving freedom of speech? The evidence is clearly in favor of the Holocaust having existed, but that does not mean that it should be a crime to say that you don't believe it happened. Of course you would be ridiculed and criticized, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

I also find the comparison somewhat ridiculous. The Holocaust was a genocide of enormous proportions, and it is understandable that people are very upset when you claim that it didn't happen. It is not in any way comparable to a few cartoons. It is not understandable that people are so upset about a few cartoons that they threaten to kill the cartoonist or even actually physically assault him, nor is it understandable that you demand that freedom of speech should be curtailed because of it.