--Why on Earth do you think we haven't considered business continuity?

Fully considered? You haven't no. By co-locating everyone you are increasing the impact of otherwise small events.

--Is there *any* business which doesn't tend to put large groups, if not all of their people in the same place for most of the time?

Businesses which have proper risk management strategies. Most militaries and NGOs, organisations that regularly deal with risk

--You should really get out of your basement.

Zing. Nice ad hominem. Point to you. I'm cut to the quick... I'm off to find my encyclopedia, maybe it has an entry for boondoggle...

Yeah, lighting is very important, sound environment anechoic tiles, or hang curtains all along the walls, quiet electronics (consider removing computers from the room all together) and phones. HVAC It's very easy to underestimate this because the number of stations you design for will likely double in real life usage. Space is really expensive and managers will always choose to double usage of space before committing to buying more structure. Underground would be worse I imagine. redundancy: I think control rooms are a little archaeic and beyond that just plain dumb. "Let's put all the really important people in one place so that they can see each other when they talk to them because that's more important than business continuity, oh yeah and let's create one single point of failure while we are at it... If you are going to make a control room anyway, make sure you have multiple redundancies for every service you tie into and at every node or point of service. Otherwise, everyone gets a free high-speed internet connection at their home and use RSA-256 if need be. The internet was designed so that it could withstand world war three, why people still building bunkers is beyond me. Control rooms as a concept are a relic of the cold war and are as useful as the 27-volume encyclopedia set in my basement.

That's what I was missing...

About 3 1/2 mosquitoes. I had no idea how tiny the amounts of energy they are using. http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Science/Glossary-en.php#E

It won't work... there are too many unknowns and no way to fix the scow when (read inevitable) things go wrong. The scow approach can really only be designed upfront and then implemented after the fact.... risky. The lasers idea that he dismissed out of hand early on in the article actually makes more sense. Except that the lasers aren't intended to vaporize the entire object, but a tiny fraction to induce a deceleration so that the orbit can decay faster. The laser approach can go through spiral development which is preferred for high risk projects. And has the benefit of being a replicable (parallelizable), and relatively low-tech solution. I'm sure that NASA could run a $1 million dollar competition to see who can de-orbit space junk with frickin' laser beams.

Apple owns the patent to the letter i and any word with which it starts. In response I've applied to the USPTO for numbers which conform to the formula where 2^n-1 In addition to my patent for all the numbers with 2^0 to 2^40 binary digits. With the royalties I intend to buy the moon from Dennis Hope.

we get foxnews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15SE_Silent_Eagle Boeing is a few steps ahead of you on this :)

There is no way that a reverse geyser would be less visible than a helicopter, Navies would be much more interested in UAVs.

If this is real then I think that one of the big car companies are going to have to buy ZENN Motor, since they have an exclusive deal with eestor worldwide. Either that or some sort of sub-licensing deal will have to be worked out.