Perhaps there is a deeper problem to look into here. Not the victim, nor the leaker. Look at the motivation for all parties involved.

Then look at the massive outcry, and the rapidity of dissemination, and the media circus.

Here's the odd thing: It's just nudity. Everyone is naked beneath their clothes, and it isn't at all difficult to find some naked pictures for the curious. I could find a few thousand of them with one google search. Yet somehow, the sight of a person undressed is something so sacred that people will feel violated just for being seen, while others will go to great lengths to catch a glimpse of the right individual.

This should not be a big deal. Everyone should be able to just shrug it off, including the victim - who hasn't actually been directly harmed in any way. What harm they experience doesn't come from people seeing the images, but their own reaction.

Because those who weren't interested in sexual relationships didn't go on to breed.

That, and it would be horrendously inefficient. He did manage to light up some bulbs from many miles away - but it took a power station to run the transmitter.

In modern terms, he would be using the earth and atmosphere as a transmission line.

Running it today would be a bad idea, too. The amount of energy he was using, it could easily interfere with and even damage the input stages of radio equipment.

Edison didn't invent a lot of his inventions. He hired others who had the ideas. He recognised the value of a brand, and made himself the brand - Edison, the genius inventor, pioneer of electricity, lighting, sound recording, moving photography, and many other fields. Taking credit for things wasn't just to fuel his ego, but for solid business reasons: Any product percieved to be the work of the great Edison would automatically be taken seriously.

Not a lot. It doesn't settle. It doesn't bioaccumulate. Even with the extra neutrons, it's still a light gas - it just floats up and disperses to the point of no concern. Though at $30,000 per gram, you'd still have to confront the irate man from the insurance company.

Not a lot. It's one of the advantages of fusion power. The worst-case scenario involves a lot less radiation than fission. The plasma is very hot, but its thermal mass isn't great - the reaction instantly self-limits. The reactor itsself will have some level of radioactivity from exposure to the extreme neutron flux, but that's all. You just replace the reactor, dump any radioactive material down a mine somewhere, and explain to the insurance company that you broke it. No nuclear explosion. No Chernobyl. No cloud of radioactive death spreading across the land. No land rendered uninhabitable for generations. Not even a Fukushima situation, where you have to actively cool material until it decays. There's a chance of conventional fire or explosion in any facility handling hydrogen (and in some designs, lithium) - but nothing worse than would be expected of a chemical accident. At worst it would trash the reactor completly, but even then the cost of repair is just that of a new reactor body and magnetic confinement system - you can keep all the other supporting equipment, turbines, pumps and such in place.

The x86 instruction set has BCD instructions too. I don't think they see much use now - processors are fast enough that you can do decimal math without them. But they were needed at the time.

But generally only single-precision. GPUs are made for speed, not accuracy - gamers want their frame rate high, and don't care if a few pixels are shifted one space to the right.

It melts the surface off a section of your reactor. No massive explosion results, but it'll be very expensive to repair.

There's still some space for science up there. The properly analyzed samples come from only a small number of sites, and all from the surface - there's almost nothing known about what lies beneath. A lot could be learned by proper surveying. Drill for deeper samples, lay down seismic instruments. All of no practical benefit - the moon is unlikely to have any minerals rich enough in expensive elements to justify mining - but there is still science to be done. It'd also make a good observatory - it's not practical to haul the giant mirror of an optical telescope up there, but you could set up giant radio telescope arrays free from the interference and atmospheric absorption that limits observable frequency ranges on earth. A lunar science base would be very expensive, but it would still be of scientific use. It just wouldn't bring any immediate practical technologies - surveys of worthless dust and improved imaging of distant objects may be good for astronomers to refine their theories, but that's all.

Though with the way robotics is advancing, in another decade or two we wouldn't need humans to handle a mobile drill rig.

I call it 'Dan Browning.'

The problem with people who honestly believe that they are fighting for a just and vital cause is that they will go to any length of deception and legal trickery to achieve it. The ends justify the means. If the only way to save babies is to subvert the legal process, then it would be unethical not to do so.

True.

But where are they in the organised pro-life movement? Absent. They have no role there. All of the prominent pressure groups - the FRC, FotF, Operation Rescue, the AFA, most if not all of the state-level 'family' groups, the Roman Catholic church - all of those oppose contraception as well. They make sure it stays this way by continuing to exclude anyone who does promote contraception. It's a political movement run by the hard-liners.

It's rare among Catholics, but it's also the official position of the Catholic church. The discrepancy is quite simple: Most of the lay church members ignore almost everything their church teaches. It's a serious problem that the priests are still struggling with every day. Most of the church ignores their teaching, but if they try to get stricter about compliance they would lose far more members than they are willing to accept.

The single most effective technique available to reduce the number of elective abortions would be to promote contraception, in both availability and education. It works - and works almost perfectly. It's the main reason that developed countries have such a low birth rate.

Yet if you look at very any organisation in the pro-life movement you'll find that, almost without exception, they are opposed to contraceptive education, and opposed to providing insurance coverage, and opposed to subsided provision. Many of them (Mostly the ones with Roman Catholic connections) go further than that, and openly consider the use of contraception to be inherently immoral and something that should be legally forbidden.

This contradiction indicates that for all of their rhetoric about the sanctity of life, they are far less concerned with opposing abortion than they are with reversing the sexual revolution and bringing back the natural consequence of pregnancy that once forced everyone to live by the code of their holy text.