A nudge I can understand if there is any way to create enough energy to push something that large out of the way, but what is the point of the nuke? How do we know this doesn't end up creating lots of smaller asteroids?
That's specifically how it works. The idea is that lots of small pieces are less damaging than the big chunk, because each little chunk can burn on its own instead of one big chunk making it to the ground. A bunch of small pieces reaching the ground do less damage than one big chunk (something the size of a house hitting the ocean is a tsunami, something the size of a city is a shockwave, and so on) so busting it up reduces the total damage by a huge amount even if total deflection isn't possible.
Hell of a bet to take on a hunch. Where are the simulation runs or is this a touchy-feely? How do you know it won't vapourize a nice big hole inside like the underground nuclear tests?
Firstly, setting up such a simulation is trivial so I'm sure it would be part of the plan. And to answer your question, vaporizing a big hole in one side would be extremely effective, since unlike an underground detonation there's no atmosphere in space. Turning a sizable divot in one side of an asteroid into liquid or gas would turn the divot into a natural rocket jet, as the matter blew off into space unrestricted by any air pressure. That kinetic energy would push the asteroid in a predictable direction, and that's the whole point of the operation.
Virg
If the government already knows about the evidence, they don't need me to provide it.
The issue arises when the officials know about the evidence but they don't have direct access. For example, you keep a set of books for illegal activities. An undercover agent saw the books when you were interacting with someone but didn't get a look at the whole book. That's an example where they can compel you to produce the books even though they don't know what's in the books. Or, an officer pursues you into your house, and sees you throw something in a wall safe and lock it. You can be compelled to open the safe in that case. But, for example, if that same thing happens but you went into someone else's house, tossed it in their safe and locked it, you could make a reasonable argument that you can no longer assist in discovery because you don't know the combination to a safe you don't own, and in that case you can't be compelled under contempt to provide the combination to that safe.
In the case at hand, the prosecutors couldn't prove that he actually had access to the decryption key for the device and having that key would implicate him, so they can't hold him in contempt if he says he's unable to provide it.
Virg
If I own a medical device, utility meter, safety system, casino game, ATM, airplane navigation system, etc... then I absolutely should be allowed to do whatever I want with it. But none of us own most of those things.
I don't agree. The problem here is that you're thinking like an honest person, and that's where a lot of these things fail. For example, if you own a casino game, then there's a reasonable understanding that you're following the rules and regulations concerning casino games laid out by your government, and therefore there has to be some way to prevent you from sidestepping the regulations and changing the odds, for example, so you're not defrauding people who wouldn't play your game if they knew what you did to it. The same is true of safety systems so that an airline can't cut out a safety interlock to save fuel or a utility company to overcharge their customers or a convenience store owner who skims credit card numbers in their ATM. In all these cases, the owner of the device needs to be restricted from changing something that they directly own due to rules outside their ownership.
Virg
It's not exactly a Ponzi scheme because no new member is directly paying old members through the scheme. They are all increasing the value of shiny rocks however, as they become more commonly used. The only problem is that those shiny rocks have absolutely no use, and do not produce anything (that's why I didn't say gold; gold has uses).
This is the malfunction in your logic. Currency has use in the simple function of currency, as shown by paper money. It facilitates exchange, and therefore makes general commerce easier. To wit, what any currency, Bitcoin or shiny rock, "produces" is a better functioning economy. If Bitcoins have some advantage over other currencies, then they have an intrinsic value through that added (usability/portability/anonymity/whatever the advantage is). So in your example, shiny river rocks have a value in that everyone agrees to use them as a medium of value exchange, and that makes commerce move more efficiently.
While it's fun for as long as it works, one day people might realize they could use something else than shiny rocks, and their values will drop.
This is true of any currency. In fact, the rise and fall of currency values is a market unto itself. Even virtual currencies follow this pattern, as evidenced by the markets for both legitimate exchange (Bitcoin or Linden Dollars) and illegitimate (WoW gold or other game currencies).
Virg
In that sense, we should look at the post office as being no different from any other utility. How are other utilities succeeding while the post office fails?
The demand for most other utilities hasn't dropped off precipitously in the last two decades and other utilitied haven't been called on to operate at a loss for many years (if you think that they're not running at a loss, try getting any other company to deliver a letter for 46 cents in any time frame, much less in the usual time for the post). Also, the USPS is cutting back on Saturday delivery, which is a far cry from failing. Are you proposing that a for-profit business has never trimmed back less productive hours to save money?
Virg
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
