No experiment can distinguish between gravity and uniform acceleration, so if acceleration is what it's measuring, it can't possibly tell the difference between 9.8m/s^2 of acceleration and Earth-normal gravity. Indeed, just as Special Relatively is based on the fact that rest and uniform motion are the same thing, General Relativity is based on the fact that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. If you are sitting still on Earth's surface, you are undergoing 9.8m/s^2 of gravitational acceleration. In order for the accelerometer to read zero, you would have to be in free-fall.

Oops, make that "up". /bonk

If it measures acceleration, then whether at rest or undergoing smooth, constant motion, it should measure an acceleration of 9.8m/s straight down.

Withhold certain information while talking to cops.

Understanding of basic vocabulary seems to have gone out the window today.

anonymous: without a name attached to the work/deed/etc. cf. greek/latin "an-" (without) prefix and "onym" (name)

pseudonymous: with a false name attached. cf. greek/latin "pseudo-" (false)

What's being described here is not pseudonymous, unless a note is being attached to each transaction saying "This transaction was made by Mark Twain" (assuming the actual person conducting the transaction isn't actually named Mark Twain).

By that absurd definition, anonymous posts aren't anonymous because they are posted, anonymous letters aren't anonymous because they're printed, etc. You fundamentally fail at understanding what "anonymous" means if you think being logged makes it not anonymous. What makes anonymous things anonymous is not the fact that they're not recorded, because indeed they all are, and have been for the thousands of years of anonymous writing/deeds/etc. What unites all the things we've described as "anonymous" for millennia is that what isn't recorded alongside the various things that are is the author's name.

Another mission to a world we've been to before will yield more interesting science that one to a world we've never been to before? That seems unlikely. Not saying there isn't a heck of a lot more to learn on Titan, but your reasoning here is bizarre.

The fact of the matter is, we don't know what we'll find if we go looking at Europa. One of the things about science is, instead of trying to find the answers to questions like that by just thinking about it (i.e. the philosophical method), the scientific method involves actually looking instead of merely guessing. If we want to know what we'll find on Europa, we'll have to send a probe and actually see.

You could fill a book full of perfectly reasonable statements about what we'd find on planets before we sent probes to them, all as reasonable as what you've saying, based on what we thought we knew at the time, and all dead wrong.

A mission to Europa is far more likely to yield scientifically interesting results than another mission to anywhere we've been before.

s/are/our/

It should be noted that life almost certainly started in Earth's oceans (where the vast majority of it remains to this day -- life outside the oceans is practically a footnote). I do believe are hydrosphere is approximately two-thirds hydrogen, one-third oxygen (by atom count -- by mass, of course, the one oxygen atom outweighs the two hydrogen atoms).

A peer reviewed science fair project? I'm not sure if "Ken has cooties" and similar reviews from his peers would have contributed significantly.

Nonsense. ARM didn't design anything in 1983, as ARM didn't exist at the time. ARM was founded in 1990 to continue development of the already existing design.

Where? I didn't see him claiming at any point to have single-handedly developed it. Are you claiming he didn't play any part at all in it? If not, then you're just plain wrong and you know it.

Or perhaps the reports here have a bigger clue than you. Yes, jet fuel is kerosene, but not all kerosene is jet fuel. If they were, in fact, using jet fuel, using the more specific term would be more accurate. Do you have some reason for thinking they got their facts wrong here?

Jet fuel is liquid, too. They could have reported that they used liquid, which would be equally true... but even less specific and thus less informative. The more specific you can be, the better.

That's "cubic" feet. You're going really old school when you start talking about cubits.