AFAIK, the main theories bandied about for how a reaction-less drive might work come down to basically harnesses some sort of Mach's principle effect (e.g, Woodward effect) which would be analogous to using "friction" from fields (usually EM) setup by the rest of the universe and/or somehow exploit the creation of quantum vacuum virtual particles to supply some local reaction mass and using a form of magnetohydrodynamics for propulsion.

The physics loophole that they seem to exploit is that in our description of physics, not all vacuums are created equal (e.g., a vacuum in one frame inertial of reference is generally not actually a vacuum in another frame of reference when a vacuum is thought of as a volume of space where distant fields cancel each other out). This indirectly questions the nature of the frame of reference in the asymptotic limit of space from which we might define an "absolute" vacuum. You might also think of it as asserting that maybe there is actually an aether of some sort?

To provide a car analogy, people are suggesting that wiggling in an asymmetric way and effectively using vanishingly small amount of friction supplied by the rest of the universe can get you moving in one direction kind of like getting your car moving when it's stuck in snow with (almost) no traction. It doesn't take much traction to get you going in the right direction as long as you are wiggling the right way...

Why? Macros are the right solution for a whole class of work problems.

The ribbon still sucks. Yes, it made things I use all the time slightly handier, however that came at the cost of it being much harder to find things I use less often.

Sorry, mis-posted as reply to reply instead of reply to parent.

Every time you pet a cat the terrorists win, why do you hate America?

Sure, long term climate change is very scary, especially if it ends up freeing the methane clathrates, but in the medium term I'm actually more worried about acidification. Additionally it's a lot easier to prove and much more clearly both bad and a man-made effect.

Certainly not. Just the same, we shouldn't back down every time Democrats cherish stupid beliefs either. The two sides hold different stupid beliefs, so you have to at least give them credit for variety though. *Sigh* If only there were a viable party with fewer stupid beliefs. (I'm no longer idealistic enough to believe you could have one with no stupid beliefs at all)

Duh? This would be more analogous to impulse drive rather than warp drive. Did you even watch the show?

Unless it relates specifically to the job (e.g., if you need to be 21 not 18 to get a professional car license, or if you are near a mandatory age of retirement such as being 60 when a pilot must retire at 65).

However in this specific case, I suspect Comcast may be under a government consent decree to collect this information to verify compliance with prior age discrimination investigations by the EEOC (e.g., DeJoy vs Comcast)...

I suspect that, among other things, "digital native" means "more comfortable communicating by Facebook and Twitter than by email." Older workers, who started with email and found it to be completely adequate for all their text communication, are completely out of band with text, twitter, snapchat, and this bizarre phenomenon of sending photos of yourself holding hand-written notes.

My read on the "IRS Scandal" is that conservative groups with iffy not for profit status are upset that laws still applied to them in ways that they hadn't under the Bush Administration. I don't believe the matter will be otherwise resolved while the current administration is in office and moreover, I'm not particularly surprised that executive agencies might have differing methods for enforcing their mandate from one executive to another, especially given the free pass given to some groups under a previous administration.

Actually, if you were of voting age during the 1992 Presidential elections, you might remember that Bill Clinton was open that he would be working very closely with his wife on the matter. That might have been overshadowed by the spectacle of Ross Perot being a general-purpose sideshow, but it definitely did come up at campaign events and the like.

With regard to scandal or the lack thereof, the closest thing the Obama administration in general has had to one is probably the standard of care for veterans and specifically at Walter Reed. Benghazi has just been an ongoing conservative circle jerk and the Snowden disclosures have really just highlighted the overreach available LEGALLY to the administration.

You might say that the State Department under Obama has allowed relations with Israel to sour in favor of greater ties to other states in the region, but it might also be said that Israel is a big-boy country now that doesn't need the USA to enforce its will. Putin's expansionist aims been an ongoing issue since before Obama took office and the case can certainly be made that the US did not need to intervene on the ground in Iran, Libya or Syria in spite of whatever amount of sabre-rattling conservatives have wanted to do to the contrary.

Bearing that in mind, where do you see scandal in the Obama administration or more specifically in its foreign policy?

Or perhaps it could just prompt for a password on installation like any reasonable distro does?

She crafted and presented a workable health care bill that was torpedoed for political reasons and would have avoided the current clusterfuck the USA has now.

She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.

I'll probably vote green party regardless (that's as much throwing away my vote in Indiana as voting for a democrat), but I do recognize that she has foreign and domestic policy experience in government.

I never said that. Instead, I'm implying that rights also come with responsibilities. If I enjoy the benefits of being a member, it is incumbent on me to do my part. Does that mean I'm smiling when I do my taxes or have to deal with some annoying regulation that I personally disagree with, of course not. Are there things about the US I'd like to change, of course there are. There are no perfect societies and as of yet I haven't seen anywhere else I'd rather move to.