in newbamamerica, you have no rights or freedoms.
If you think even for a *second* that this would not have happened during the prior administrations, or that the majority of damage to your freedoms had not already been done prior to Obama's terms, you really should see someone about that brain tumor, because it's made you into a flaming idiot.
I bet the NSA has had this, and more than this, for many years, and will only see to it that this fellow is stomped into mush.
That'd be the American public you're asking about.
When congress decided to shove the PATRIOT act up everyone's colon, lubricated only by a healthy dose of TSA, all the American public did was enquire how far they should bend over. They're still bent over. The majority likes it that way. Because fear. Unreasonable, agit-prop and ignorance based fear.
Drone strikes alone would probably eliminate most of the resistance very quickly, no matter how many small handguns they have,
One should note that if every handgun owner were to target member of the military, as long as the failure rate is not more then 98% or so, the US Military would run out of soldiers before the civilians ran out of handguns.
And this ignores that not every soldier would go along with fighting against American civilians....
...are you assuming sequential scans are orbits apart? That's not a reasonable limit. Heck, we don't even have that limit today on an *orbiting* sat, much less a geostationary one.
mmmm.... no.
No problem. *I* didn't remember the lava tubes, so we're even.
Google's page rank algorithm goes a long way to mitigate that by tracking how many links refer to a given site
No. Popularity is a horrible indicator of usefulness, and/or accuracy and/or value. A well curated directory, on the other hand, can be all wheat, no chaff. Unfortunately, no well-curated directory exists.
I will read a good comic.
However, I wouldn't touch Cheetos with your mouth. I consider NY style pizza to be the optimum way to consume cheese, and should there be a need to do so, you may rest assured that is exactly how I will handle the matter.
Yes and no. Yes, right now, as far as we know. Hints otherwise, however, do exist. Further, apparently, space -- being nothing -- can expand and contract much faster than the speed of light (see most cosmological theories), and since the distance from here to there in astronomical terms is essentially created by space... it may be that the speed of light is constant, but the space it travels though, isn't.
Also, we may discover something else. I'm perfectly ok with not being certain; I think assigning absolute certainty to things is a losing game, frankly. In the interim, I enjoy a good story. What I think is a good story is, of course, colored by my opinions, just as everyone's is.
Why would it hurt a spaceship to hit an inertialess object? lol
Try harder.
The objection is that they would have been picked up while moving under also-moving cover.
Subtractive imaging shows both objects that are gone, and objects that are new. You just use the absolute value of the result.
Essentially, for a thresholded image, it's:
abs(1-0) = 1
abs(0-1) = 1
abs(1-1) = 0
abs(0-0) = 0
Image polarity, greyscale, color, bilevel and so on make it a little more complex, but only a little.
In English, if you absolute subtract two aligned images of the same region, everything that is the same goes to zero. Anything else shows up as a brighter spot. The bottom line is, you can't hide something moving unless a satellite imaging system can't see it at all. Not the case with large rocks, I'm afraid.
So, no studying PtoE, company fundamentals, etc. etc. Further proving that the Stock Market is almost entirely disconnected from the underlying companies. Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.
This is true mostly for new or trendy companies in trendy spaces. Boring companies that have been around for a long time are often priced based on the future dividends they're expected to pay. They don't get any attention, though, because those that make money on speculating can't make any money by trading them. The speculators and brokers don't want people paying attention to fundamentals. Volumes would plummet so how would they make money? There would be no churn. And then they'd have to sell the million dollar Manhattan apartment where they keep their mistress.
It's similar to the difference between trading Beanie Babies (or whatever faddy collectible is popular now) and something like wheat.
The US government would have invested Social Security in the Stock Market, but they can't find a spokesperson from the financial industry you can advocate the scheme without drooling at the prospect.
The US government already invests that money by spending it and leaving a bond in its place.
And how did they invest it? Well, there are some big craters in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Bingo halls and casinos also seem to have profited.
He seems to have intuited this.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
