Always liked in BSG the detection of radioactive missiles inbound...

Though I liken the effect you describe as detailed in Star Trek Voyager I think, which profiled "Skipper" Torpedoes. Of course in the TV show, it used cloaking technology, would pop into detection, adjust course, and re-cloak. Though I expect the same would be true that anything would only really be detectable during burn, but once coasting might be pretty much invisible until another burn sequence is required.

I am no laser scientist, however I think much of the issues with lasers is that of power consumption, in that in order to get something useful a lot of power would be required. If one is willing to presume more less easy space travel, and the monumental energy expenditures that would require, applying some of that to the coherency of a laser would probably be trivial by comparison.

Such has been my experience. None of them last as long as they state. Those 5,7, and 10 year lengths I think are largely fictional. Also they may save on power, but power is pretty cheap, and the cost to buy the bulbs are about 10x more expensive, so I am not sure how much net savings there really are.

Canada would welcome the jobs. One could also argue that at least moving the jobs to Canada would have a larger net positive impact on the US economy anyway due to our trade relations. Not to mention if you are a unemployed US tech worker, a move to Canada for work isn't that big a deal either.

Build a phone so big no pocket can hope to contain. Problem solved.

Don't give them any ideas!

I suddenly had a though of the phone being a particular shape, and the pocket being a particular shape, preventing you from putting a non-iPhone into your pocket and conversely preventing iPhone users from wearing other jeans!

Also there is some joke in here about all iPhone users being skinny jean wearing hipsters anyway...

Not to defend Harper, but it was the Liberals and Jean that Ratified Koyoto, yet years later missed all the proposed targets, and even saying that, many of the other signing countries did also.

So it is worse to ignore the issue, or to engage it but then really do nothing in the end anyway? #Politics.

You mean the one that the US refused to ratify specifically because countries like China did not have to make the same sort of concessions?

Masters of OrionCraft? :)

http://xkcd.com/605/

Simplistic extrapolation will provide you with a simplistic answer.

The most important spec that needs improvement on pretty much all smart phones is that of battery length. All brands lie like thieves about how long they last. For being "portable" devices, anyone that really uses those 5" screens are going to be tethered to an outlet every few hours.

For my money, I would rather see development in efficiency of the display, and processor, and advances in battery capacity over any new feature being developed. I would rather see apps that have to be clever to use what resources are available that the usual cheap garbage bloat that comes with probably most of these poorly and cheaply designed applications. Give me a smart phone that I can actually USE all day, and that will be the one I buy. Currently I like most others are part of that roving zombie hoard looking for outlets all over the place, then shambling over to them in a rush to plug our dying devices in to try and eek out a couple more minutes of battery time.

"Sure if someone were to launch a really big rocket the targeted country could respond."

This is exactly why countries have 1000's of warheads. The inability to stop anything. Regan tried to implement StarWars program of ballistic defense, but like the movie was mostly fiction on the part of defense contractors skimming money. There are really only 4 ways to do it. The first is ICBM's. Emphasis on ballistic. You are not going to be able to intercept these with anything. On the plus side, making them is literally rocket science, and not easy, this is why not everyone has them. Many countries would like it, and have "space" programs to try and develop. However it is arguably easier to make a nuclear device than it is to make ICBM's. The second, are Those fired from subs, which are usually ICBM's anyway, and the subs are usually nuclear ships as well. Again limited who can build these things. Next there are bombers, however unless they are the stealthy kind, are pretty easy to detect and intercept. However bombers have a range, so you need places to land and refuel or strategic bases around the target country within range. Lastly there are ship fired tomahawks, again, limited usage, and also detectable and interceptable with Navy.

However you are right, the "poor man's" nuke could involve a rich mans yacht. However a much easier method would be to simply ship the thing in a shipping container with the latest Chinese wing dings. Shield the device perhaps to prevent detection in the off chance it is the one in 1000 that is actually checked. Then have it shipped by truck to some warehouse in the middle of a city someplace. Have it set to detonate when it reaches a certain threshold of GPS coordinates. No yachts required.

Just realized you probably meant respond with counter attack, rather than respond with attempted interception... whatever I'm posting it anyway... :)

That must run on dark fiber...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Bioethicist makes him sound like a scientist, his comments do not. As anyone with a wit of common sense can tell you for various reasons, some people live better longer than other people.

Perfect of example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

The current mayor of one of the larger cities in Canada, and has been since the 1970's and she is 93 years old. She is about to retire this year, even then when asked she wants to stay in the political game. To see her in an interview, she has certainly not diminished, and is probably sharper than most at any age. In another case a rock star in his 50's was diagnosed with early onset dementia in BC, Canada recently. That is a pretty big spread. Now you might be able to say, statistically 75 is about the right age, but you don't use statistics to figure about variables like that.

That fact is it varies from person to person for a lot of different reasons, genetics, lifestyle, environment, dumb luck, and for that reason only your own personal individual assessment is going to be relevant. Should people stop doing things that are good for them after 75 if they are feeling good, I don't think so. There are extremes of course, but for the most part I am not sure most people are like that.

I'll take things I hate about the internet and Facebook for 1000$...