I do believe you've forgotten SELinux and requiring passwords for your particular tool.

This has actually been tried.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

I must say that it is _completely_ ethical to discuss adoption with fertility patients. Depending on the medical issues, they can be dangerous for the mother and the fetus, draining for both parents, and hideously expensive whether or not covered by insurance. It is the doctor's role to explain the _options_ and their consequences.

There are many equivalents. A lifestyle change can often be more effective treatment than the most extensive medication or surgery, whether it be moving to a better climate to ease asthma, moving to a less sunny climate for people with a history of skin cancer, giving up smoking, getting exercise and improving diet for someone with early diabetes, getting enough sleep, etc. Discussion of lifestyle and the medical consequences of it is part of a doctor's responsibility.

> I Doubt any kind of genital surgery was common in the 19th century

I'd certainly agree that the transplantation or reconstruction of working sexual organs was unavailable. But what, precisely, would you call castration, circumcision, clitorectomy, C-section, or genital piercings? Even abortions and surgical assistance with cysts, tumors, and physical trauma all existed, through they would have been emergency treatments rather than scheduled treatment.

You've a point about state law. I was admittedly referring to federal law.

Guns can be _extremely effective_ at changing governments, ranging from assassination of critical leaders to armed revolt. The assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria triggered World War I, which reshaped Europe and governments and economies around the world.

Then you need to review the Ninth Amendment, which spelled out that rights not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution may still exist and be recognized in a Constitutionally relevant way. There had been hesitance about stating rights in the Constitution explicitly meaning that rights _not_ spelled out would no longer be acknowledged as valid.

I've seen people harassed by the police for carrying costume swords, with no edge, at a Shakespeare performance fresh from a day at a Renaissance festival. The police tried to confiscate his sword, without any receipt. When it was clear he would not surrender it without being arrested and creating a paper trail for his confiscated property, they eventually turned him loose.

The earliest "gun control laws" were applied by Imperial governments to colonists, to control a growing civilian population with a remotely managed and badly outnumbered Imperial military in _every_ nation's colonies. Then there was a long gap, due to the War for Independence and the 2nd Amendment, then it started up as a US federal policy in the 1930's applied to machine guns and sawed off shotguns. It grew in the 1960's _due to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King_, which illustrated the growing risk of assassination for respected leaders.

Not according to typesetters, POSIX ANSII, or any of the forms of UTF8.

I'm afraid that analyzing those disasters in terms of the _specific_ mechanical failures misses the point. It's possible to spend a project's entire budget, and go profoundly over budget to the point of complete failure, by trying to find and resolve each individual bug as it turns up. I'm afraid that the frequency of space shuttle failures was _amazingly_ low considering the flaws in the overall manufacturing and design process, and I do applaud the individual engineers and inspectors who did their best to keep those craft alive. It seems to have been a constant, hammering refrain of "we have to change this bit to work with that other bit which no one could have foreseen", or in the case of the O rings, "now we cannot launch in cold weather". It's extremely expensive, and demanding, to keep any project alive with that sort of segmented design from conflicting designers and manufacturers, funding turf wars, and scattered manufacture. From my personal systems and international work, it's a _nightmare_.

Pointing out that Dream Chaser would not have that particular failure is irrelevant to the flaws that create these kinds of failure modes of interlocking systems. These failure modes kept playing out for the basic Shuttle design in equipment failures, in launch delays, and in several cases, in the deaths of all astronauts aboard. So I'm afraid that focusing on preventing mechanical disasters like the O ring needs to go further upstream, to the political process.

> Not to mention WHY there is a war in the first place

Why _wouldn't_ there be one? Given the ties between religious wars, ethnic strife, historical conflicts, economic classes, and control of land, water, food, and engergy, conflict is inevitable for any large group. The scale and nature of the conflict is what will be in question. Why would there _not_ be some level of warfare at anty time?

Not at cruising altitude. However, any wifi could be used with Skype and other VOIP technologies, or email or web traffic. So the lack of cell towers is not such a problem. The lack of _bandwidth_ may be an issue. I'm sure, from experience, that any wifi on the planes will be heavily bandwidth limited and proxy limited to avoid carrying video, possibly even voice data.

Also, closer to the ground, cell phones work quite well. For example, they should work well when approaching the landing destination.

> Challenger failed because the failed o-ring between the segments of an SRB caused a jet of flame that impinged on the external tank.

Challenger and Columbia both failed for procedural reasons, not really the mechanical ones that in the end destroyed them.Richard Feynman exposed a lot of them in his biography where he discussed the investigation into the Challenger disaster. Management had one view about the reliability of the craft, and the engineers had another, which they were prevented from saying. That means the engineers are being told to lie, as a matter of course.

Another difficulty was the mandated complexity of the design. In order to accomodate contracts from so many states, it was being designed and built with different components by different teams in different Senatorial districts and being assembled, then shipped, extensive distances for the Shuttle itself and the separate boosters. This is _insane_ for complex designs that have to survive extremely stressful environments that are too expensive to test. I'd be extremely concerned about any software project that did the same thing.

Presidents are politicians. They must keep in contact with the voters to get re-elected, and the accessibility of the current president has been welcome. It helps defuse concerns about his level of education separating him from ordinary citizens, or forgetting what it's like to be black.

Assessing the strange "what if he'd been carrying a weapon of mass destruction" concerns:

                        1) The simplest pony yield atom bombs have to weigh at least 40 pounds for the nuclear material alone, based on rough guidelines for U-235 critical mass published in various magazines during my career. Jumping the fence and sprinting across the White House lawn, carrying something that heavy is difficult and _will_ give the Secret Service personnel more time. Such a device would be more effective _outside_ the White House during a semi-public event where the President is outdoors, such as an inauguration.
                      2) Chemical attacks have similar problems. An aerosol or chemical poison would have to basically flood the air of the White House, which has quite good climate control inside. That means getting past the ventilation system, which would be a _very_ good place to put the sensors and stop the air flow if there were such an attack.
                    3) Bacteriological weapons would, again, have to get from the attacker's entry to the President. Such a biological agent would be more effectively spread by leaking it during a White House tour, not by a run across the White House lawn.

The Secret Service reacted well, with measured restraint. Better staffed guard posts might be useful, but they are _expensive_. If you estimate the presence of 20 more patrolling guards, 24x7, at roughly $100,000/guard/shift covered, that's roughly $6,000,000/year. Which federal budget shall we strip for that funding?