If that's the case she is a good example for other technically aligned females who want to know more about the technology they are using.

Now anyone can help to analyze the data: http://www.higgshunters.org/

Why think only offensive, when things could be really interesting with the possibility to code algorithmic defensive mechanisms. The execution time of the hacks on the server could be adjustable and be protected from hacking. That would allow for human reactions to come into play. Besides the actual weapon systems could be programmable, but this is not the traditional Counter-Strike anymore I guess.

I'd say the game actually would get more interesting if hacking would be allowed. It would expand the skill set demanded to win.

So called Big Bang happened everywhere. The observable universe is finite, the universe infinite.

Except for example in the case where the said memories and the material for you to realize your existence are being fed to you, without you realizing that, from a cyclical tape storage of your existence. It doesn't really even matter if it's on reverse. But yes, it's the moment of now that spans the entire universe.

Multiple accounts are useful, for example to bundle up news on certain topics only. It's no different from following only certain RSS feeds of a news site. It's good service and a way to filter the signal out of noise.

It's nothing like exposing oneself to long and short wave radiation, oxidisation, radioactivity and telomere self-destruction for some 100 years and then dying because of that. Who would do that?

At least Millennium Falcon seems to be in the correct shape.

Maybe you should ask NASA.

I suggest all robot crew. Telepresence capabilities and careful modelling and tracking of the environment will enable pseudo-realtime exploration on Mars. This is possible now.

If a crew is sent I wonder if actually a bisexual polyamorous crew would be the most cohesive. The less defences the better I guess?

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

It should be noted also that the so called skeptics only come about when there's a news release of the climate change science, but they never come up with original science by themselves. There's a reason for that however: the big climate conspiracy and censorship. No way it's about the quality of the counter-arguing papers. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

So far they have been hugely more successful than the models made by the more skeptical scientists. The only thing is that there aren't any scientific counter-arguing models, or those models have not lived for long. The models can only get better with new data, and more precisely they are modeling a warming earth based on the anthropogenic energy input. If you think models fail miserably then they should be failing even more. But that's not happening. Besides at the moment the warming trend is well in the area the long term models have predicted.

Or just share stuff.

Maybe the companies mentioned in the article should sue themselves rather than each other. The cumulative losses from the panic strategy moves by the companies who were not in anyway in control must be astronomical (per the official RIAA magical calculations). It seems that they are trying to come up with something to pay the consultant bills, picking each other in vain. I hope nobody wins, the consumers already did.