Not exactly and no. When mass is redistributed (due to ice melting, plate tectonics, mantle convection, etc...) the shape of the geoid changes. However the total mass of the Earth is conserved. So if you are far enough away from the Earth to make it indistinguishable from a point mass, Earth's gravity remains constant.
There is no net change. Local gravity becomes weaker where the ice was and stronger where the melted ice now is.
The U.S. defines the edge of space as 50 miles (80 km), the rest of the world as 100 km. The discrepancy comes from the fact that it is a somewhat arbitrary boundary so both chose a round number in their respective measurement system. The two values are however reasonably close. For details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
You're full of shit. The ATV, Progress, and Soyuz all dock directly with the station.
Oh yes we do, it is called psychotherapy.
It depends on how you measure success. If you look at things like prison population, life expectancy, homicide rate, treatment of minorities, poverty, access to higher education, access to healthcare, work conditions, protection of civil liberties, freedom of the press, etc..., the U.S. is a shithole I wouldn't want to live in.
There are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, so we should be quite safe with 128 bits addresses.
It is trivial to add this capability to any RC aircraft. Just stick an ArduPilot in and you are done.
Neptunium-237 is weapon-usable as well.
Given that inmates don't have internet access, yes.
What makes you think China can't do the same ? They are probably the one you'll be buying the robots from anyway.
The problem with SDI was not the science, but the political idiocy of spending a fortune undermining deterrence instead of working toward mutual disarmament, and the economic impossibility of dealing with countermeasures.
Since you can't negotiate with an asteroid, and that they tend not to deploy decoys, this should work a lot better than SDI.
I think we could take care of the obviousness criterion with something like this:
To submit a patent you should be required to provide a spec, an implementation, and a reward. Then the spec is published and if anyone can come up with an alternate implementation within a few days (or weeks), or prove that the submitted implementation doesn't work, he gets the reward and the patent is refused, otherwise the submitter keeps the reward and the patent is granted.
In addition, every time you submit a patent that gets rejected, the reward doubles.