The french have a tradition of making themselves the official arbiters of things they don't actually do anything. See also FAI - Federation Aeronautique Internationale, the guys who required the Neil Armstrong to get an FAI Sporting License in order for them to recognize that the Moon Landings took place "officially"
The IAU doesn't agree with that. They renamed many of the craters originally named on Apollo, for no other reason is that they are the IAU and couldn't stand that someone else was actually doing something, rather than talking about it.
I think that governments are perfectly capable of becoming corrupted even without Bill's influence.
The harm that Google has $5 billion that they want.
Fine, accept code from foreigners, but be well aware that this will make is certain that it will not be used in many corporate sites. One of the items I have to certify when using open-source in a corporate environment is that there is no foreign content. Otherwise it cannot be used. No one is going to go through the source code from something like OpenOffice and look for malicious code, and show that it does not exist, if it has off-shore content, it will not be used, period.
Given that the mere innocent mention of certain Prophets can incite a riot, I don't think even that is a good criterion.
Doing otherwise gives the most irrational types a trump card on what constitutes free speech.
My grampa was not retarded, so he wouldn't have liked it.
This is 100% nonsense, every single point. As long as people think these are the issues, there is no hope for fixing. The funding and money parts are the most absurd - American education is grotesquely over-funded.
Up near Hudson Bay in Canada is a good candidate. That's where the Canadian Shield proto-continent is, mostly unaltered since Archaen times.
Where does it say that?
More likely, he figured it wouldn't get accepted if it was utterly uninteresting. Faux outrage is far more compelling.
What the heck are you talking about? Piston rings are there to save money by not requiring precision honing of the bore and piston. If you select the materials correctly you have never needed piston rings.
Just about every model airplane engine now uses a piston with no rings, and it scales perfectly well. It's just a matter of how much it costs, and the cost has been prohibitive.
And yes, you do need to match the coefficients of expansion in some combinations of materials, and also taper the bore so that it doesn't "bell-mouth" from expanding more that the top, where it's hot, than the bottom. Either that, or allow it to be mismatched, put in even more taper, and allow heat and expansion to create the proper fit. In either case, chrome the bore, or put on a hard anodized surface to keep it from wearing out prematurely.
People knew this all 50-60 years ago, and used it in some cases. It's not cost-effective, but it's certainly feasible.
Coleman Hawkings brother?
No false positives = a little too convenient.
The utter lack of evidence is undeniable proof of a gigantic PLOT!
"Maker Shed"? Really? People have been using the phrase "workshop" in some variant for probably 1000 years. You don't need to make a up a new phrase for it.