Hubble is moving much faster than us. Relativity says it experiences less time, not more.
Underground cities are possible. Nuclear powered grow lamps lighting up hydroponic farms would get you all the vegetables you would need. Water might be a problem, but I think it is a NASA solved problem on a small scale, so likely it could be solved on a larger scale.
Mars is just as doable, it might require lenses to concentrate the sun's light, or going with grow lights, but we could do it just fine.
What we are missing with both of these is political will, not the ability.
All of the methods used to extract power from those things have negative environmental effects, yes, see my other reply for a breakdown.
Did I say anything about Fossil Fuels? Don't put words in my mouth. There is no power generation method without some kind of tragedy of the commons (externalized costs).
Nuclear - Waste
Hydro - Land destruction/fish extinctions
Solar - High Land use/nasty chemicals in fabrication
Wind - Dead birds/rare earths used in construction with all the poisoning that involves
Tidal - Removing energy from the tides which effects tidal species
Please, show me the mythical free energy method you developed that doesn't have any externalized costs.
So...you believe Harry Reid when he said he made it up to score points in the political arena?
Pretty clear here, Harry says that Romney paid taxes, but now Harry wants to see Romney's tax returns. Would you show other people your tax returns?
Because there is no mythical free energy machine that is producing power with no negative aspects. So, since you care so much about the negative aspects of power generation, I encourage you to turn off your main circuit breaker and live in the dark.
More on this, many of the Democrats of the time, and shortly before agreed with the WMD problem, this wasn't some kind of lie told by the government, it was a known issue with Iraq.
But again, you might not actually be old enough to remember this stuff from Clinton's time in the white house.
Your coworker was probably right, as WMD (chemical weapons) were shown used against the Kurds in his lifetime, but apparently you aren't old enough to remember it. The WMD came from the US, but were not meant for that purpose but as a deterant against an invasion by Iran. Also, during this most recent war, there were chemical weapons recovered and destroyed in Iraq, but you may have missed the news as it wasn't a big deal to the military as they already knew they were there.
I have seen plenty of ignorance from the pro Snowden side just in this comment section. Much of the ignorance is over what Snowden actually revealed. What was the government doing that was so bad? Please provide links to your assertions, bonus points if you provide links to things being done that are actually against the mandate of the NSA:
The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States government, responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes
Can you show me anywhere where it was said that the NSA was recording phone calls, reading mail (even email) or any other kind of surveillance on US citizens (except the metadata program, which was already ended by the time of the revelation according to the gov).
Every program I have seen exposed by Snowden was foreign surveillance, which is kind of sort of what we ask the NSA to do...
Except that the two blasts were in different locations. It is possible that it was path time differences between two lensed images.
Not to take anything away from all the jokes, but wouldn't Qo'onoS be in our Galaxy, not another one 7.8 billion light years away?
The best cure for hangovers is to drink a glass of water between each "drink". Prevention is the best cure known.