Even with a craft docked to every module, they probably wouldn't stop having the crew shelter in docked vessel(s) capable of crew-return.

If you have the crew in arbitrary locations, then damage could isolate the crew from their lifeboats. If you require the crew to be adjacent to their lifeboat, damage to that module is still a large hazard, since you have to evacuate it post-failure. By sheltering in the lifeboats themselves, they become the only critical target - damage to anywhere aside from the Soyuz capsule, Soyuz orbital module, and the docking interface is 'fine' for crew safety, aside from secondary debris concerns.

Given the emphasis placed on crew safety, I'd think it'd take an awful lot to convince them to keep the crew outside of the lifeboats during a potential conjunction. The increased risk simply isn't a worthwhile tradeoff for the working time you'd reclaim.

The Dragon (or any other commercial-crew vehicle) would simply add another location to shelter in, and potentially remove the need to shelter in the capsule during some Russian spacewalks (which use the docking module as an airlock, causing crew to potentially be cut off from a Soyuz docked to the Russian segment were an emergency to occur).

The point is to raise awareness that many of them are people too, not just scum that get in your way. From the sound of it, you are the kind of person they're trying to raise awareness *in*.

And many (most?) shelters require homeless to leave during the day (excluding sufficiently harsh weather, where the homeless shelter often becomes a hypothermia/hyperthermia shelter during the day), necessitating they spend most of their time on the streets.

And when there is only one computer available for watching objectional meterial and it is in constant use? Hey, I know, why don't we set up "Free Speech Zones"?

Seriously, though, once you accept the principle of requiring the library patron to move to another computer, it can easily become a free speech issue. As other have pointed out, it might start with porn, but what about academic books on human anatomy? Who gets to decide what is objectionable?

When I worked at a library, the policy was that if someone was viewing porn in a central, high-traffic area, and we got a complaint, there were two basic options: ask the patron to move to a less visible computer (nothing special, simply for example use a computer a little further from the isle rather than the one facing the whole room) or ask the patron to have a shroud added to the kiosk (a standard option for anyone to reduce shouldersurfing - I never saw one actually used). The patron absolutely had the right to view the porn regardless of the complain, so our request to the patron was based on politeness and courtesy rather than a requirement or order - they could refuse it.

I was told it was very rare to have a complaint come up, however (I never had to deal with one personally, since I worked mostly in the Young Adult section, next to the Children's section, and our computers generally weren't the ones picked to view porn on anyway).

The electronics are not shot. The article is misleading. They do not brick it. They blacklist the IMEI

Unfortunately, "bricking" rarely means what it used to - now it generally seems to mean "unable to be used for (the speaker's) primary usage case" (usually a software-based broad denial of access to functionality) rather than the former meaning along the lines of "damage to hardware such that the device cannot function to any significant extent, and would require hardware component replacement/repair in order to regain that functionality".

The one counter example was the final Hubble servicing mission, where for a while there were plans to do it with a robot instead of astronauts (and hence why it had so many unusual, specialized, robot-like tools involved). In the actual mission, several parts did not go as planned, with the most extreme being the removal of a handle - it was supposed to be 4 simple screws, but they wound up having to physically flex-and-yank it to break it off. If it had been a robot, the question is if it could've exerted that much force on the object, since there were no planned tasks requiring something similar.

Essentially, humans bring with them a decent sized generic skills & capabilities toolbox, that you generally can't leave behind (presuming a sufficiently generalized spacesuit). Robots are unlikely to have capabilities outside the scope of their predicted mission (including that mission's contingency cases). That grants humans an extra degree of versatility.

A reliable, long-lived NT version thrown in the same category as the widely-reviled, end-of-its-line ME version?

While the results prove it reasonable in a 'lump low-count options together' sense, they seem an odd pair to combine into one entry. About the only thing they share were rough concurrency, though in terms of marketting, ME was supposed to be the partner to XP iirc.

The distinction is, this is a fusion reactor used to generate neutrons, not to be an electricity generator. It's the latter part that's such a difficult challenge.

I believe the distinction is damaged versus melted. They had thought only a limited portion of the rods was likely damaged, but found that a (smaller) portion was much more seriously damaged (melted). It doesn't actually directly comment on the accuracy of the 55% figure.

Also, given the other articles (such as The Japan Times linked below), the 5 ft. of melted rod appears to be circumstantial conjecture based on a likely prolonged period of being not being water-covered, rather than having a more concrete or direct basis. So the actual extent of the damage (worse or better) is still unclear.

The size categories yield some odd bed partners:
15" or less: Small to mid laptops
15-30": Mid-to-large laptops, CRT displays, most LCDs
30-60": Most two-monitor setups of any main/old monitor size, and high end LCDs
60-90": Presumably 2-4 monitors, depending on quality, and some solo tv-as-monitor setups
More than 90": Presumably above 3-5 monitors, depending on quality; 3+ large LCDs, or 5+ 18" CRTs, along with more exotic displays, such as projectors

Given the vague wording of the question, it also lacks any kind of distinguishment between multiple single-headed computers, and lone multi-monitor setups, which seem like very different usage cases to me. My two ancient 18" CRTs, one standalone and the other the head of a KVM switch, leaves me rubbing shoulders with the $1000+ single-LCD users.

The Italian Space Agency built most of the 'US' segments. I know they built Node 1 (Unity), Node 2 (Harmony), and Node 3 (Tranquility); I believe they built the US Lab (Destiny) as well. So while they did build the MPLM modules (including Leonardo), it's hardly their largest product on the station ;)

(Italy built the US segments due to US budget cuts; in return for eating some of the cost, they gained infrastructure and expertise. One way that paid off was with Columbus, the European lab - the same number of storage/science racks as the Nodes, but smaller and lighter, so it cost the European Space Agency less of its bartered 'upmass' to send it to orbit, allowing them to send it with several of its racks pre-installed, unlike most other segments of the station which arrived empty)