But none have docked with another vehicle (or at least a station) in orbit. That's the first here: a government agency is allowing a completely private craft to dock with a space station. Such docking may--and hopefully will--become commonplace with at least SpaceX and Orbital Sciences providing cargo runs (the first ISS mission for Orbital Sciences is scheduled for the fall).

In the past, the vehicles have been turned over to NASA (or other relevant space agency) whereas here, SpaceX has maintained ownership of the launch vehicle and capsule. It's one of the reasons that NASA has been so paranoid over the launch is because it has less direct control of it.

A simpleinertial navigation system helps on the fine navigation, and Google already has tech that compares what the camera sees to its databases to tell you where you are, what's around, and so forth.

Navigation is easy. Collision avoidance is hard and the part that most people care about when it comes to self-driving cars.

Incidentally, any time you suspect someone is using a GPS jammer, take note of the plates or the commercial ID number and report it. The FCC is sensitive to their use and the fines are unpleasant.

Gross navigation is handled by GPS and fine navigation uses cameras and other sensors to figure out what to do locally or if GPS fails. It has to factor in other cars, after all.

Gamma ray bursts are not objects themselves, but the result of the death of a supermassive star (or more rarely the merging of two neutron stars) and last no more than a few minutes, though most last under one minute. The energy output is considerable, but it's larger than you listed, putting out more energy than the sun ever will over the course of 10 billion years (from initial formation through red giant). We really don't want a nearby one pointed at us.

On the totally unrelated topic of your signature, I prefer the following version: "Set a man a fire, and he'll be warm for the night. Set a man afire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

The prince wasn't entirely uninjured as he appeared in public immediately after with a bandaged hand and possibly a limp, but you're right that the lethal force was absorbed by the assassin's body. Like the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, it's really hard to get a reliable bomb of any size hidden on or in a person and be able to do a significant amount of damage.

Would it hurt so much to rename it "GNU Licensed Image Development Environment" or similar?

That's actually one of the best name suggestions I've seen. It would certainly open up some interesting new logo possibilities.

How did you like it? I've been wondering about it, and I've gotten the book-reading bug back after losing it for a few years. It's been on the list to check out for a while, but I've not even looked at it at a book store.

I also like Michio Kaku and appreciate what he's done to make science more accessible, but he can make other scientists look bad because his speculation is rarely put in context. I know people who think that Neil deGrasse Tyson (to pick one) lacks vision because he doesn't go as far out as Kaku does. There's a difference between Kaku's speculation about what might be and the grounded reality of presenters such as deGrasse-Tyson: both of them are great presenters, but Kaku's delivery can suggest some very unrealistic chances of what the future may bring.

United Flight 232 is proof of that. While 111 were killed, 185 people survived the crash (including the cockpit crew), including 125 people who had only minor injuries and 13 people who survived without injury. From the Wikipedia article:

The tip of the right wing hit the runway first, spilling fuel, which ignited immediately. The tail section broke off from the force of the impact, and the rest of the aircraft bounced several times, shedding the landing gear and engine nacelles and breaking the fuselage into several main pieces. On the final impact, the right wing was sheared off and the main part of the aircraft skidded sideways, rolled over on to its back, and slid to a stop upside-down in a corn field to the right of Runway 22.

The article also notes that "[m]any passengers were able to walk out through the ruptures to the structure."

It's not quite what you were looking for--no cartwheeling of the fuselage--but it's proof that an airplane crash that results in the effective destruction of an aircraft can be survivable.