This is why I like preferential voting. You get to vote for your preferred candidate and if that person isn't elected your vote still counts toward what you consider the lesser evil. You number your candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets an absolute majority the candidate with the least primary votes is eliminated and their votes distributed to the next preference and so on until a candidate has an absolute majority.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The moon is tidally locked so you're probably worrying about the wrong horizon. Go ahead and build on different sides - how does that help you when the moon is on the opposite side of the earth?
As someone who has used both cutting methods very recently this seems a little implausible.
If you put a spinning blade into a metal safe it is going to make a hell of a racket which is probably not an ideal situation for a thief
Now a plasma cutter is one of the power hungriest tools I have ever used. I wouldn't count on even being able to run it off a standard household point. In addition you're going to need an air compressor which is hardly a quiet beast. Making a racket and then coming out of someone's house carrying a plasma cutter and dragging an air compressor will make even the least curious neighbour inquisitive.
Documents of a proprietary nature could include documents that disagree with the published findings.
Irrelevant. Let us say that I privately compile useful data and sell it to recoup the costs incurred in collecting it plus a little profit for my trouble - that is, I own data of proprietary nature. Now if I sell (or give because I believe in the value of the research) a copy to a public scientist that does not mean they get to put my data on the public record the first time they get a FOIA - effectively dropping the value of my data to zero.
So, if you want to force public scientists to release proprietary material you can choose between:
(a) public scientists not being able to gain access to private data sets which will stifle their research
(b) public scientists being sued into oblivion which will really stifle their research
My back of the envelope calculations suggest that even for a straight line shot from the moon with no other forces in play a one degree change in any direction would result in you missing the earth entirely. Now when you take into account gravity from at least three bodies, what atmospheric conditions will be like in X time when your shot actually reaches earth (keep in mind that for most shots you'll likely be going through atmosphere on an angle), I'd be very impressed if you landed your shot in the right country.
In addition your shell has to not burn up in the atmosphere. Even if you get all that right there's going to be a significant time lag between when you fire your shot and when it arrives so you're only good against very stationary targets. Even if you fire at Mach 10 a competing bomber crew is probably going to have taken off, destroyed the target with an accurate, guided solution, and be home in bed by the time your shot arrives.
In short, an interesting exercise but there are probably quicker, cheaper, and more reliable ways to hit stationary targets.