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.
well if the italians thought that their citizen was getting railroaded in the US contrary to justice I would hope that they would advocate for the freedom for their citizen.
Absolutely - and they would be well within their rights to offer consular support and even express their dissatisfaction through diplomatic channels but ultimately it would remain an American legal issue. I don't think that's the issue in question here.
although notice your straw man I never said that obama should step in and put an end to the matter.
Actually, that's exactly what you said. It's a direct quote what you said.
i just said that she shouldn't be deported.
Okay, we'll run with that as your intent then. The United States has an extradition treaty with Italy. I think it dates back to the mid eighties. It looks like this case would meet all the legal requirements. If the extradition should be blocked at a political level then there would be the prospect of other countries deciding that their extradition treaty with the United States wasn't worth the paper it was written on and tearing it up or preparing to randomly raise their middle finger to extradition requests from the United States if it wasn't politically expedient at home.
what do you mean "reasons why you're not very well liked?" americans? or me?
I was referring to an opinion of Americans and the American government that is quite prevalent internationally. As for you personally, I don't have enough information to make a judgement.
An earlier post made reference to some EU jurisdictions allowing double jeopardy to which you replied - and note that I'm quoting you here - "Sure whatever, as long as they do it to themselves and not Americans." Now correct me if I'm very much mistaken but that reads a lot like if a foreigner comes to the US and commits a crime they will be tried under US laws and legal principles but if an American goes to a foreign country and commits a crime we expect American legal principles to override the laws of that foreign country. Can you see how this might come across as a trifle arrogant?
I don't care if Knox is guilty or innocent. I expect proper legal process to be followed. If you don't like the Italian legal system you shouldn't have signed an extradition treaty with them. For further reading see how the US has tended to react when told no on the matter of extradition even when the country had no treaty obligation to extradite the person in question. If you need help finding a starting place then here's a hint: look slightly south from Uzbekistan.
So... if an Italian was accused of committing a crime in the United States and for some reason the Italians were unhappy with the way the justice system in the United States worked would you be happy for Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to intervene in the US justice system - to "step in and put an end to the whole matter?"
Now I know this is hard for you to understand but many people in the world do not consider 'the way we do it in America' to be synonymous with 'the right, only and best way'. This sort of attitude is one of quite a few reasons why you're not very well liked.
So let's see how they did. Overthrow the Shah - oil price spike. We can argue about whether the Iran-Iraq war and another price spike would have happened without that meddling - I tend to suspect not. Invade Iraq - oil price spike. Invade Iraq again - bigger oil price spike.
Now US meddling is not the only factor affecting oil prices but it looks like the aim was to destabilise oil production so that the price went high enough that the US oil industry could make some profits too.
The logical solution would seem to be to give a discount on renewing your drivers licence and registration if you agree to be an organ donor. I'm sure a Nobel Prize winning economist could calculate the economic benefit of getting more people off transplant lists to see how much of a discount we could give and remain revenue neutral.
Allow the family to overrule a person's decision to be an organ donor but if they do the estate becomes liable for the amount discounted plus interest. If the estate cannot pay they have to. I suspect that the number of people with some sort of objection to a decision by a relative to donate their organs will decrease significantly if it bites them in the hip pocket.