Just take down everything permanently because it'll eventually infringe another corporati--excuse me, "non-human person"'s copyright in the future anyway.
Gotta keep their prices secure from someone who might try and steal 'em, you know.
It's about being certain that the system is secure.
To ensure system security, install this software on the system.
Then unplug all cables from it that would allow usage of the system by anyone ever, because you cannot ensure the system is secure while users still have access to it.
With respect to point 3, they shouldn't be allowing that. (And, in fact, a quick test on attempting to create accounts that are distinct solely by addition/removal of periods shows that they don't. It even mentions in the message rejecting the address that they do this.)
As far as sloppy typing, well, the only real solution to this is moving to a firstname.lastname@example.org email address. The odds that someone has a similar name to you and picks a random string that's somehow relevant to them and has similar relevance to you such that you would pick it as well, are quite a bit lower than simply relying on the vagaries of what your parents thought it would be cute to call you.
No, it says that the cardinality of the sets of trials that meet those outcomes is the same. There's a difference between the two, which basically only comes up in probability at infinity.
It's the same difference as the one that states that the probability of choosing any real number at random is 0, even though obviously if you're choosing a real number at random one of them must come up.
For what it's worth, GMail treats all e-mail addresses that are identical other than dots as the same e-mail address internally, so email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, and firstname.lastname@example.org are all going to be the same account.
I've noticed that forum spammers like to use that trick to get around "each account must have a unique e-mail" settings on certain types of forum software.
I'm not so sure that they do (need a body count, that is) - in fact, I'm pretty sure that Portal and Portal 2 are basically what Myst's legacy are at this point, and neither of those has you racking up a body count (other than deaths by failure, ha ha).
I'm pretty sure an RC plane costs more than the shooter's pants, so he would technically be able to sue the pants off of the shooter and still get some money as well.
Good point (and one that basically points out that Mr. Whittington is the one attempting to shut off debate, in this case by basically implying Milligan is a fucking loony).
That said, the author of the paper is still just wanking at best.
Basically, the issue is not that we need to necessarily reduce our energy usage, but that we need to improve our methods of handling energy production - which is something the critics he's referring to would find a ghastly prospect, having entrenched interests in making negative predictions about humanity.
And, of course, the implication in his conclusion that because there are risks, an action is not worth taking... well, I find that attitude ethically problematic as without risks, you stunt the potential of humanity.
"Too cheap to meter" only makes sense with government-owned utilities, and then only if startup and maintenance costs (including fuel under maintenance) are both negligible.
That said, I suspect geothermal power is actually better-suited to being "too cheap to meter", but getting the necessary power output requires significant advances in mining-related technologies anyway (ideally your heat-uptake loop has as large of a heat differential as possible, meaning drilling a borehole near or even into the mantle if possible).
Eh, some of the trends are unsustainable projected into the long run.
That said, projected into the long run, there's a 100% chance of the Earth being destroyed.
Taking into account assorted opportunity costs as well (including reduced productivity from pollution-related illnesses from other sources), I would say the correct answer is "yes".
Aside from that declaring it "evil" is specifically a move to shut off debate?
It's an intentionally bad choice of words on his part, designed to garner publicity and be entirely unproductive. Referring to it as "bad" still allows room for the debate to exist - it puts him specifically on one side of it, but that's fine - whereas referring to it as "evil" shifts it from a "should we do this or not" debate to a debate about morality, which, honestly, is not what a debate about mining anything should be about.
For what it's worth, I agree with two of the three terms you're using to describe mining the moon (the point of disagreement being "completely futile", as I'd like to see advancements in automated mining technology, which would have uses down here in the old gravity well).
A little bane.
Is he fighting a little Batman?
2/9ths of the way through its life, considering it as "mature enough to be able to get into the Senate", maybe. It's not anywhere near dead yet.
So, more like "since it's been in 2nd grade".