Watch that mouth or your mommy will kick you out of the basement.
Wow still to gutless to take a karma hit by showing your face. Go away now and wish you had the guts to show your face in the light of day.

No you are wrong.
"Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good: rules about drugs, prostitution, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and yes, wearing clothes. "
Let's tear this apart one by one.

'rules about drugs"
No you are wrong. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/medical-quackery.htm#page=0 not to mention FDA testing of drugs for safety and effectiveness. You are probably talking about recreational drugs but even then you will want laws to keep them safe and more or less pure and not mixed with who knows what.

"abortion,"
No you are wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-found-guilty-of-murder.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Even if you support abortion rights if you are not a total nut job you will want laws that make them safe like requiring a doctor perform them.

"prostitution"
No you are wrong. Even if you believe that prostituion should be legal you would want laws regulating the minimum age of the prositute and health checks of the workers.

"doctor-assisted suicide"
Yea what could go wrong with that. Again you would want laws to make sure that the patient understood and that they where not pressured into such a choice.

"wearing clothes"
Like hell! Don't you know that the only people that want to walk around naked are people that nobody wants to see naked?

This is all just extreme libertarian clap trap. It is as unworkable as anything Marx or Ayn Rand ever came up with. And just as with Marx and Rand it is too extreme and over simplified to be workable. What I am pointing out is that you are wrong. You really do not want to get ride of laws on those subjects. You want different laws that reflect your world view. There is nothing wrong with that just work within the system and change the laws and stop pretending you want to get rid of laws on those subjects because frankly they are needed.

"Cheap land? Check.
Cold frigid body of water? Check
Cheaper workers? Check
Lower taxes? Check"
Ever hear of the TVA? What about eastern Washington state and Oregon?
Tenesse and North Carolina have all of those things plus cheap power.
Washington and Oregon have all but maybe the lower taxes but I bet they are lower than California plus the cheap power. We are talking about data centers so they do not employ a huge number of people.
I think you are right about start ups but here is the rub. The VC firms and tech press are all in SF, Seattle, and NY. Getting coverage and money will be much harder to get. People on the coasts do not understand that the US is full of great beautiful places to live that are dirt cheap and dang close to empty. The problem comes down to money and press.
 

That is funny but their are good reasons. One do you have cheap Hydro power in Duluth? Fiber? The people arguing about latency are a bit silly. South Florida to Seattle is only 14ms distance so it would be about a third of that Duluth to LA or NY.
The places that they are building data centers have cheap hydro power and even better cheap cold water. Frankly the ideal place for a Data Center is probably the Hoover Dam. The Colorado river is actually too cold because of the dam so dumping the heat back into it would probably be a good thing for the ecosystem.

what a pathetic little baby... Ahh. No guts, nothing worth saying, yet you scream profanities like you matter.

I did. You didn't Your useless, never reply to any of my posts unless you are man enough to not be an AC and take the karma hit for your trolling.

"drone (vs a V1) might be that a drone returns to a "base" and lands (or is otherwise recovered) to complete its mission."
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21
Probably the only dividing lines that work would be that a cruise missile contains an warhead and is destroyed in the attack and that it is a single function device aka it is just a weapon.
A drone can be used for many functions including delivering weapons but it is not the actual weapon.

No you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_imagery#Resolution_and_data
The best commercial sat has a resolution of about .41m Which is well below the resolution need to read a license plate. Also since you would have to view it at an oblique angle instead of almost vertically.
Second the high resolution imaging sats are in low earth orbit so you do not have 24/7 coverage.

So you have no idea what you are talking about and have contributed nothing but noise to this thread. You may go now and leave your geek card at the door.
     

that would be Zenith Z100s

Don't you know that everybody in the military is a total idiot and that any random Slashdot users knows more than they do about just about everything.
AKA the world according to way to many clueless people.

Ahh no. Military aircraft have INS as well as Doppler radar as well as GPS. We also have Paveway bombs that are laser guided and don't use GPS, Maverick AGMs that use optical or laser guidance, and even just plane dumb bombs.

So write your own.

It would take too long to traget and launch. You would be much better off with a smaller warhead and missile than a Trident. And then you have the problem with fall out of the radiological and political nature.

Target a small boat near a passenger ship full of people.

Shooting down an ICBM is not impossible. Hard yes. If North Korea shot off an ICBM at the US we would multiple chances of shooting down. First would be with a sea based SM-3 then with the GMDs in Alaska and California and if we are lucky THAADs and then PAC-3s. We would not take on shot at it but I would say there is a very good chance that we could stop an NK ICBM since it would probably lack decoys and other penaids and there would not be hundreds of them.