This is actually due to diffraction-induced beam divergence, not low reflectivity, or the wrong angle.

Funding has to come from somewhere, and fraud in a field tends to end future funding in that field, even if it holds promise. Case in point: organic semiconductors took a huge funding hit after the Bell labs fiasco. Another case in point: public funding of bubble fusion research was basically banned after the Oak Ridge controversy, even though the basic principle holds promise.

You may forgive a dog for licking you, but if you don't want the behavior to continue, you have to punish it and reward the behavior you do want.

Congress did what their economic advisers told them to. If mainstream economic advisers weren't so delusional as to think giving money to the banks that caused the default in the first place was a good idea, then we would have seen more sane legislation. None-the-less, the actions they took were still far better for the average American than taking no action at all. They just happened to be even more beneficial for exploitative banks.

I apologize. I clearly see now that putting illness in quotes was patronizing and ignorant. In my defense, I didn't mean to suggest that these people are not experiencing very real difficulties. I only meant to distinguish mental illness from physical illness. However, as has been pointed out to me, if there is a distinction, it likely only exists for mild forms of mental illness.

That sounds pretty terrible. I've been depressed before, but it's not my natural state. I can hardly imagine.

I know it's absolutely none of by business, but may I ask what's actually kept you from committing suicide? There must be something. I know that for me, even if I suddenly became extremely depressed, I would never commit suicide because 1) I refuse to put my family and friends through that, and 2) I'm far too amazed by the universe around me, and I know that eventually I will regain my interest in it and stop being so depressed.

That's a very interesting point that we often forget. I've heard mention that there are actually more bacterial cells in and on our bodies than "human" cells. Also, each of our human cells has mitochondria in it, which have their own independent DNA. The idea that we are single cognitive entities is really just self delusion.

However, it seems quite clear that humans, though certainly not the most successful species in terms of numbers, are quite *important* in the sense that we have been the first species on this planet to break into the technological paradigm. This could prove to be even more important if we are able to colonize other planets. None-the-less, you could still view us as just advanced transportation vessels through which the bacteria colonize other planets.

#1 is water, #2 is CO2. Don't say methane, because methane has much lower concentrations than CO2, and, as a result, much less of a total contribution.

Would most people be better off undiagnosed? When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.

If you want those shapes to actually do something, and do it reliably, engineering a good product is significantly more difficult than simply programming shapes into a CNC.

I think one point that seems to have been missed is that engineers generally design a product once (and then make small revisions as necessary), whereas marketing has to sell it over and over to many different customers. Even if the product sells itself, a sales force is needed to make sure the customer is buying the correct product for their application. Doing this effectively often requires a lot of travel.

Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.

I'm sure the people interested in solving this problem already know this, but they could use a high-power Q-switched laser (to allow pulsing) with a large, steerable, variable-focus lens (probably the most difficult part of this solution) to vaporize small bits of the objects, and force them into the upper atmosphere to burn up.

As said, such a system could be quite difficult and expensive to design. First of all, it would require a very large lense or mirror system to reach tightly focused beams at long distances. A mirror system might be preferable for dynamic adjustments. Next, it would need to be mounted on a gyroscopic turret, to allow aiming (or the whole satellite could turn). Finally, you would need quite a bit of power to make any significant debris course adjustments in a reasonable amount of time.

None-the-less, we have all the requisite technology. With a couple billion dollars we could probably put up a prototype system. Although, there are international treaties against space weaponization that would probably get in the way.

In principal, yes... as long as you don't mind the platform spontaneously detonating and vaporizing the earth when the containment field fails.

I am of the opinion that without economical fusion, humanity will not last more than a few thousand years. I am also of the opinion that most fusion research funding is targeted at projects with little or no application to economical fusion (I see no evidence that tokamaks or inertial confinement will ever be economical. In fact, all evidence seems to suggest they will never be economical). What are your views on the current state of fusion research? Is funding misplaced? Disproportionately allocated?

Thanks! I 'man aspiring scientist, and you're one of my personal hero's, so it's quite incredible to have the chance to ask you a question (even if it only has a small chance of being answered).

A targeted transmission search would almost certainly use directed, non-diffracting beams (they exist - google it). Meaning the necessary power would be dramatically dropped, because they would only transmit to a small number of star systems that have a chance of hosting life.

However, it's fairly likely that an advanced civilization would use neutrinos, or some other weakly interacting matter, for interstellar communications, rather than simple electromagnetic waves. Non-the-less, life is out there - like it or not. Maybe not close enough for you to meet it in your lifetime, but it's out there.