Planck lengths are the only truly natural measure
Basically like dim daylight or bright twilight on Earth.
There was some discussion of using what is eupemistically called "lithobraking" to put a probe down on, or more accurately in, Pluto's surface. Apparantly you really can make a probe that has a reasonable chance of still sending back useful science after hitting Pluto at 15 km/s or so.
I think the Dutch government have something similar to the UK Human Rights Act. This makes the rights defined in the European Convention on Human Rights enforceable in the Dutch courts. The parliament could change that law but unless it does the courts can instruct the executive in how to apply the law so as to maintain those rights.
A quick google also suggests that international treaties which the Netherlands has ratified may be directly enforcable in the Dutch courts without needing additional laws to be passed implementing them (as would be the case in the UK). This seems to be a confused area, but it sounds like the court is taking this line.
Mainly embarrass them publicly. Perhaps as the date gets closer if there is no realistic plan and/or no progress they will start issuing more specific instructions. A bit like the US federal courts when states don't do things they are constitutionally required to -- they start out saying "make it so" and get as detailed as they are forced to.
The other complication is that all surgeries in a cycle have to be simultaneous -- to avoid allowing donors to opt out after their relative has received a new kidney. So in this case you need 18 operating theatres and 18 surgical teams.
This made headlines because it's the longest cycle ever, but the people who run these programmes see long cycles as undesirable -- what they mostly do is identify hundreds of opportunities for two or three way swaps, or for "open" chains where one altruistic donor can result in two or three people getting kidneys. The maths behind it is quite interesting.
Most people who die naturally probably don't have very healthy kidneys by the time they die.
Can you explain why it is found acceptable for the standard model to allow calculation of probabilities greater than one . . . to me that indicates it is some kind of simplified approximation that breaks down at high energies
To everyone else as well. The question is how high and in what way?
Worth considering if the asteroid doesn't rotate too much or in the wrong plane.. However you can get a much higher momentum/energy ratio by using a reaction mass that is expelled at a few tens of km/second, rather than light.
Comes to timing. The K-12 CS students are not going to fill the vacancies advertised today, but they might fill the ones advertised in 4-15 years time, reducing the need for H-1Bs at that time
If you have enough lead time then I think the gravity tug works well. You rendezvous with the asteroid and fly alongside it, using solar-electric or some other slow but mass-efficient drive to hold station on the same side of the asteroid. The gravity of the probe VERY SLOWLY accelerates the asteroid and over a few decades (perhaps with a few refueling missions to bring more xenon or whatever) the asteroid's orbit is changed enough to miss the Earth,.
You are making a classic error of comparing the normal progress of the disease with the rare side-effects of the vaccine. This is the (false) argument against measles vaccination -- "I (or most people, or my kids or my parents) had measles. It was uncomfortable for a while, but it got better. A tiny fraction of children have a bad reaction to the vaccine which is really nasty. It's not worth that tiny fraction getting the bad reaction to save everyone the mild disease". What's missing is the larger but still small fraction of people who have nasty complications of the disease and are left handicapped or dead.
There is no evidence for risks of clustering that I am aware of. On the other hand not clustering means, at least, more risk of individual children missing shots due to greater complexity, more visits to doctors with more risk of infection with unrelated diseases and more cost, which could be spent on other public health measures that would presumably reduce other risks.
If you do think clustering vaccines adds risk, there is a fairly straightforward, if somewhat lengthy, route to address this.
First get a PhD in virology or some other appropriate discipline and a suitable job.
Next, carefully design a series of experiments that will help answer your question and get relevant approvals for it (ethics, safety,....)
Now apply for an NIH (or your country's equivalent) grant to perform it.
Perform it, analyse the results, publish them.
If they show significant extra risk from clustering, then, after a little bit of bureaucratic inertia while people find out about and understand your study and try and work out what changes to procedures would reflect it without risk elsewhere, the chances are clustering would be reduced.