It doesn't matter. There is nothing to see from above.

Here is one option: After the rocket is dropped you deploy parachutes attached to the top. Once the rocket points upward you jettison the chutes and fire the rocket. This has been demonstrated before. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .

If you know the location of a camera you can point an infrared lamp at it. This will saturate the sensor. The bonus is that you won't see it so it won't bother you.

Forget this comment. It is 100% incorrect.

This is an affine equation, not a linear equation.

There is a way. It's an old trick known as a canary trap.
Note that manipulating non-meaningful elements like spacing, case and punctuation doesn't work because they are not guaranteed to be preserved. A simple normalization would destroy the watermark.

I have been reading /. for over 15 years, under different user names. I have seen this decline in quality in the last few years, as well as submitters complaining about distortions introduced by "editors". And you didn't pick up on the fact that starting a reply with "You must be new here" is an old /. meme.

Nothing. The idea is to use automation to sift through a large amount of data and flag activities of interest for examination by human analysts. This allows examination of more information, more timely detection and less risk of missing something. No decision is going to be made by software.

You must be new here. The last sentence of a summary is always an inflammatory/controversial question added by an "editor" to generate posts. Unfortunately that's often all people write about, instead of focusing on the actual story.

In the future, please just ignore that last sentence.

The second stage (and payload) is in Earth orbit. Injection into a solar orbit will require a third burn, scheduled for some time before 03:00:00 UTC.

The orbit of spacecraft is determined by analysis of their radio transmissions. The trajectory of debris is determined by radar which is a much less accurate method.

That's great but they are 60 years late. I'm not sure it is something to be proud of.

What century are you living in ? Cruise missiles (which result in no casualties for their user) have been used without hesitation for decades in situations in which ground troops would not have been sent. Similarly bombing missions are carried out against ISIS precisely because they don't have the necessary anti-aircraft defenses. Same with the more modern UCAVs. Arms manufacturers invest heavily in the development of unmanned weapons because there are expensive and useful to politicians who want to be able to do something without having to deal with the families of dead soldiers. War has been easy for a long time. If troops are indispensable then it is a bit harder but not that much given the ridiculously disproportionate casualty numbers between sophisticated and unsophisticated armies.

No, they are just holding them wrong.

How is a blockchain going to reduce inventory management costs ? The reason low-cost retailers have a small product line has nothing to do with transaction costs, which are negligible by comparison.