Everyone is banging their head over trying to hit Mach 10 on the track.

TFS and everyone else is misunderstanding the proposal.

The current idea is for the sled on the track to accelerate a scramjet up to about 600mph, then the scramjet lifts off, flies up to altitude and at about mach 10, releases a rocket which boosts the payload into orbit.

Sled (reusable) on the ground = 1st Stage
Scramjet (reusable) in the atmosphere = 2nd Stage
Booster Rocket in space = 3rd Stage

All extensions of more or less current technology.

How does something going 7 km/sec catch something going zero?

Colliding, I can see. Gently catching and accelerating up to the same speed, I don't see.

Capsules are great if you don't mind landing in an ocean or a desert; someplace big and empty.

However, if you would like the efficiencies created by being able to land your spacecraft someplace specific and useful near a population center, like a spaceport or airport, than wings are just the ticket.

Actually they are saying that they will build it from plastic that they recycle from the ocean.

from their website, www.recycledisland.com:

They are saying that there are 4 million tons of plastic out there, and they want to build a 10,000 square km island.

Assume a basic building unit of a plastic floating barrel and a square plastic platform to sit on top of it. Assume that 40kg of plastic are used in the barrel/platform and it will provide all of the necessary flotation for a square meter chunk of island.

In the above scenario, 4 million tons of plastic gets you one hundred million barrel/platform units, and therefore a surface area of one hundred million square meters. That means an island that is TEN square km. Not really enough land to make self sufficient home complete with farmland for half a million people.

What are they going to build the other 9,990 square km of floating island out of?

I don't believe that Freedom of Speech applies to corporations.

There would need to be a clause specifically protecting reporting on military, political and government issues.

This would not keep any single person from saying anything at all, just allow 'news' organizations to stay out of the tabloid gossip business.

Read what you quote; they don't pay 17,000 each, and evidently don't want to pay 17,000 for even one.

They need to legislate a separation of true news media from all of the vapid attention seeking media that calls itself the 'news'. Other professions are governed similarly; you cannot call yourself a Medical Doctor without earning that title and the same should go for News media.

Report on a celebrity crashing their car as news and you loose your news license. Fake or manipulate a news story and loose your license and you are no longer allowed to call your show a 'news' show. It would not support an particular medium; papers, or tv or blogs, but would support the news generating industry.

I think it would allow true news shows to hold up their heads and to proudly do what they do best, without having to worry about competing with entertainment gossip shows.

what he said

You are probably used to seeing acceleration figures, which use m/s^2, such as the acceleration due to (earth) gravity, 9.8 m/s^2.

Crytek had me as a paying customer because of the free Farcry demo. I also bought Crysis after playing the free demo level for that, and purchased the expansion pack as a followup.

I did NOT purchase FarCry 2 as there was no demo to try it out and see if I liked the gameplay. Without a demo I will NOT purchase Crysis 2.

It's not a "self-incrimination" clause, it is a clause against being a witness against yourself in a criminal case.

excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

The difference that I'm trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a presumption of self-incrimination to invoke it, just that you don't wish to testify about something involving yourself.