Is this a bad thing? I mean, romanticize how you will, but is it really better to put human (or even robot) footprints on Mars than to push the telescope programs? 225,000,000 km or 2.25 x 10^20 km - we can't live there (yet).

Had to go with "housing" on this one.

After all, there are only so many video games one person can buy....

Paying twice as much now and the same later sounds better than normal now and 10x later.

You are going to be one of the few not screwed when the dinosaurs start running out. And they'll be closing those dirty plants down the way when coal is more expensive than gold. Isn't this still a good outcome long-term, even if it costs now?

Radiation bites Phobos Grunt.
Radiation bites Phobos Grunt.
Phobos Grunt dies.

Better to get them with the knife, in CoD. Shotguns will paint you on enemy radar, besides being more effective at clue-ing in anyone nearby that there is trouble lurking around.

Can't resist.

The distribution of a single sample is not statistically required to reflect the full distribution; the probability of that particular sample goes down, but never equals zero. This is why anecdotes get so much distrust.

That said, I currently have an "additional screening" rate of greater than 90% in the US, while my wife is never selected. I have to wonder if things would be different, were there more prominent female terrorists.

(147,093,357 items [source]) * (2.5 kg / item [source]) / 50,000 tonnes = 7.35466785 Libraries of Congress per year.

Lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs (on their own). Really.

Anyways, you only need one Blocker and you're good to go. At least until you hit the nuke button - "Oh No!"

I, for one, welcome our puppet-sexing vomit gag overlords.

In an election year? Too dangerous to leave this entirely untouched. Hope for the best?