Ah yes, the "war" is over. If the majority believes a falsehood, it becomes the truth...

There are a lot more than two possible pronunciations, although there are two that come to mind to most English-speakers readily, neither of which is "correct" (in the sense of how the creator said it).

Most likely none. When galaxies "collide", they merge gravitationally, but stars don't run into one another. Thing of how small a star is compared to the vast space between them. The odds of two stars colliding are so small, even when you have literally billions of them heading towards one another, the odds of a collision are extremely remote.

You'd be amazed how many Americans are Canadian. ;)

(Most Americans are amazed to find out how many famous "Americans" they know are actually Canadians...)

In any case, it's NASA. They hire from around the world. It would be surprising to find any working group in the agency that was 100% American. It would be silly to assume someone's nationality based on the fact that they work for, with, or in NASA.

So by "you can't use a wrench", you meant, "you can use a wrench if you have something to hold onto." Gotcha...

Could you quote the passage in question? I read the article and didn't see anything saying that. They did say, "Any planetary system that was once in orbit around the star will be severely disrupted during the red giant phase...", which while less explicit is more or less what you said the article "mentions none of".

I guarantee you that a lifetime of constant exposure to neutrinos has little ill-effect. The Van Allen belts, the atmosphere, even the planet itself do nothing to shield you from them (that's why be build neutrino detectors underground -- that shields out all the other radiation, leaving just the neutrinos to look at). If anyone ever invents a substance capable of shielding neutrinos (other than literally light-year thick lead walls), I suppose it's possible they'd damage the shielding over time, but the heavy metal shielding used by reactors today are not damaged by the neutrinos, for pretty much the same reason that they don't stop them, either. The neutrinos simple don't interact with them. How do the detectors even see them, you ask? Because there are so many of them passing by that occasionally one does hit something. That's right, as we speak, you are currently being bombarded by a ridiculously huge flow of neutrinos. Trust me, it's mostly harmless...

This is not necessarily the case. You seem to be confusing rationality with instinct. The desire to continue to live in an instinctive one, and can in some circumstances be a quite irrational one. At most times, though, I would not call it "irrational", but it is at most times arational.

If it's a route they drive often, the typical human answer to this is "use the force"...

That's actually a good analogy. Driving can be fun from time to time, but it can also be quite boring and tedious much of the time. It would be nice to do it when you want but have an autopilot to engage when you don't. A well prepared gourmet meal can be a real treat and wonderful experience, but often eating is just tedious, too. One would not want to be denied the opportunity, but at the same time, if you could just take a pill or something while you're doing something else actually useful or enjoyable, that would be a nice option much of the time.

Ethical schmethical... I just want to be able to get into my car, state my destination, and then pull out a book to read until the car tells me we're there. There are so many better uses for my time than watching the damned road...

What would be the point? Any 486 around today can run exactly the same software it ran when it was new exactly as well as it always did. Processors only become "obsolete" when newer software comes along that cannot be run well (or at all). A satellite doesn't need to run the latest release from Redmond. It doesn't, in fact, need to run any software that isn't already installed. Upgrading its processor would be worse than pointless -- at best, it would have no effect, and the possibilities go downhill from there...

That might be at least partly intentional. Too effective targeting of ads ends up wasting money "preaching to the choir", essentially. You want ads to bring in new customers, and if you're too effective at targeting, it's mostly presenting views to existing ones, or only targeting your competition's customers, pulling from a static base when you could be expanding the base. Some people don't know they want something until they're presented with the option...

You should check them out these days, since you obviously haven't looked at them in a couple years. There's a full screen option, and many videos (most? Most that I view anyhow...) are available at 1080p.

I love linux install instructions that assume you already have linux installed. xD