And what if they let the water vapour, that is lighter than air, rise, and cool off by rising, to the point where it would condense again?
And if the rising force of the water vapour was used to drive some fans or turbines?

Or they could just release enough water vapour, letting it rise, so that there would be more precipitation downwind of the site. All of these would
generate power, and more fresh water, as well.

Actually, the Declaration of Independence states: "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable rights means that they cannot be given up, by a contract of indentured servitude for example, either for yourself, and certainly not for your descendants. So there are certain contracts that are "not allowed, for principled reasons", because people are not free to give up certain of their rights.

Other sorts of contracts that are not allowed, for good reasons, are selling your house to somebody under the condition that they promise never to sell it to anyone "not of the white race" or jewish, and that they must apply this condition upon anyone that they sell it to. This is sort of like a racist, viral, GPL, and it was common in the U.S. in the first half of the 20th century.

The field of Christian Apologetics is the study of arguments and methods of argument that support Christian theology, and ways of responding to the arguments of critics and doubters. However, it does not require original thought - it can be as bad as simply learning the standard arguments, and memorizing the standard responses to common criticisms of Christian belief. These students are just like first-line technical support workers - following a script, with no variation. This is not a class in dialogue, trying to discuss an issue with someone with different beliefs, where each learns from each other. It is just an exercise in propaganda, using the most effective arguments to change people's beliefs, treating them as objects to be manipulated, in the most effective way.
The difference between this and science is that science does not need to hold special classes in "How to convince non-believers that science works, and respond to their criticisms of science, in a canned way, without listening to them." If a set of beliefs is so weird that you need special training in how to hold them, and how to respond to people who point out inconsistencies in them, that sounds to me like evidence against the consistency and explanatory power of that system of beliefs.

He should not be considered responsible for the cost of checking those systems for damage due to unauthorized access, because those costs would be incurred whether he logged in or not. Even if a system administrator for these systems discovered the security hole, they would have to do the same amount of work, since they could not know if someone had logged in without permission or not. They would have to assume the worst. So all of the charges of "damage" against him make no sense. Just because they know that there is a security hole, and that he exploited it, it doesn't make their system any more damaged than if they just knew there was a security hole. And it is less broken than when they didn't know it had a flaw.

I think the application code is in read-only or copy-on-write pages that are shared between processes. Most OS program loaders will load and link a static executable once, no matter how many processes it is loaded in. Even the different flags will just appear in program arguments (argv), usually on the stack, beneath the first stack frame, and will not affect the shared executable. That is why you need to look at the memory stats for processes with a skeptical eye, and why Chrome's memory reports in its task manager show both total and shared memory for the separate processes. Whether an OS loads a program twice, or forks a process, it will not duplicate memory pages until they need to contain different contents.

Perhaps women who are good at logical reasoning and details go into better paying fields than mathematics and the sciences, such as law and management. That was the theory put forward by a blog post I read, which suggested that some of the discrepancy that reappears at the PhD level in mathematics, computing, and the sciences may be because men are foolishly seduced into spending years getting a PhD and working in academia by the ideas of the prestige, status, excitement, and importance of this research. A woman with the same skills and general interests might be more realistic, and make the much better paying choice of a successful law or business career. I tried to find the blog that made this point, but could not. It seemed quite likely to me though. The same skills that make someone a good mathematician or programmer, would make them an outstanding lawyer or manager, as long as they have reasonable people skills. Perhaps a study of the careers of skilled undergraduate math majors, of both genders, would indicate if people are just making more (women) or less (men) rational choices about their future paths after a math B.S.

A large drop in mileage at -30C is due to the increase in air density. The density of a gas is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin, so there is 280/250 - 1 = 12% more air being pushed out of the way at -30C than at 0C. Your tires may also be underinflated at those low temperatures, if you don't put more air in them to compensate.

Trademark law provides exactly the kinds of remedies and rules which can prevent this confusion.
This is exactly the sort of case in which ICANN can seize a domain name, like OpenOffice.com, from the people who are using it deceptively, and give it to the owners of the OpenOffice trademark.

The hitch is that the OpenOffice trademark is owned in the Netherlands by a third party. Therefore, OpenOffice.org are not using OpenOffice as a trademark, and are instead calling their product OpenOffice.org.

But the third party that owns OpenOffice should be defending its trademark, and should not let it be used in OpenOffice.com for these purposes. If they don't defend their trademark, it becomes invalid, and if they support this use of it, they are infringing on OpenOffice.org's trademark by encouraging confusion with it, and offering downloads of Openoffice.org software through sites labeled by the OpenOffice name.

So either the owners of OpenOffice should shut down Openoffice.com, or else OpenOffice.org should try and invalidate OpenOffice as a trademark, since it is not defended, or is being used for infringement purposes.

Clearly, download-new.com is using the OpenOffice trademark, and is damaging the reputation of Openoffice.org, by encouraging confusion of the two trademarks, and by implying (by charging a large fee) that OpenOffice.org software is not freely downloadable without charge from almost every other place on the Internet. OpenOffice.com is diluting the OpenOffice trademark, and the OpenOffice.org trademark, by just acting as a parking place for search results. So OpenOffice.org has remedies against the offending sites and/or the owner of the OpenOffice trademark.