I don't really know either. Physics was never my strong suit.

I vaguely recall that they wanted, also, to simulate the weapons' performance given various decay states of the tritium (that is, without replenishment). That might or might not require lots of computing power.

I've got no problem with it. Standardization and commoditization saves the taxpayers lots of money.

Yes, but the tritium, which is used as a fusion booster in many designs, has a half-life of 12.3 years. Hence why DOE/NNSA was looking for a site to produce tritium using accelerators or other methods about twenty years ago.

Goes back further than that. It even affects Penryn chips (and there's no microcode update planned for them).

Sure. If we can get those babies in Federal databases before they're even born, so much the better. Homeland Security is totally on board.

Not to mention the fact that while the article pretends that sending Bitcoin via radio somehow removes government's ability to censor you, in order to legally use that spectrum, you need to first obtain a license from same government, which is revocable at any time. This is true in more countries than just the US.

I had a friend who was pulled over not for failure to stop at a stop sign, but for not waiting long enough at the stop sign "for the car to rock back on its springs." That one got tossed, but my friend got to waste time fighting it in court beforehand.

Nope.

Politely but firmly refuse to consent to the search. All you need to say is "No, sir, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle or of my phone."

If the cops are determined to search your car, your phone, or your person anyway, that is most likely going to happen one way or another -- but your refusal to consent will likely be useful to your legal defense later.

Identify yourself, ask if you are being detained, ask for your lawyer, and say nothing else.

I'm amazed you GNAA trolls have managed to stick with it for the better part of two decades. What do you get out of this?

Interesting idea, but how do you propose to do it without the cop going "Aha! He destroyed evidence -- we'll just charge him with that!"

That would seem an excellent way to add a charge of willful destruction of evidence to the list of sh*t they're going to throw at you.

Why do gun humpers always assume that anyone criticizing them must therefore be a liberal?

I always chuckle when I see one of those NRA "Stand and Fight" bumper stickers. 95% of the Second Amendment enthusiasts I've met or seen are obese and couldn't "stand and fight" if their lives depended on it.

Regarding you potentially being charged for driving without a license because your refusal invalidated your license to drive: were a prosecutor so foolish to try to prosecute you, it would be easily torn to shreds by a competent defense attorney. You were driving; you stopped driving in order to be detailed by a LEO; you refused the search; at that point your license was revoked. No driving occurred at any time your license was revoked.

Driving without a license does not allow for a search of your vehicle; however, having to show proof of insurance and a license to operate a motor vehicle serves as a pretext for LEOs to stop you at any time. You could be charged with operating a motor vehicle without a license, and depending on jurisdiction, I suppose you could be detained -- but that does not give police carte blanche to violate your civil rights.