I agree with the other poster, if you really love someone, you are willing to die for them. In fact it is selfish, as you cannot imagine life without them and you do not wish to live without them.

That is a strange definition of love my friend.

I've loved many. I've been in love many times.

But when it boils down to it..to brass tacks as they say.

The ONLY person I cannot live without...is me.

I'll do all I can for those I love and my family, but die for them...is NOT one of those things.

My life is the most precious things I own. It is truly the only thing I own when it comes to it.

And if it is between you and me...I'd do everything I possibly could to make sure it was not me that died.

I'd assume nothing less from anyone one else.

Hydrogen does not have to be shipped as a liquid or gas (more to the point, it wouldn't persist as a liquid without a significant cooling system). By mass, water is 13% hydrogen, hydrazine is 14% hydrogen, polyethylene is 17% hydrogen, lithium borohydride is 18% hydrogen, ammonia is 22% hydrogen, and methane is 34% hydrogen. Most of those compounds (and others) are useful to have on a ship regardless. And any sort of effective radiation shielding is going to have to be hydrogen rich no matter what; there's nothing that moderates down neutrons to easy-to-capture energies anywhere near as well as hydrogen.

The fun part of it is that the hydrogen enters and leaves the rocket in exactly the same form; it's simply there to function as a working gas for the lithium fluoride.

I'm actually somewhat of a fan of metalized propellants, although that one is certainly extreme. ;) While there's no getting around fluorine's toxicity so I can't really get onboard with that particular propulsion system, I can picture lithium being managed - yes, lithium is dangerous, but so are chemicals like LOX (really, pretty much all oxidizers are extreme fire hazards, if not outright explosion hazards). Aluminum doesn't provide as much of an isp boost as lithium, but it provides a small one, plus a major density boost (and is cheap, too), and is nice and stable. I'm actually working on some experiments for a somewhat hybrid-esque design which involves aluminum structural elements designed to burn away and contribute to the exhaust stream.

The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped:
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher. ...
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.

But to check it the auditors need detailed access to the records. So who audits THEM?

This kind of question has been asked repeatedly since at least the Roman Empire.

(The U.S. answer to "Who guards the guardians?" , at least for direct abuse of person under color of law, is the Fourth and Fifth amendments and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine: Fail to follow the law and you don't get a conviction, because misbehaving police are FAR more of a problem for the population than even a lot of violent private-enterprise crooks going back to work. But while it does reduce the incentive, it doesn't block the behavior.)

"Sierra Nevada Corporation Will Launch Its First Space Mission In 2021. UN Will Bicker About it and Do Nothing."

FTFY

Yeah, the people can change this by kicking the incumbent who's owned by corporations out of office and instead choosing one of the other candidates who are also all owned by the corporations.

Not one organization I have ever worked for has seriously cared about IT security.

When it comes to rolling out new products, ignoring security is the norm.

This is because the "window of opportunity" is only "open" for a short time - until the first, second, and maybe third movers go through it and grab most of the potential customers. Companies that spent the time to get the security right arrive at the window after it closes.

This happens anywhere the customers don't test for and reject non-secure versions of the "new shiny" - which means enterprises sometimes hold suppliers' feet to the fire (if the new thing doesn't give them an advantage commensurate with, or perceived as outweighing, the risk) but consumer stuff goes out wide open.

Then, if you're lucky and the supplier is clueful, they retrofit SOME security before the bad guys exploit enough holes to kill them.

I expect this will continue until several big-name tech companies get an effective corporate death penalty in response to the damages their customer base took from their security failings. Then the financial types will start including having a good, and improving with time, security story (no doubt called "best practices") among their check boxes for funding.

A friend described it as "Like Elite Dangerous, if you stripped everything interesting out of it and designed it for kindergartners."

I think they should change Mount Rushmore and replace those evil white men with Marrissa Meyer, Ellen Pao, Elizabeth Holmes, and Hillary Clinton.

#MtRushmoredeservesTRUEheroes

Well, at least now we know why they were so cagey about releasing the game earlier for reviewers or releasing a beta version.

In England they call this "penny wise, pound foolish".

That one's old enough that it made it into American English (where it is still in use despite more than two centuries on a non penny-pound currency.)

And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.

Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.

But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.

Stop yer whinin'

It was your fault for believing the CEO of the company when he lied repeatedly to every forum that would interview his barefoot hipster ass. It's not HIS fault that YOU were gullible enough to believe him.

Jeez, people are so entitled these days.

Perhaps you missed the fact that this CEO is a *WOMAN*, which makes her a hero and an inspiration.

This is somehow all the evil male patriarchy's fault.

You can't think of anyone you would sacrifice your life for? That's kind of sad.

Why is that sad?

I'm sorry, I just have a high prize on my life. Again, as far as I know, I only get ONE shot at life, that's it.

I cannot fathom what situation would ever present itself where would consider my life to be worth less than any single other human on the face of the earth.

I'm a caring, giving person, but only to the point mainly where MY life is on the balance.

I don't see that as being sad, I just have my values. If someone ELSE wants to sacrifice their lives for a cause or someone else, well, that's their choice and more power to them.

Who or what would YOU trade your very life for?