I guess you've watched too many movies with stuff magically freezing in outer space. Objects in space are actually very slow to lose heat because vacuum doesn't conduct heat.
Objects in space are very quick to lose heat, when initially exposed to the vacuum, due to all the evaporation.
And why in the world does that mean your job is safe?
Eventually, robots will program themselves...
... and when that happens, we're all out of a job.
The whole space station doesn't need to rotate in order to create artificial gravity. Just keep the living quarters in the rotating bit and the experiment areas in the none rotating bit.
It's not that simple. If you're rotating on a small radius, you're going to have a noticeable difference in apparent gravity between your feet and your head. Just as we don't know what long duration low gravity does to the human body, we don't know what long duration tidal gravity will do. If you're rotating on a large radius, well now you've got to construct this huge, high strength station. Now obviously, the only way we're ever going to find out is to throw something into orbit, and spend several years manning the thing, but the problem is a complex and not well understood one.
The hard part is probably trying to keep one area stationary while the other rotates. That's going to require something rotating in the opposite direction to cancel out any momentum.
Why do you have to cancel out any momentum? Why can the station not have a non-zero rotational momentum? Tons of satellites do.
SAP was unable to deliver this. Because SAP is really shitty.
Why would they bother? They can apparently let you spend the money and effort developing it, and still charge you seat licenses when it's all done anyway. Sounds like a win-win for them.
If the MRI test falsely diagnoses children without autism as being autistic 20% of the time, then roughly 90% of all people who test positive will not be autistic.
According to the abstract, only 12% of those tested positive were not later diagnosed as autistic. You're just making argument over nonsense numbers, when the real numbers are available.
If you want to channel a lot of energy in a short period of time at a surface, you can't beat a rocket.
Well that, or explosives...
Cross breeding and selective breeding aren't genetic modification
They are, you are just assuming that there is a silent "direct" or "artificial" inside the phrase "genetic modification". That's kind of expected since this stuff tends to get discussed in emotive instead of rational terms.
Selective breeding could be considered artificial genetic modification. Intentional irradiation as a stressor could be considered direct genetic modification.
That's because you are letting the rules of nature determine the outcome. People have been cross breeding for thousands of years and we know what to expect.
That's completely false. We've only had the slightest inkling of what to expect for the past 150 years, and we've only really started to know what we were doing in the last 30. For thousands of years, we we just blindly mixing like with like and hoping for the best, with no predictive understanding of what was actually going on under the surface. The old methods were slow, in multiple definitions of the term. "Slow" and "safe" are not synonymous.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- D.E. Knuth