Given that the barycenter's center of mass is within Earth itself, I'm happy to call it Earth's orbit for simplicity's sake. Come to think of it, the only planet or dwarf planet whose satellite is massive enough to place the barycenter outside of the planet itself is Pluto.
I suppose that the astronomy and astrophysics communities could further refine the definition of planet based not only on size, but on the location of mass relative to a satellite...
A few years back I was briefly acquainted with a man with Asperger's who was in a group I also participated with, and one game we played as a group very much showed his condition. This game required someone with a topic to make a statement about that topic, and for the other person playing (the rest were observers) to ask questions on the topic that were either seeking more specific knowledge on the topic or else were deflections to similar but related topics. The catch was that the asker had to do more than say, "Tell me more on X" or "That X reminds me of Y". The gentleman with Asperger's simply couldn't ask questions that kept the topic going.
I suppose the game was a sort of philosophy version of "Whose Line is it Anyway?" where they have to ask back and forth questions, but without the specific intentional humor.
Become a television presenter, gameshow host, or some other kind of pro-active, always-taking-the-initiative kind of job. Hell, if you don't want to go into media, Sales or Marketing could also work, as one has to take the initiative all of the time. If you manage to remember names well then that would be an advantage in sales, and if you normally have some difficulty with subtle sarcasm, being able to discard or gloss over the comment made by someone else in your duties would probably actually be a bonus in marketing to large groups. It'd be like being able to ignore the heckler or peanut gallery in an auditorium to continue one's presentation or pitch.
Note: There is mild, mild sarcasm in the comment above, but the bulk of it is intended to be truthful.
Apple is a company that makes its money primarily through the sale of boutique computer and electronics equipment. Their equipment happens to need an OS. Sure, there are some higher end applications for video and music that have created a niche market, but at the moment they make their money on selling trendy computers and electronics to trendy people at trendy prices.
Enterprise IT is different. Computers stay in use until they're depreciated or until they're nonviable. IT departments aren't interested in upgrading, and do it in waves, usually skipping entire generations of hardware and OSes because they don't fit the support model. IT departments also don't like variation and work hard to buy literally one model of computer for as absolutely long as possible, again, skipping generations of machines until latching on to the next long-term purchase model. It's the ONLY way to make support over a large number of machines (sometimes as much as many as 5000 to a technician like where I work) even close to possible.
Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!
Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves. They have no interest in licensing their OS out to run on hardware not their own, and with their upgrade strategy, they can't make significant inroads into Enterprise IT.
Because procurement and purchasing managers are suckers for marketing, just like everyone else.
If a department issues smartphones to its officers then I could understand possibly integrating some other technology into the smartphone. If the department issues digital-trunking two-way radios, it would make a lot more sense to add a digital, non-voice component to the radio system to allow equipment to speak through the officer's radio to a central computer, then on to whatever remote database is in use. Come to think of it, since many such radio systems still have DTMF keypads on the radios, it wouldn't be that hard to also integrate into a telephone system so that officers could make work-related telephone calls through their radios without incurring cell-service charges. The radio handsets would need to be full-duplex capable, but that's not that hard to do. It would also be possible to set up officers' computers in their cars to use the same system.
Yes, there'd be an expensive initial equipment purchase cost, but the lack of service charges might well balance in favor of such a system over the long run.
Does a normal picture at a reasonable distance, even a distance as small as a foot, manage to get an accurate representation of one's iris? I don't think that even the highest quality cameras on the market are that good. The camera must be in one's face and the subject must not move, blink, or move one's eye (which could require some kind of restraining of the individual).
Obtaining an iris scan is probably invasive enough to require a compelling reason to perform it, and my guess is that under most circumstances that means that one is either 1) already being arrested, or 2) being served a warrant for the collection of it.
As many problems as there are in government databases, they generally don't use the contents of the databases for marketing, and they're supposed to attempt to keep access to the data restricted to only those with legitimate reason. That could include law enforcement or legal officials, or the person who is the subject of the file, with the proper request. It's also easier (note, I didn't say easy) to get improper data corrected. Law enforcement, being a portion of the executive branch in whatever jurisdiction or level of government it's associated with, is subject to legislation and legal rulings that can force changes or compliance.
Companies' purpose is profit. Right now that profit comes from the devices and the subscription to the data. Down the road, the company might see an opportunity for profit from mining the data in an anonymous fashion to the subjects of the data, or might find mining in an identifiable way, or might find that allowing third parties access to the data who otherwise shouldn't. Or, the data might be incorrect, outdated, or fraudulent, and government and law enforcement entities might end up creating more problems with bad arrests or worse based on flawed data from a private database. Additionally, a company might be harder to manage, even through legislation or court ruling, as there's a level of opacity through the corporate structure.
Make the devices, fine. Sell them to law enforcement, fine. Retain the data "for the customer", not fine.
We’ll only use g.co to send you to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts.
If I were them, in an era when there are organizations dedicated to doing things for t3h lulz, I wouldn't be advertising something as essentially unhackable. This is just an excuse to point some shortcuts to goatse, tubgirl, rickroll, or lemon party...
Somehow I doubt that telling those white supremacists that they're the ones descended from Neanderthals and that the Africans are the only group lacking Neanderthal DNA would do anything to change their perspectives.
I speculate that it wold be worth the course. Depending on the design of one's spacecraft, one could pick up particles that are in orbit of the brown dwarf to use for fuel or other raw materials, and one could use gravity as an assist to accelerate further toward one's destination.
I guess we are in a world of shit if it turns out to be true.
Especially if they manage to show a link between this research, the fairly regular extinction events over the history of the planet, and The Nemesis Hypothetical Star...
If I remember correctly, the space race of the sixties and early seventies cost the US almost 1% of GDP to operate. The program also took lots of risks and resulted in the deaths of three Astronauts. We were competing for what we thought was our very existence against the biggest threat we had ever faced, an enemy who had stated their intent to ideologically turn us into them.
The Shuttle program of the eighties, which had military considerations (hence being a plane, along the lines of the X-20 Dyna-Soar) isn't really efficient at all. It's almost showing us how we have the means to brute-force our way to space. Using the shuttle to launch a satellite means not only is the weight of the satellite as a payload involved, but the weight of the shuttle, its supplies, and the personnel as well. It makes a lot more sense to launch just the satellite in a cowl. As for experiments in space, it probably makes more sense to design a capsule that has the capacity for the crew plus packed results from experiments with a non-returning, non-reentry-capable module that provides temporary habitation and laboratory space. The crew launches with both pieces, conducts experiments in the temporary module, packs the results into the capsule, straps in to the capsule, detaches from the module, deorbits and burns the module (if it's considered a risk in orbit) and then descends in the module. With the shuttle, since the same vehicle body is being reused (though it's probably more accurate to say 'recycled', considering the extensive refurbishing between each and every flight) the weight and design of the vehicle itself precludes a lighter, lower cost approach.
The Russians, while they've certainly had their problems, have had a much more cost-effective method with the Soyuz program, and the Progress modules for supplies delivery also have worked out fairly well. Cheap, designed for one trip, and able to be produced quickly and flown for their purpose without a lot of extra overhead.
Had we not suffered in the seventies with the material loss of Skylab, then in the eighties with Challenger and more recently with Columbia, without much real new achievement, we might have a public more interested in pushing the boundaries of space. But, with the stagnation of manned spaceflight since the seventies, the public just isn't inspired anymore, and I don't blame them. The cargo runs the shuttle has been used for don't do much for me either.
When NASA is faced with the collective ennui of a nation, it can't expect to get a lot of support from representatives, even when the programs are completely unrelated.
Doctors and nurses won't eliminate parental complaints, but it puts the TSA in a much better position to defend their actions and to show more professionalism. It certainly won't make it perfect, but it'll make it a lot better.
Ok, I'll bite. Why? What is inherently medical in nature in a TSA search that requires the skills of an RN or MD to do it?
Legal right to touch a minor I think is the theory here. And in theory it's correct, police officers even have special officers trained and legally sanctioned in touching a minor versus an adult. Security Guards are by-and-large warned flat-out "DON'T TOUCH MINORS, EVER!" by many larger security-guard companies I've worked under over the years.
Exactly. Since doctors and nurses are by definition trained to deal with the body and it is an expected part of their daily jobs, I would trust a doctor or nurse to have passed the scrutiny to do it correctly. Sure, there are doctors and nurses also busted for indecencies with minors from time to time, but it doesn't seem to be very widespread. Hell, you wouldn't even need Doctors that completed their internships for this kind of work- someone who graduated from Medical School alone would be enough. That could mean Doctorlings who can't afford their internship, Doctorlings who decided they don't like medicine but decided such too late, or those whose grades were bad enough that practicing actual medicine isn't really for them. Couple that with some training for the medical person to ask about events earlier in the day (to determine if the child was asked or forced to take any contraband into their own possession) similar to how pediatricians speak to children to find out what's wrong and you could probably have a fairly noninvasive, nonhumiliating way to screen those who really shouldn't be screened by regular security guards.
I would be surprised if the definition of Child Pornography is centered around artistic purposes. Medical publications likely have unclothed minors, and medical textbooks for GPs and Pediatricians probably do as well.
If anything, since artwork is often provocative and designed to stir the observer, art involving unclothed minors or representations of them is closer to Child Porn than body scanning images, which aren't designed to stir the observer. There's a classic painting in the Getty Museum in Los Angeles of an adolescent girl pushing cupid away from her, named something about a girl trying to resist love. I would be very much surprised if the subject was intended to be over eighteen, or if the painter's model, if there was one, was.
Okay, I get it- they screen children, the infirm, and the elderly not because they expect these people to be terrorists, but because it would be possible to use them as mules to carry the payload for someone who themselves would definitely be screened. Many of us understand this. Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers. One RN per security checkpoint, one Doctor to every four or five checkpoints or per terminal or airport, depending on the size of the terminal or airport. But, that would probably be expensive in an era when we're short on doctors and nurses. I suppose that they don't have to be especially good doctors, but since they're inspecting the body, having someone trained in the body probably would be a good idea.
The trouble is, they really, really need to find a better way to screen, and they need to understand that paying low wage workers to do the screening isn't helping. They need employees who actually care and are fairly intelligent people, and they need enough of them to offset the grueling nature of the job. That probably means a four-fold increase in the payroll, with 1/3 going to wage increases and the rest going to doubling the number of workers. They also need to institute their own Internal Affairs, complete with undercover placing (which could easily be safely hidden by the sheer size of the organization through the use of random gate reassignments for employees as well as transfers between airports and cities) to help stamp out the current problems.
When I went through security in London Heathrow, about a week after the Christmas Underwear Bomber attempt, and I accidently set off the metal detector because of a foil-lined wet wipe in my pocket, their security was quick and intelligent. They didn't feel the need to extend their patdown into a bag search, and once they found the wet wipe manually in my shirt pocket they wanded me quickly again, passed me, and gave me back the wet wipe. It took something like a minute for the whole process. Granted, they were smart enough to leave enough space in the airport for security, which is probably triple what we have in the US, but their employees seemed to actually care about what they were doing, didn't joke around in a way that made me uncomfortable, and treated it all as important but routine. I didn't get the "guilty until proven innocent" feeling that I get in our own airports.
I've heard lots of good things about El Al, as everyone on here talks about. I really wish that our policy makers would stop thinking that the technological approach is the way to go and start thinking about the human interaction approach. I'd bet that we could go back to simple metal detectors again if security actually made conversation with passengers instead of treating them like cattle to be mechanically put through the processes.
The space station and the satellites they're talking about don't orbit anywhere near each other. Most satellites are in geostationary orbit much, much higher than the station, which orbits the earth about fifteen times a day.
Any refuelling station would need an orbit much like the satellites it's supposed to service. That would probably mean launching up a big ol' gas can of a station, by weight mostly fuel, up to geostationary orbit or else ever so slightly higher, and using it to refuel until it itself runs out of fuel, then deorbiting it to burn up and launching another. If it's built right then the cost of the mechanism will be negligible relative to the service it provides.
It's not so much as I expect them to be stolen where I live now; I've lived in lots and lots of different neighborhoods over the years, and I just don't really trust anyone. I simply don't want the hassle of having to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the barycenter's center of mass is within Earth itself, I'm happy to call it Earth's orbit for simplicity's sake. Come to think of it, the only planet or dwarf planet whose satellite is massive enough to place the barycenter outside of the planet itself is Pluto.
I suppose that the astronomy and astrophysics communities could further refine the definition of planet based not only on size, but on the location of mass relative to a satellite...
A few years back I was briefly acquainted with a man with Asperger's who was in a group I also participated with, and one game we played as a group very much showed his condition. This game required someone with a topic to make a statement about that topic, and for the other person playing (the rest were observers) to ask questions on the topic that were either seeking more specific knowledge on the topic or else were deflections to similar but related topics. The catch was that the asker had to do more than say, "Tell me more on X" or "That X reminds me of Y". The gentleman with Asperger's simply couldn't ask questions that kept the topic going.
I suppose the game was a sort of philosophy version of "Whose Line is it Anyway?" where they have to ask back and forth questions, but without the specific intentional humor.
Become a television presenter, gameshow host, or some other kind of pro-active, always-taking-the-initiative kind of job. Hell, if you don't want to go into media, Sales or Marketing could also work, as one has to take the initiative all of the time. If you manage to remember names well then that would be an advantage in sales, and if you normally have some difficulty with subtle sarcasm, being able to discard or gloss over the comment made by someone else in your duties would probably actually be a bonus in marketing to large groups. It'd be like being able to ignore the heckler or peanut gallery in an auditorium to continue one's presentation or pitch.
Note: There is mild, mild sarcasm in the comment above, but the bulk of it is intended to be truthful.
Apple is a company that makes its money primarily through the sale of boutique computer and electronics equipment. Their equipment happens to need an OS. Sure, there are some higher end applications for video and music that have created a niche market, but at the moment they make their money on selling trendy computers and electronics to trendy people at trendy prices.
Enterprise IT is different. Computers stay in use until they're depreciated or until they're nonviable. IT departments aren't interested in upgrading, and do it in waves, usually skipping entire generations of hardware and OSes because they don't fit the support model. IT departments also don't like variation and work hard to buy literally one model of computer for as absolutely long as possible, again, skipping generations of machines until latching on to the next long-term purchase model. It's the ONLY way to make support over a large number of machines (sometimes as much as many as 5000 to a technician like where I work) even close to possible.
Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!
Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves. They have no interest in licensing their OS out to run on hardware not their own, and with their upgrade strategy, they can't make significant inroads into Enterprise IT.
Take a picture of someone, fine.
Hold them down to scan their iris though? Gimme a break...
Because procurement and purchasing managers are suckers for marketing, just like everyone else.
If a department issues smartphones to its officers then I could understand possibly integrating some other technology into the smartphone. If the department issues digital-trunking two-way radios, it would make a lot more sense to add a digital, non-voice component to the radio system to allow equipment to speak through the officer's radio to a central computer, then on to whatever remote database is in use. Come to think of it, since many such radio systems still have DTMF keypads on the radios, it wouldn't be that hard to also integrate into a telephone system so that officers could make work-related telephone calls through their radios without incurring cell-service charges. The radio handsets would need to be full-duplex capable, but that's not that hard to do. It would also be possible to set up officers' computers in their cars to use the same system.
Yes, there'd be an expensive initial equipment purchase cost, but the lack of service charges might well balance in favor of such a system over the long run.
Does a normal picture at a reasonable distance, even a distance as small as a foot, manage to get an accurate representation of one's iris? I don't think that even the highest quality cameras on the market are that good. The camera must be in one's face and the subject must not move, blink, or move one's eye (which could require some kind of restraining of the individual).
Obtaining an iris scan is probably invasive enough to require a compelling reason to perform it, and my guess is that under most circumstances that means that one is either 1) already being arrested, or 2) being served a warrant for the collection of it.
As many problems as there are in government databases, they generally don't use the contents of the databases for marketing, and they're supposed to attempt to keep access to the data restricted to only those with legitimate reason. That could include law enforcement or legal officials, or the person who is the subject of the file, with the proper request. It's also easier (note, I didn't say easy) to get improper data corrected. Law enforcement, being a portion of the executive branch in whatever jurisdiction or level of government it's associated with, is subject to legislation and legal rulings that can force changes or compliance.
Companies' purpose is profit. Right now that profit comes from the devices and the subscription to the data. Down the road, the company might see an opportunity for profit from mining the data in an anonymous fashion to the subjects of the data, or might find mining in an identifiable way, or might find that allowing third parties access to the data who otherwise shouldn't. Or, the data might be incorrect, outdated, or fraudulent, and government and law enforcement entities might end up creating more problems with bad arrests or worse based on flawed data from a private database. Additionally, a company might be harder to manage, even through legislation or court ruling, as there's a level of opacity through the corporate structure.
Make the devices, fine. Sell them to law enforcement, fine. Retain the data "for the customer", not fine.
G is a boy's word...
With apologies to Arthur Miller...
From the article:
If I were them, in an era when there are organizations dedicated to doing things for t3h lulz, I wouldn't be advertising something as essentially unhackable. This is just an excuse to point some shortcuts to goatse, tubgirl, rickroll, or lemon party...
Somehow I doubt that telling those white supremacists that they're the ones descended from Neanderthals and that the Africans are the only group lacking Neanderthal DNA would do anything to change their perspectives.
I speculate that it wold be worth the course. Depending on the design of one's spacecraft, one could pick up particles that are in orbit of the brown dwarf to use for fuel or other raw materials, and one could use gravity as an assist to accelerate further toward one's destination.
but who's the coolest dwarf of all?
In high school it probably would be Dopey, as it seems that stupidity that is funny is rewarded in popularity in that pressure-cooker environment.
Outside of high school though, it's probably Doc. Doc is smart and can do cool things.
Especially if they manage to show a link between this research, the fairly regular extinction events over the history of the planet, and The Nemesis Hypothetical Star...
Sure! Microsoft does! And they use them ALL in the OS!
If I remember correctly, the space race of the sixties and early seventies cost the US almost 1% of GDP to operate. The program also took lots of risks and resulted in the deaths of three Astronauts. We were competing for what we thought was our very existence against the biggest threat we had ever faced, an enemy who had stated their intent to ideologically turn us into them.
The Shuttle program of the eighties, which had military considerations (hence being a plane, along the lines of the X-20 Dyna-Soar) isn't really efficient at all. It's almost showing us how we have the means to brute-force our way to space. Using the shuttle to launch a satellite means not only is the weight of the satellite as a payload involved, but the weight of the shuttle, its supplies, and the personnel as well. It makes a lot more sense to launch just the satellite in a cowl. As for experiments in space, it probably makes more sense to design a capsule that has the capacity for the crew plus packed results from experiments with a non-returning, non-reentry-capable module that provides temporary habitation and laboratory space. The crew launches with both pieces, conducts experiments in the temporary module, packs the results into the capsule, straps in to the capsule, detaches from the module, deorbits and burns the module (if it's considered a risk in orbit) and then descends in the module. With the shuttle, since the same vehicle body is being reused (though it's probably more accurate to say 'recycled', considering the extensive refurbishing between each and every flight) the weight and design of the vehicle itself precludes a lighter, lower cost approach.
The Russians, while they've certainly had their problems, have had a much more cost-effective method with the Soyuz program, and the Progress modules for supplies delivery also have worked out fairly well. Cheap, designed for one trip, and able to be produced quickly and flown for their purpose without a lot of extra overhead.
Had we not suffered in the seventies with the material loss of Skylab, then in the eighties with Challenger and more recently with Columbia, without much real new achievement, we might have a public more interested in pushing the boundaries of space. But, with the stagnation of manned spaceflight since the seventies, the public just isn't inspired anymore, and I don't blame them. The cargo runs the shuttle has been used for don't do much for me either.
When NASA is faced with the collective ennui of a nation, it can't expect to get a lot of support from representatives, even when the programs are completely unrelated.
If I had mod points I'd have used 'em
Doctors and nurses won't eliminate parental complaints, but it puts the TSA in a much better position to defend their actions and to show more professionalism. It certainly won't make it perfect, but it'll make it a lot better.
Exactly. Since doctors and nurses are by definition trained to deal with the body and it is an expected part of their daily jobs, I would trust a doctor or nurse to have passed the scrutiny to do it correctly. Sure, there are doctors and nurses also busted for indecencies with minors from time to time, but it doesn't seem to be very widespread. Hell, you wouldn't even need Doctors that completed their internships for this kind of work- someone who graduated from Medical School alone would be enough. That could mean Doctorlings who can't afford their internship, Doctorlings who decided they don't like medicine but decided such too late, or those whose grades were bad enough that practicing actual medicine isn't really for them. Couple that with some training for the medical person to ask about events earlier in the day (to determine if the child was asked or forced to take any contraband into their own possession) similar to how pediatricians speak to children to find out what's wrong and you could probably have a fairly noninvasive, nonhumiliating way to screen those who really shouldn't be screened by regular security guards.
I would be surprised if the definition of Child Pornography is centered around artistic purposes. Medical publications likely have unclothed minors, and medical textbooks for GPs and Pediatricians probably do as well.
If anything, since artwork is often provocative and designed to stir the observer, art involving unclothed minors or representations of them is closer to Child Porn than body scanning images, which aren't designed to stir the observer. There's a classic painting in the Getty Museum in Los Angeles of an adolescent girl pushing cupid away from her, named something about a girl trying to resist love. I would be very much surprised if the subject was intended to be over eighteen, or if the painter's model, if there was one, was.
Okay, I get it- they screen children, the infirm, and the elderly not because they expect these people to be terrorists, but because it would be possible to use them as mules to carry the payload for someone who themselves would definitely be screened. Many of us understand this. Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers. One RN per security checkpoint, one Doctor to every four or five checkpoints or per terminal or airport, depending on the size of the terminal or airport. But, that would probably be expensive in an era when we're short on doctors and nurses. I suppose that they don't have to be especially good doctors, but since they're inspecting the body, having someone trained in the body probably would be a good idea.
The trouble is, they really, really need to find a better way to screen, and they need to understand that paying low wage workers to do the screening isn't helping. They need employees who actually care and are fairly intelligent people, and they need enough of them to offset the grueling nature of the job. That probably means a four-fold increase in the payroll, with 1/3 going to wage increases and the rest going to doubling the number of workers. They also need to institute their own Internal Affairs, complete with undercover placing (which could easily be safely hidden by the sheer size of the organization through the use of random gate reassignments for employees as well as transfers between airports and cities) to help stamp out the current problems.
When I went through security in London Heathrow, about a week after the Christmas Underwear Bomber attempt, and I accidently set off the metal detector because of a foil-lined wet wipe in my pocket, their security was quick and intelligent. They didn't feel the need to extend their patdown into a bag search, and once they found the wet wipe manually in my shirt pocket they wanded me quickly again, passed me, and gave me back the wet wipe. It took something like a minute for the whole process. Granted, they were smart enough to leave enough space in the airport for security, which is probably triple what we have in the US, but their employees seemed to actually care about what they were doing, didn't joke around in a way that made me uncomfortable, and treated it all as important but routine. I didn't get the "guilty until proven innocent" feeling that I get in our own airports.
I've heard lots of good things about El Al, as everyone on here talks about. I really wish that our policy makers would stop thinking that the technological approach is the way to go and start thinking about the human interaction approach. I'd bet that we could go back to simple metal detectors again if security actually made conversation with passengers instead of treating them like cattle to be mechanically put through the processes.
The orbits are wrong, there would be no benefit to attaching the real system to ISS. It would probably actually cost MORE to do it that way.
The space station and the satellites they're talking about don't orbit anywhere near each other. Most satellites are in geostationary orbit much, much higher than the station, which orbits the earth about fifteen times a day.
Any refuelling station would need an orbit much like the satellites it's supposed to service. That would probably mean launching up a big ol' gas can of a station, by weight mostly fuel, up to geostationary orbit or else ever so slightly higher, and using it to refuel until it itself runs out of fuel, then deorbiting it to burn up and launching another. If it's built right then the cost of the mechanism will be negligible relative to the service it provides.
It's not so much as I expect them to be stolen where I live now; I've lived in lots and lots of different neighborhoods over the years, and I just don't really trust anyone. I simply don't want the hassle of having to deal with it.
Mr President! There cannot be an Alpha Centauri Gap!