That's hard to imagine, since there are VERY few species of animal, from tiny fish, up to elephants, where there isn't a size difference between sexes. Quite often, the females are larger, sometimes massively so, though with primates and a few other higher order mammals, males are almost always larger.
There has never been a woman who can compete with elite men in athletics.
The Women's world record in sprinting is regularly surpassed by male high school students.
The women's US National hockey team, in training for world cup events, plays competitvely in an ordinary league of "midget" aged boys (15-17yo)
There is one woman in the last 50 years of professional hockey who was thought to have a shot at playing on a mens team, but she got the pink slip on the second day of training camp, and not because of some bias. It wasn't her physical size, as she was taller and heavier than at least two of the players who made the team - it was mjust a matter of quickness and stamina and "power".
Even sports that are not strictly power, like golf, have never had a woman compete in a men's event. Anika Sorenstam played in several mens events and even hit the ball further than the reigning mens US Open Champion of fthe time (Cory Pavin), but she was never able to make the cut, even in minor-league mens events.
HOWEVER, there is no evidence that intellectually, that's the case.
While you might argue that this isn't a valid metric, Sanford/Binet IQ testing almost exactly coorilates with income in virtually all social strata. It also almost exactly coorilates with education completed and on average, with grades on almost all different sorts of standardized evaluations across dieverse spectrums of age, race, gender and backgrounds.
It almost exactly coorilates with success at higher math and with success in many "core" persuits, such as engineering, science, architecture, art and music.
The concept of "multiple intelligences" is probably accurate to some limited extent, but what does it measure? I don't think it's simple irony or happenstance that all NFL quarterbacks are in the top 5% of intelligence on standardized IQ tests, as are the majority of star hockey players. They may "also" rank in the top 1% for the "physical IQ" as defined by the "multiple" theory, but the standarized Binet testing measures a combination of mathematical, linguistic, spatial, logical and even interpersonal.
While someone may have an "aptitude" in many of the various "multiple" intelligence areas defined by the theory, someone who scores very high on Binet testing is likely to have a very high aptitude in MULTIPLE of these categories.
The best horticulture expert I know... can grow anythingg, anywhere, and just has a "sense" about that stuff might score high on the wacky sounding "naturalist" area of the multiple-iq theory... just happens to score in the 150s on a Binet test. I don't find this ironic.
I know plenty of people who are very "in touch" with nature and love growing things... but frankly, they aren't that good at the actual activity of doing it at it because they have a poor sense of spcial logic and mathematical reasoning and an "average" short term memory, etc, etc... which all impacts their ability to be teh best at whatever their chosen "expertise" is.
In all, I fiew the "multiple IQ" theory as a simple subset of intelligence. To say someone is brilliant on the "naturalist" or even "physical" scale of the theory only takes them so far, after which, they could go much further with a combination of many traits...... which is what the "simple" IQ testing sets out to accomplish.
Sure, it's a blunt instrument, but it's HIGHLY relevant to what our society (and many other societies) view as "success" in life.
They are simply acting as a legitimate government would and taxing those who enter their waters.
The a substantial majority of the hijackings have happened in the territorial waters of Yemen. Several recent attacks have happened in the territorial waters of Seychelles which is over 900 nautical miles off the coast of Somalia and is substantially closer to Madagascar than Somalia.
I'm seriously trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or just dumb....
They have been hijacking ships up to 1000nm off the coast who have absolutely no relation to Somalia, other than being within 1000 miles, including pleasure craft with no ties to any shipping or commercial interest...
I gotta say, I oppose the actions of the pirates, regardless of their perception of transgressions against them.
Except the private yacht owners who often lose everything they own and who's family is force to pay the ransom by any means.
There's a British couple held hostage in Somalia right now and their boat was found stripped to the hull and floating by a British naval vessel. The ransom is $7million, but they don't think their family can come up with it, so they've been asking the British government to pony up, but that seems unlikely.
Last word is that Islamic militants may try to buy them, or take them by force, to use for political purposes.
On the other hand, I worked in an office where a small team (three people) of server admins pulled a 10MB cable from a core infrastructure device and swapped it with a 100MB cable, with a similar attitude and the ensuing routing loop of some sort brought down an entire Fortune 100 company, costing an estimated $25 million in downtime and creating a late-night fire drill of pretty epic proportions as consultants and network admins scurried around their respective offices in 15 different cities trying to figure out why their packets were all cratering while about two dozen server admins were busy rebooting their systems, not knowing it was a network issue.
In the process, several network admins at different properties were busy trying to create custom routes to bypass the issue, which caused months of intermittent network issues once the original link was restored properly.
Overall, $1200 to check out the issues before hand would have seemed like a real cheap alternative, even if it was only a 1% fix.
I don't think they are. In general, cell towers use directional antennas (you can see them on towers as flat rectangular panels). I believe they can tell (within about 90 degrees) which direction you are from the antenna.
I believe that increasing directionality is one of the tactics used in expanding 3G bandwidth in high congestion areas (recently deployed by ATT and T-Mobile in some markets).
However, the simple act of saying "George will be at the mall at 2pm" does not constitute a march, or a parade and it's hard to imagine that this would require a permit.
Uhm, I used to check the time on my phone often while riding to work. I wore heavy gloves and a jacket, so a wrist watch was totally impractical anyway.....
Neither, in that situation, was very practical, but at least i didn't have to expose skin to do it.:-)
There will always be specialist devices, but if the iPhone was as cheap as your TRACPhone, and as functional as your computer and as reliable as your landline and uhm.. had a fold-out knife, then what purpose would each device have separately, other than to take up more space?
I'm just illustrating the point.
A DSLR is a specialist device. A typewriter (another example) is a specialist device, that some people still use, but was basically obsoleted by the multi-purpose device called "a computer".
There will always be a DSLR, but for the average person, it's likely we can continue to improve camera-phone capabilities to eclipse modern point-and-shoot cameras, at which point, who really needs better, other than a specialist ("photographer")? Same goes for watches, alarm clocks, etc.
I ceased using my hotel room alarm clocks when I got my iphone, because I have my alarms already configured and I'm certain that it will wake me (some hotel alarms don't) and I can turn it on in the dark, without hunting around for my glasses.
Additionally, isn't the iPhone (aka iPodTouch+) basically regarded as one of the premier music players?
2. Your cell phone was probably subsidized by your cell phone company, if you bought it new. Try buying a new cell phone without a plan, and no subsidy. they'll be more than $10.
It doesn't matter, I already purchased it for use as a mobile communication device and I already carry it everywhere for means for mobile communication. It's cost is totally immaterial to whether or not I would want to use it as a time-keeping device.
3. I don't need to recharge my wrist watch every few days. How many days can you talk on your cell phone run without a recharge?
This is immaterial, as I keep my cell phone charged for use as a mobile communication device. Any other functions it also serves is simply one less battery I have to charge (or change annually, as it were with a watch)
4. Does your cell phone fit conveniently on your wrist like a watch? Or would you have to duct-tape it?
5. Is your cell phone as light as a watch?
I hate having things on my wrist, but since I keep my cell phone on my person at almost all times anyway, this is also immaterial.
6. Can you make calls on your cell phone without some sort of plan, even if it's pay-as-you-go? I can still tell time with my watch - no plan needed.
No, but I can still tell time on my phone without a plan. But I've had a cell phone plan uninterrupted for almost 10 years. You make a good argument for having a mobile timekeeping device around in case of nuclear winter or total economic collapse. I keep one in a drawer in my laundry room. Shouldn't this suffice in the unlikely event the world economy crumbles?
7. My watch doesn't have "dead zones" where it stops telling time. Does your cell phone have dead zones where you can't make calls?
My cell phone doesn't have "dead zones" where it stops telling time. It does have "dead zones" where it ceases to function as a mobile communication device. It is always more than adequate as a time-keeping device, however.
8. I don't have to worry about my watch interrupting an important meeting with an embarrassing ring-tone.
I'm glad hear that you choose to use an embarrassing ring-tone. I don't and I turn my phone on "silent" during meetings. I would continue to do this if I had a wrist watch. I would also continue to do this if I didn't have a wrist watch. Wait... when did ring tones have ANYTHING to do with this discussion about time-keeping? Are you telling me that you're fundamentally opposed to the concept of a telephone because you might be interrupted? Interesting......
9. If someone steals my watch, I don't have to worry that they have a lot of my contacts.
10. A thief can't run u a big bill for me on my watch.
11. I don't have to back up my watch.
And again... this has nothing to do with time-keeping. Are you fundamentally opposed to the concept of a mobile communication device? I find them quite useful. I imagine it's hard to conduct business these days with that attitude. How have you managed?
12. It's legal to look at my watch while driving.
This might be the only good point in this whole rant. But my car has an accurate clock and it IS separate from the radio and "always on" (even when the ignition is off--- even when the battery is too dead to start the car).
I have both a cell phone and a watch. Each one has its own place. Maybe you've heard of the concept - "right tool for the job."
A long time ago, there was this thing called a 'typewriter'. There was a different thing called a 'computer'. They served totally different purposes. A lot of people swore by both of them.
Then one day, someone created an attachment for the computer and some software that allowed it to do the work of a typewriter.
In all, it doesn't matter a damn, for the simple fact that i'm going to have a cell phone ANYWAY.
Once I already have said cell phone... and it costs trivially more for me to pull it out and look at it, I'm GOING TO USE IT as my time keeping device.
The cost of said cell phone is immaterial, if I already own it for purposes of mobile communication.
As long as it doesn't double the price to have it also serve as a time-keeping device, there's NO PRACTICAL REASON not to use it.
Alright, well, more than half of the people I spend time with don't wear them.
Maybe we're not far enough in the yuppie generation to give a crap about gold trinkets on our wrists. Personally, I don't wear a suit to interviews for the primary reason that I don't want to work in place where a suit would influence my boss.
When I was a manager, a few years ago, and conducted interviews, I found that the guys who wore suits were less qualified than those who didn't. To be honest, I may have had a bias against them for feeling like they had to "dress up" to impress me, when what i wanted was a competent technician, not a suit.
I now work in a business that is 100% street cred. I own a company and we do really well because we get results. The fact that I am not the sharpest dressed in the room doesn't matter because they're substance there.
When I see a flashy watch, or a flashy car, I think "overcompensating". I don't think "ooo fancy".
In fact, much of my younger generation feels that way (I was born in the 80s - so I'm not THAT young). Enjoy it while you can old man.:-)
The simple fact is that I will be carrying a cell phone anyway. Why have a second device? If I want to flash, why not just wear a big gold bracelet? Why does it need a face with hands on it to be "bling" if that's what you're after?
Once I have a phone in my pocket, (which I would almost always anyway), why have a redundant device?
Seems silly and your other reasons seem pompous and poorly aimed.
I haven't done retail computer repair in almost 15 years, but I *still* remember the smoker's machines.
10 year old machines from an old cat-lady's house was kinda gross.
But a 2 year old machine from a heavy indoor smoker... much worse.
We had an industrial air compressor in the loading dock and we would take them out there. With some customers we told them "if we're going to work on it, it's going in front of the air compressor- that thing breaks fans and sometimes other things and we won't be responsible for it... if you want to take it elsewhere after hearing that, go ahead"
We did occasionally turn away business because of it and there was always the "short straw" for who got to work on the ones we didn't turn away.
I've had a number of cases where we simply told them that the motherboard was getting replaced as a result of the smoke - that even if there wasn't now, there was likely heat damage from the caked-on goo and crap. The fans usually all had to go to, sometimes a new case entirely, at which point we're basically doing a whole new computer.
I remember firing up the air compressor on a few machines and the resultant dust cloud sent half a dozen people coughing, into the other room.
Somehow, I doubt the Apple stores used to be mechanic shops (like our repair place was) so don't have the luxury of a big air compressor.
bleh.
thinking about those machines turns my stomach, still today.
If we found a computer that was all rusty on the inside because it was placed behind a humidifier, or was dripped on by a leaky pipe, we would void the warranty. (both of these happened)
Why wouldn't we void the warranty of a computer that had melted down or dropped a fan due to smoking residue?
We do enough fuzzing against Windows machines that I think the NSA understands any intentional backdoor is likely to be discovered eventually. Sure they can claim "bug" and remove it, but I doubt they would rely on something so trivial.
Didn't I read somewhere that a steel cable would be like 50 miles in diameter at the base in order to support it's own weight, when tapered.
Bubble gum? Your elevator would have more gravity than the earth, making it hard to establish escape velocity... in fact.. i can't even picture a Jupiter sized wad of bubble gum stuck to the side of the earth.:-)
Noting the reply below addresses the "100 mile" issue... how many Titan V rockets would it take to lift an Airbus into orbit? I'd think it would be at least a few dozen.;-)
The problem is that not many (any) materials have the strength to weight ratio to support their own weight.
Steel, for example, is too heavy. A 1" cable stretching to getosync orbit would outweigh it's own tensile strength and hence it's ability to hold itself aloft by a factor of 10 or 15.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hard to imagine, since there are VERY few species of animal, from tiny fish, up to elephants, where there isn't a size difference between sexes. Quite often, the females are larger, sometimes massively so, though with primates and a few other higher order mammals, males are almost always larger.
There has never been a woman who can compete with elite men in athletics.
The Women's world record in sprinting is regularly surpassed by male high school students.
The women's US National hockey team, in training for world cup events, plays competitvely in an ordinary league of "midget" aged boys (15-17yo)
There is one woman in the last 50 years of professional hockey who was thought to have a shot at playing on a mens team, but she got the pink slip on the second day of training camp, and not because of some bias. It wasn't her physical size, as she was taller and heavier than at least two of the players who made the team - it was mjust a matter of quickness and stamina and "power".
Even sports that are not strictly power, like golf, have never had a woman compete in a men's event. Anika Sorenstam played in several mens events and even hit the ball further than the reigning mens US Open Champion of fthe time (Cory Pavin), but she was never able to make the cut, even in minor-league mens events.
HOWEVER, there is no evidence that intellectually, that's the case.
While you might argue that this isn't a valid metric, Sanford/Binet IQ testing almost exactly coorilates with income in virtually all social strata. It also almost exactly coorilates with education completed and on average, with grades on almost all different sorts of standardized evaluations across dieverse spectrums of age, race, gender and backgrounds.
It almost exactly coorilates with success at higher math and with success in many "core" persuits, such as engineering, science, architecture, art and music.
The concept of "multiple intelligences" is probably accurate to some limited extent, but what does it measure? I don't think it's simple irony or happenstance that all NFL quarterbacks are in the top 5% of intelligence on standardized IQ tests, as are the majority of star hockey players. They may "also" rank in the top 1% for the "physical IQ" as defined by the "multiple" theory, but the standarized Binet testing measures a combination of mathematical, linguistic, spatial, logical and even interpersonal.
While someone may have an "aptitude" in many of the various "multiple" intelligence areas defined by the theory, someone who scores very high on Binet testing is likely to have a very high aptitude in MULTIPLE of these categories.
The best horticulture expert I know... can grow anythingg, anywhere, and just has a "sense" about that stuff might score high on the wacky sounding "naturalist" area of the multiple-iq theory... just happens to score in the 150s on a Binet test. I don't find this ironic.
I know plenty of people who are very "in touch" with nature and love growing things... but frankly, they aren't that good at the actual activity of doing it at it because they have a poor sense of spcial logic and mathematical reasoning and an "average" short term memory, etc, etc... which all impacts their ability to be teh best at whatever their chosen "expertise" is.
In all, I fiew the "multiple IQ" theory as a simple subset of intelligence. To say someone is brilliant on the "naturalist" or even "physical" scale of the theory only takes them so far, after which, they could go much further with a combination of many traits...... which is what the "simple" IQ testing sets out to accomplish.
Sure, it's a blunt instrument, but it's HIGHLY relevant to what our society (and many other societies) view as "success" in life.
sorry, should have read "a substantial number" (not a majority)
They are simply acting as a legitimate government would and taxing those who enter their waters.
The a substantial majority of the hijackings have happened in the territorial waters of Yemen. Several recent attacks have happened in the territorial waters of Seychelles which is over 900 nautical miles off the coast of Somalia and is substantially closer to Madagascar than Somalia.
I'm seriously trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or just dumb....
They have been hijacking ships up to 1000nm off the coast who have absolutely no relation to Somalia, other than being within 1000 miles, including pleasure craft with no ties to any shipping or commercial interest...
I gotta say, I oppose the actions of the pirates, regardless of their perception of transgressions against them.
Except the private yacht owners who often lose everything they own and who's family is force to pay the ransom by any means.
There's a British couple held hostage in Somalia right now and their boat was found stripped to the hull and floating by a British naval vessel. The ransom is $7million, but they don't think their family can come up with it, so they've been asking the British government to pony up, but that seems unlikely.
Last word is that Islamic militants may try to buy them, or take them by force, to use for political purposes.
Win for all!
On the other hand, I worked in an office where a small team (three people) of server admins pulled a 10MB cable from a core infrastructure device and swapped it with a 100MB cable, with a similar attitude and the ensuing routing loop of some sort brought down an entire Fortune 100 company, costing an estimated $25 million in downtime and creating a late-night fire drill of pretty epic proportions as consultants and network admins scurried around their respective offices in 15 different cities trying to figure out why their packets were all cratering while about two dozen server admins were busy rebooting their systems, not knowing it was a network issue.
In the process, several network admins at different properties were busy trying to create custom routes to bypass the issue, which caused months of intermittent network issues once the original link was restored properly.
Overall, $1200 to check out the issues before hand would have seemed like a real cheap alternative, even if it was only a 1% fix.
I don't think they are. In general, cell towers use directional antennas (you can see them on towers as flat rectangular panels). I believe they can tell (within about 90 degrees) which direction you are from the antenna.
I believe that increasing directionality is one of the tactics used in expanding 3G bandwidth in high congestion areas (recently deployed by ATT and T-Mobile in some markets).
However, the simple act of saying "George will be at the mall at 2pm" does not constitute a march, or a parade and it's hard to imagine that this would require a permit.
Do you think it should?
Uhm, I used to check the time on my phone often while riding to work. I wore heavy gloves and a jacket, so a wrist watch was totally impractical anyway.....
Neither, in that situation, was very practical, but at least i didn't have to expose skin to do it. :-)
Why does your jewlery have to have complex gears and a face with hands?
Why not just wear gold and diamonds, if it's simply an object of materialism or "bling", as it were?
Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Effing Prada website made my browser window very small. I hated Prada for their shoes before, now I hate them even more.
They make shoes?
There will always be specialist devices, but if the iPhone was as cheap as your TRACPhone, and as functional as your computer and as reliable as your landline and uhm.. had a fold-out knife, then what purpose would each device have separately, other than to take up more space?
I'm just illustrating the point.
A DSLR is a specialist device. A typewriter (another example) is a specialist device, that some people still use, but was basically obsoleted by the multi-purpose device called "a computer".
There will always be a DSLR, but for the average person, it's likely we can continue to improve camera-phone capabilities to eclipse modern point-and-shoot cameras, at which point, who really needs better, other than a specialist ("photographer")? Same goes for watches, alarm clocks, etc.
I ceased using my hotel room alarm clocks when I got my iphone, because I have my alarms already configured and I'm certain that it will wake me (some hotel alarms don't) and I can turn it on in the dark, without hunting around for my glasses.
Additionally, isn't the iPhone (aka iPodTouch+) basically regarded as one of the premier music players?
I think this article is right-on.
1. GBP 10 is not $10.
2. Your cell phone was probably subsidized by your cell phone company, if you bought it new. Try buying a new cell phone without a plan, and no subsidy. they'll be more than $10.
It doesn't matter, I already purchased it for use as a mobile communication device and I already carry it everywhere for means for mobile communication. It's cost is totally immaterial to whether or not I would want to use it as a time-keeping device.
3. I don't need to recharge my wrist watch every few days. How many days can you talk on your cell phone run without a recharge?
This is immaterial, as I keep my cell phone charged for use as a mobile communication device. Any other functions it also serves is simply one less battery I have to charge (or change annually, as it were with a watch)
4. Does your cell phone fit conveniently on your wrist like a watch? Or would you have to duct-tape it?
5. Is your cell phone as light as a watch?
I hate having things on my wrist, but since I keep my cell phone on my person at almost all times anyway, this is also immaterial.
6. Can you make calls on your cell phone without some sort of plan, even if it's pay-as-you-go? I can still tell time with my watch - no plan needed.
No, but I can still tell time on my phone without a plan. But I've had a cell phone plan uninterrupted for almost 10 years. You make a good argument for having a mobile timekeeping device around in case of nuclear winter or total economic collapse. I keep one in a drawer in my laundry room. Shouldn't this suffice in the unlikely event the world economy crumbles?
7. My watch doesn't have "dead zones" where it stops telling time. Does your cell phone have dead zones where you can't make calls?
My cell phone doesn't have "dead zones" where it stops telling time. It does have "dead zones" where it ceases to function as a mobile communication device. It is always more than adequate as a time-keeping device, however.
8. I don't have to worry about my watch interrupting an important meeting with an embarrassing ring-tone.
I'm glad hear that you choose to use an embarrassing ring-tone. I don't and I turn my phone on "silent" during meetings. I would continue to do this if I had a wrist watch. I would also continue to do this if I didn't have a wrist watch. Wait... when did ring tones have ANYTHING to do with this discussion about time-keeping? Are you telling me that you're fundamentally opposed to the concept of a telephone because you might be interrupted? Interesting......
9. If someone steals my watch, I don't have to worry that they have a lot of my contacts.
10. A thief can't run u a big bill for me on my watch.
11. I don't have to back up my watch.
And again... this has nothing to do with time-keeping. Are you fundamentally opposed to the concept of a mobile communication device? I find them quite useful. I imagine it's hard to conduct business these days with that attitude. How have you managed?
12. It's legal to look at my watch while driving.
This might be the only good point in this whole rant. But my car has an accurate clock and it IS separate from the radio and "always on" (even when the ignition is off--- even when the battery is too dead to start the car).
I have both a cell phone and a watch. Each one has its own place. Maybe you've heard of the concept - "right tool for the job."
A long time ago, there was this thing called a 'typewriter'. There was a different thing called a 'computer'. They served totally different purposes. A lot of people swore by both of them.
Then one day, someone created an attachment for the computer and some software that allowed it to do the work of a typewriter.
In all, it doesn't matter a damn, for the simple fact that i'm going to have a cell phone ANYWAY.
Once I already have said cell phone... and it costs trivially more for me to pull it out and look at it, I'm GOING TO USE IT as my time keeping device.
The cost of said cell phone is immaterial, if I already own it for purposes of mobile communication.
As long as it doesn't double the price to have it also serve as a time-keeping device, there's NO PRACTICAL REASON not to use it.
All the other arguments are just silly.
Thanks, you're welcome, etc.
Alright, well, more than half of the people I spend time with don't wear them.
Maybe we're not far enough in the yuppie generation to give a crap about gold trinkets on our wrists. Personally, I don't wear a suit to interviews for the primary reason that I don't want to work in place where a suit would influence my boss.
When I was a manager, a few years ago, and conducted interviews, I found that the guys who wore suits were less qualified than those who didn't. To be honest, I may have had a bias against them for feeling like they had to "dress up" to impress me, when what i wanted was a competent technician, not a suit.
I now work in a business that is 100% street cred. I own a company and we do really well because we get results. The fact that I am not the sharpest dressed in the room doesn't matter because they're substance there.
When I see a flashy watch, or a flashy car, I think "overcompensating". I don't think "ooo fancy".
In fact, much of my younger generation feels that way (I was born in the 80s - so I'm not THAT young). Enjoy it while you can old man. :-)
The simple fact is that I will be carrying a cell phone anyway. Why have a second device? If I want to flash, why not just wear a big gold bracelet? Why does it need a face with hands on it to be "bling" if that's what you're after?
Once I have a phone in my pocket, (which I would almost always anyway), why have a redundant device?
Seems silly and your other reasons seem pompous and poorly aimed.
Aha a thin layer? hahahahahhaha
I haven't done retail computer repair in almost 15 years, but I *still* remember the smoker's machines.
10 year old machines from an old cat-lady's house was kinda gross.
But a 2 year old machine from a heavy indoor smoker... much worse.
We had an industrial air compressor in the loading dock and we would take them out there. With some customers we told them "if we're going to work on it, it's going in front of the air compressor- that thing breaks fans and sometimes other things and we won't be responsible for it... if you want to take it elsewhere after hearing that, go ahead"
We did occasionally turn away business because of it and there was always the "short straw" for who got to work on the ones we didn't turn away.
I've had a number of cases where we simply told them that the motherboard was getting replaced as a result of the smoke - that even if there wasn't now, there was likely heat damage from the caked-on goo and crap. The fans usually all had to go to, sometimes a new case entirely, at which point we're basically doing a whole new computer.
I remember firing up the air compressor on a few machines and the resultant dust cloud sent half a dozen people coughing, into the other room.
Somehow, I doubt the Apple stores used to be mechanic shops (like our repair place was) so don't have the luxury of a big air compressor.
bleh.
thinking about those machines turns my stomach, still today.
If we found a computer that was all rusty on the inside because it was placed behind a humidifier, or was dripped on by a leaky pipe, we would void the warranty. (both of these happened)
Why wouldn't we void the warranty of a computer that had melted down or dropped a fan due to smoking residue?
Seems similar to me...
We do enough fuzzing against Windows machines that I think the NSA understands any intentional backdoor is likely to be discovered eventually. Sure they can claim "bug" and remove it, but I doubt they would rely on something so trivial.
No, but simply because it gives a plausible explanation for it, without HAVING to rely on conspiracy theory.
That's all.
the people who make over 250,000 per year are mostly (over 90) self-employed, or the owner of a company.
Sure there are plenty of wealthy stock brokers and investment managers, but the majority are business people who built something themselves.
Didn't I read somewhere that a steel cable would be like 50 miles in diameter at the base in order to support it's own weight, when tapered.
Bubble gum? Your elevator would have more gravity than the earth, making it hard to establish escape velocity... in fact.. i can't even picture a Jupiter sized wad of bubble gum stuck to the side of the earth. :-)
Noting the reply below addresses the "100 mile" issue... how many Titan V rockets would it take to lift an Airbus into orbit? I'd think it would be at least a few dozen. ;-)
The most popular design has the ribbon extending an equal amount above the GEO orbit, meaning 71,000 km of ribbon....
Heavy, heavy, heavy.
No you couldn't.
The problem is that not many (any) materials have the strength to weight ratio to support their own weight.
Steel, for example, is too heavy. A 1" cable stretching to getosync orbit would outweigh it's own tensile strength and hence it's ability to hold itself aloft by a factor of 10 or 15.
The cable REALLY is the hard part.