You'd have to install an entirely separate drive system just for the purpose of taxiing around. That'd create an extra layer of complexity (and more importantly, weight - everything on a plane is about weight) that would have to be protected against random failure and the rigors of pressurization-cycle fatigue. It's much simpler to just use tugs and the existing engines, so why bother?
What it's doing for the world is introducing a competitor to the ISP oligopoly that actually has the muscle to not be stomped on. When people start seeing how cheap it actually is to provide broadband (after all, the $300 is to cover the infrastructure installation - after that it's FREE), it might light a fire under AT&T, Comcast, etc. to actually start playing by the rules of capitalism again.
My doctoral thesis was a punch card program that could beat the world's best players at Tic-Tac-Toe. I still keep it around, next to my degree from Springfield Heights Institute of Technology.
Jury's still out on that one. The data is very mixed. Some wells leak methane, some don't, and the oil industry giants try very hard to keep it under wraps whether they drill high-quality wells or not, so it's hard to get an average.
This is a big debate that's going on right now, actually. They've put a few women in combat units to test out how they hold up.
The argument (not saying I agree, this is just what it is) goes beyond strength differences, though. It's also that women's bodies are less resistant to long-term stress - anecdotally, they've succumbed to things like muscle atrophy and malnutrition in the field more quickly than their male comrades, even if they started at comparable strength and fitness levels. Finally, battlefields are dirty places, and a woman in a prolonged combat situation would be at risk for yeast or other vaginal infections that a man wouldn't have to worry about. Medical supplies to prevent such would necessarily take up space in the pack that could've been used for extra bandages or ammo or whatever (this is the part of the argument where it really starts grasping at straws IMO).
Those are the arguments being used out there, or at least the ones that try to be objective and don't totally reek of chauvinism. Make of them what you will.
You haven't? They're actually pretty vocal about it, and there was a series of stories on women-in-combat in most media outlets less than a month ago. Look harder next time before posting.
"Moreover, no major breakthrough in technology or economy was achieved thanks to applied research"
I couldn't disagree more. All major breakthroughs are strictly on the back of applied research. However, all applied research relies solely on basic research. It falls under the "shoulders of giants" argument.
I was about to post an angry protest of this as well, and I'd go even farther than you did. Plenty of things are developed from applied research that are barely even related to basic research. Take the airplane, for example. The concepts of lift and drag, and their relationships, owed relatively little to the basic research being done in the 19th century on the nature of air (ideal gas law, etc.) and much more to the design and application of wind tunnel testing. Anyone who works in fluid dynamics owes much more to Osborne Reynolds than they do to Robert Boyle.
An EM field interacts with itself, too. If an EM field happens to be moving around, its self-interaction causes itself to look and act particle-like. We call this a photon. Replace EM with Higgs, and re-visualize.
Don't try to swallow the moon, though. It'll all dissolve, see, and the moonbeams will shoot out your fingers and toes and the ends of your hair. Then Philips will sue you for patent infringment and you'll end up back where you started.
Surely you could use that time for something better, like chatting, or bringing down the government.
Hey now, let's not get too carried away. I realize you're a little annoyed with how things have been going lately. But chatting?? That's a little extreme, don't you think?
Unless I'm missing some hidden factor that forces groups of people's net worths to be exactly equal, then I'd say that "assuming everyone is worth a different amount" is a very valid assumption. Even if you magically redistributed everything to be exactly equal, that would end as soon as one person wanted extra pepperoni on their pizza.
But see, that's hard. If we blame Nixon, we have to write a whole new song. If we blame Obama, we can just substitute him into the already-written "Blame Canada!" It's efficiency, see?
"Use a viral vector to administer the treatment" does not equate to "just tack it onto the common cold and release it into the wild." Nobody with a working genome is going to get this, because nobody's going to be injected with it unless they need to (I'm sure the cost of treatment will see to that, even without governmental restrictions). And even if they did, it wouldn't do anything - it would replace a working copy with a working copy, kind of like cut-and-pasting the same block of text into the same spot.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to install an entirely separate drive system just for the purpose of taxiing around. That'd create an extra layer of complexity (and more importantly, weight - everything on a plane is about weight) that would have to be protected against random failure and the rigors of pressurization-cycle fatigue. It's much simpler to just use tugs and the existing engines, so why bother?
What it's doing for the world is introducing a competitor to the ISP oligopoly that actually has the muscle to not be stomped on. When people start seeing how cheap it actually is to provide broadband (after all, the $300 is to cover the infrastructure installation - after that it's FREE), it might light a fire under AT&T, Comcast, etc. to actually start playing by the rules of capitalism again.
I'm confused.
Why would you want to use fewer legos?
My doctoral thesis was a punch card program that could beat the world's best players at Tic-Tac-Toe. I still keep it around, next to my degree from Springfield Heights Institute of Technology.
Quick google search of past headlines:
NYTimes editorial.
HuffPo
Of course, the opposing perspective (from the psychologist you love to hate, Dr. Ablow!)
There's a lot more out there. I didn't really feel like trawling through feminist blogs while at work, so you can dig deeper if you want.
Jury's still out on that one. The data is very mixed. Some wells leak methane, some don't, and the oil industry giants try very hard to keep it under wraps whether they drill high-quality wells or not, so it's hard to get an average.
A ray of hope? Quick! Trap it in the greenhouse before it radiates away!
The argument (not saying I agree, this is just what it is) goes beyond strength differences, though. It's also that women's bodies are less resistant to long-term stress - anecdotally, they've succumbed to things like muscle atrophy and malnutrition in the field more quickly than their male comrades, even if they started at comparable strength and fitness levels. Finally, battlefields are dirty places, and a woman in a prolonged combat situation would be at risk for yeast or other vaginal infections that a man wouldn't have to worry about. Medical supplies to prevent such would necessarily take up space in the pack that could've been used for extra bandages or ammo or whatever (this is the part of the argument where it really starts grasping at straws IMO).
Those are the arguments being used out there, or at least the ones that try to be objective and don't totally reek of chauvinism. Make of them what you will.
You haven't? They're actually pretty vocal about it, and there was a series of stories on women-in-combat in most media outlets less than a month ago. Look harder next time before posting.
The fact that it's better armor than Kevlar + trauma plates is a nice bonus =)
Against most foes, sure. But what if we end up at war with the bowmen of Esgaroth? You'd be signing our soldiers' death warrants!
"Moreover, no major breakthrough in technology or economy was achieved thanks to applied research"
I couldn't disagree more. All major breakthroughs are strictly on the back of applied research. However, all applied research relies solely on basic research. It falls under the "shoulders of giants" argument.
I was about to post an angry protest of this as well, and I'd go even farther than you did. Plenty of things are developed from applied research that are barely even related to basic research. Take the airplane, for example. The concepts of lift and drag, and their relationships, owed relatively little to the basic research being done in the 19th century on the nature of air (ideal gas law, etc.) and much more to the design and application of wind tunnel testing. Anyone who works in fluid dynamics owes much more to Osborne Reynolds than they do to Robert Boyle.
An EM field interacts with itself, too. If an EM field happens to be moving around, its self-interaction causes itself to look and act particle-like. We call this a photon. Replace EM with Higgs, and re-visualize.
That's exactly what it was, I think. I didn't watch it either. But that doesn't mean it wasn't popular.
Wasn't Smallville wildly popular?
Don't try to swallow the moon, though. It'll all dissolve, see, and the moonbeams will shoot out your fingers and toes and the ends of your hair. Then Philips will sue you for patent infringment and you'll end up back where you started.
It's not about how big the connector is. It's how you use it!
It takes a brave man to admit he has no historical experience regarding vaginas.
Surely you could use that time for something better, like chatting, or bringing down the government.
Hey now, let's not get too carried away. I realize you're a little annoyed with how things have been going lately. But chatting?? That's a little extreme, don't you think?
Quick! Pivot to a wine-fueled offensive! When the corn crop fails, UNLEASH THE GRAPES OF WRATH!
seizing ever-larger fractions of private enterprise
This is where the argument always falls apart. "I don't like heights" is not a valid rationale for refusing to climb out of a pit.
B5... ...and now we leave the cradle for the last time.
The problem of course is it's going to be super hard to find funding and staff at the beginning since we know ahead of time what happens to B1-B4.
Nah, it'll be fine. Remember, a war just ended. Gotta keep those factories in gear or risk recession!
Unless I'm missing some hidden factor that forces groups of people's net worths to be exactly equal, then I'd say that "assuming everyone is worth a different amount" is a very valid assumption. Even if you magically redistributed everything to be exactly equal, that would end as soon as one person wanted extra pepperoni on their pizza.
But see, that's hard. If we blame Nixon, we have to write a whole new song. If we blame Obama, we can just substitute him into the already-written "Blame Canada!" It's efficiency, see?
"Use a viral vector to administer the treatment" does not equate to "just tack it onto the common cold and release it into the wild." Nobody with a working genome is going to get this, because nobody's going to be injected with it unless they need to (I'm sure the cost of treatment will see to that, even without governmental restrictions). And even if they did, it wouldn't do anything - it would replace a working copy with a working copy, kind of like cut-and-pasting the same block of text into the same spot.
The internet is a Nebelwurfer?