You can do either one, the former (star atlas) is just easier to display and work with, especially in 2 dimensions. Technically, however, the CMB is a map of the temperature of the surface of a sphere, so a globe is a better representation of the reality.
"Kickstarter itself cannot reasonably be used as source for projects to be funded."
except it has been, continually, and successfully. We're talking multi-million dollar projects now.
He means "as a source to learn about projects to be funded", not "as a method of aggregating funding." Hence his mention of "advertising." He is right: it's almost impossible, browsing their catalog, to find which are good projects and which aren't, given how many projects there often are (you can do it, but it's quite a lot of work). The only real filter is by already popular projects, which means that project has already gotten attention from external sources. Every project I've funded on there I've found out about through a different site.
Yeah, the C-12 is not a combat aircraft, it's a transport aircraft. Carrying cargo does not count as combat, no matter what kind of cargo it is carrying (not unless the cargo is dropped midflight, and is explosive, in which case it's a "bomber", and not cargo but a payload). Combat aricraft are aircraft that engage in combat, and the Army is forbidden to operate any (the Air Force considers that their job). In fact, you can see the list of aircraft they do operate here.
If the tax crosses state borders, then it should be collected by the Feds - or at least the rules should be national and consistent. Collect, say, 5% from everyone and then distribute it according to billing address. Making merchants deal with 50 different tax codes is onerous. I hope this bill is defeated.
It's not 50, it's closer to 10,000 (according to TFA). Different counties can have different tax rates (even a zip code doesn't guarantee a single tax rate).
Umm, wasn't it techncially a "representation" revolt? Taxes are needed to pay for the services that are provided. Taxation without political power in return is what was the cause of the revolt.
Yep, exactly. Which makes it even more relevant to the present case, not less.
This tax would be collected from the retailer, just like a normal sales tax, not from the end purchaser. Technically, at least a few states already require you to pay a "usage" tax on things bought online or over the phone (from out-of-state), but that requires the purchaser to pay the tax, not the seller, so it ends up not being paid. Thats why the states want to go after the retailers: because then it becomes much easier for the state to enforce the taxes, which they currently cannot.
Useful research into vulnerabilities, wasn't used for personal gain, was reported to educate others and so security lapses could be fixed.
They're so going to jail.
Of course. They used broke into others computers, uploaded and executed binary files on them, without their permission, for their own purposes. That is both illegal and unethical. They should be punished for that.
The reason why they did it is not terribly relevant (although it doesn't make it worse, since the end was not itself a crime). The ends do not justify the means. Breaking the door of a house down to tell the owners their door is easily broken down is still breaking and entering.
If someone wants to have more daylight hours in their work day, wakeup just before daylight. Why move the freaking clocks? It doesn't make any sense, and it never has. Hours are just a measurement, there's nothing that says you have to be asleep at 7am. If you want to get up early because you'll get more daylight for things you're doing, get up early!
Sure, and if you could convince a few hundred million people to do that, you probably wouldn't be commenting on Slashdot, you'd be President of the whole planet. People are not rational, and they do not behave rationally. A person is, sure, but people as a group are not, and they never have been. You can make all the theories you want about how daylight savings was always a stupid idea, but if you forget that large groups of people are involved, and that those people won't follow the logical path, you're just wasting energy typing.
Mind you, with how cheap electricity is now, and with how much interior lighting is used anyways, it doesn't matter anymore and hasn't for decades, but it made sense at one point.
I know I am going to get a bunch of people who tell me, "Idiocracy is not real dude.".
But...
If you continue to make life simple for the stupid they will in fact breed more. Being stupid is no longer a death sentence nor does it seem to hinder reproduction in the current society.
So we are in fact getting stupider.
It's not real. First of all, you're assuming that intelligence correlates necessarily with genetics, i.e. that a stupid person cannot have smart children. Thats false. Obviously, genetics plays some role, but upbringing and other factors play a strong role as well, and even with the genetic influence a stupid person can carry "smart" genes. Secondly, the "stupid" people have always bred more than the smarter ones. Quite often, the "smart" people are too busy studying things to have sex (for example, Tesla considered sex a distraction, so he remained a virgin his whole life). Being "stupid" has never hindered reproduction. I'd even argue thats a good thing for society in a way: if everyone spent their entire time studying math and physics (or other theoreticals, as intelligent people tend to), we'd all have died a long, long time ago from starvation.
And finally, it's been demonstrated that people have been getting smarter over the past century or so, so Idiocracy is demonstrably false.
Yeah. Yeah, that's really depressing to know that someone can have a doctorate from Yale and Harvard and cling to this idea that science owes its existence to religion. It's even more disgusting that you restrict your examples specifically to Christianity and not Hindi or Muslim contributions.
Actually, it does. You see, the first religions were attempts at explaining phenomena in nature, such as lightning. The very earliest religions *were* attempts at science (granted, not very good ones by today's standards, but nevertheless they followed the idea of observing natural phenomenon and attempted to produce explanations for them). "Gods do it" was one of the earliest proposed explanations for magnetics (not a popular one even then, and it may not satisfy the modern idea of a proper explanation, but it's still an explanation of a sort for natural phenomenon, i.e. a prototypical science).
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old [gallup.com].
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans. And lets not get into questions about global warming or vaccination, which is are counter-factual movements that cross all boundaries of religion and ideology, seemingly.
Here's a better question: Would Augustine have been a saint or would he have been excommunicated/burned at the stake if he had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?
No? Nice fallacious loaded question, though. But seriously, no, he wouldn't have. I know, I've read him, and I've studied the period of history during which he lived (burning at the stake was... a bit less popular at that time, shall we say).
And then at the end of the day someone else is still calling you a sinner and your science is hobbled by what is and isn't taboo to explore.
Not really, no, because the answer is and always has been "nothing, except that which is ruled out by ethics" (you know, like experiments on unconsenting humans).
The fact is most people who badmouth religion and it's connection to science know very little about religion itself. On the flip side, the religious people who bash science know very little about science. Ignorance generates fear: it always has.
Can someone explain to me how discovering the THIRD closes system to ours in 2013 doesn't suggest that all the Dark Matter(tm) that's out there just isn't a mass of brown dwarfs that we can't see, and not a whole new class of matter?
Because of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. We can know how much baryonic matter ("normal" matter) there is in the universe by certain cosmological observations. Other cosmological observations show there is more matter out there than that (about 5 times more) and therefore it cannot all be brown dwarfs, black holes, or other dark but non-exotic forms of matter.
another thing that would lend credence to the end of democracy would be the majority enacting laws to punish the minority.
Actually, thats almost the textbook definition of democracy (in a true democracy, the majority is always right). It's also why the US isn't a pure democracy.
Is it can be forked. But then we have the question of whether Android, the open source part, is really enough to build a phone or if only basic elements are open source, while key elements are closed or so severely controlled that they might as well be closed.
What question? Tons of devices use just the open source part without Google's proprietary stuff. All you have to add are hardware drivers if you're using non-standard hardware, everything else you need comes open source. Only stuff like Google Play and Google Maps are close course.
I'd be suprised if supermarkets hadn't thought about this for their trolleys - only put off by price of course. Clearly 'analogue' restrictions are often cheaper than digital ones.
I have seen stores with carts that state they do this. Not sure if they actually do or not, but the signs stated the wheels lock up if it leaves the parking lot.
Actually, they state that the 3-8% better maximum compression than zlib is 2-3 orders of magnitude longer to compress.
I can't imagine what kind of content you're hosting that'd justify 3 orders of magnitude compression time to gain 3% compression.
Static content that only has to be compressed once, yet is downloaded hundreds of thousands or millions of times. 3-8% is a pretty significant savings in that case.
I don't buy EA's games already. There are two problems. They continue to make crappy games, and the industry tends to follow the big leaders examples. It isn't like EA is making bucketloads of money with that strategy, they lost, what, a few hundred million last year? Something like that. Obviously, people are already not buying their games. But they aren't listening. Instead, they make Real Racing 3 and charge $80 for a single ingame car, and they've stated explicitly that they intend to focus even more on F2P, microtransactions, mobile games, and DLC to increase their revenue. Why? Because they've seen how much that strategy can make, without realizing they probably never will because their games are crap (and their prices are as well). Then we have other people who look at them going down that path, think "thats a good idea", and overall we end up with lots more shit games, and whats more, games that could be good. You see, F2P can work, but not in every case, and not when run by incompetent money-grabbing arseholes.
Which brings me to my second point. The publishers own lots of promising IP. For example, EA owns Bioware. Bioware was an amazing studio. They made one of my favorite games ever, KOTOR, and Baldur's gate, and similar. Now, though, they've ended up being destroyed and ripped apart by EA's focus on making money in the short term (which, as mentioned above, doesn't even work), and instead of producing gems like they have, they produce crap like SWTOR (sure, some people might like it, but it's nothing at heart but a cheap WoW rip-off), or the "ending" to Mass Effect 3. So we end up with games that should have been good, and even in some cases are if you move past the micro-transaction crap (like the aforementioned Real Racing 3 aparently is), but are simply stupid thanks to the publishers greed.
So in short, people already are voting with their wallets. The big studios just aren't listening, because they're run by a bunch of marketers and buzzword-obsessed executives, not by the people who actually care about the games themselves (except, of course, for the privately own Valve, which is why so many people praise them). Plus, of course, you can't get everyone to stop spending money, especially because a lot of gamers genuinely do like playing AAA titles, and if we stopped playing every game with DLC we simply wouldn't be playing AAA titles anymore. We'd just prefer not to be asked to insert our credit card every 5 minutes.
If you're running a PC at 1080 then resolution isn't a strong argument since many/most TVs are 1080p.
Console games, however, are often not. Seriously, check the box next time. Quite a lot of them run at either 720p or 1080i (God of War III, for example, can only run up to 1080i). I've seen some that don't even offer 1080i, although I can't remember which ones.
Is this a thing? People get tribal about browsers?
Well, he could just be annoyed about the summary being blatantly wrong, since it specifically says that the bug exists in Opera when, in fact, it does not.
But yeah, people can be a bit competitive about their favorite browser. Not as bad as emacs vs. vi or anything, but it does happen a bit.
So it's wrong when they do it but not when the US does it, is that what you're saying?
That depends. Self-defense is not wrong, so if the US is doing it in self-defense, then yes. Since we know the Chinese have been launching attacks against the US for many years now, it seems likely that the US is in fact doing it in self-defense, so yes, it is OK when the US does it but not when they do it. Ideally, neither one would do it, but in the case of war the aggressor is in the wrong (barring any other extenuating circumstances, like the defender attacking it's neighbors, or committing genocide).
It takes a special kind of terrorist to deploy a bioweapon, because bioweapons don't distinguish based on religion (although you could theoretically make one that distinguishes on race, it's a bit tricky). That means it'll hit everyone indiscriminately, and not even most terrorists want that. The only ones who would use something like that are people who want to destroy everyone, and finding a large enough group of people (as you would need to create and deploy such a weapon) willing to do that is quite difficult.
Also even the most lethal bioweapons won't kill everyone, whether thanks to natural immunity or proper quarantine procedures, a lot of people will survive. Anything nasty enough to actually kill everyone will almost certainly burn out very rapidly.
The typo is in TFA as well, so I'm not sure proofreading would have helped. It is, after all, quite possible her name actually is Kindra Check (it isn't, I checked).
What they need is a fix to rid the world of all of these ridiculous, horrible "Slideshow" websites. 21 fixes? OK Give me a list on one page - maybe two if you want to increase your ad revenue. There's not much in Web 3.0 or whatever the fuck we call ourselves on, but it's horseshit.
See the "Article View" up on the right side of the page? Yeah, that works for Cracked. Other sites, YMMV. Usually they have a "print page" link that does the trick, but not always.
That summary is utterly meaningless without a scale factor. I mean, if there are 2 wind towers and a million cats, it's pretty obvious the cats are going to kill more birds even if each cat only kills 1 bird and the turbines kill a thousand each. And there are quite a lot of cats in the US (86 million or so), but relatively few wind turbines (some rough math places a top figure of 60,000 turbines in the entire US, and it's probably closer to half that in actuality).
At some point the "hunt" for these special quantum particles is going to go to far and lead us into an area we as of now don't know we don't want to enter. Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.
What? Are you seriously proposing that we stop doing scientific research? Yes, of course, what happens 10 billion or more years from now is completely irrelevant to us as individuals. It might be relevant to our species, however, and the physics behind it is relevant always. Pretty much all of our technology is based on research like this that was once considered merely of academic interest. Who knows, maybe we could discover how to travel to other galaxies by manipulating the Higgs field. We won't know until we try. And it's improbable that anything we invent will be all that much worse than the nuclear or chemical weapons that already exist.
And it's not a dichotomy: we don't have to stop physics research to solve all our current issues in the world. In fact, it wouldn't even help to do so. At all.
Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.
Could be as simple as page views. A story saying the car doesn't perform as advertised generates a lot more interest than one saying "yep, everything worked as expected." Just like Top Gear did a while back. Of course, I stopped expecting Top Gear to be reliable a while back and now just enjoy it as pure entertainment (which it really is), but this guy pretended to be writing a genuine news story.
Slashdot Mirror
You can do either one, the former (star atlas) is just easier to display and work with, especially in 2 dimensions. Technically, however, the CMB is a map of the temperature of the surface of a sphere, so a globe is a better representation of the reality.
"Kickstarter itself cannot reasonably be used as source for projects to be funded."
except it has been, continually, and successfully. We're talking multi-million dollar projects now.
He means "as a source to learn about projects to be funded", not "as a method of aggregating funding." Hence his mention of "advertising." He is right: it's almost impossible, browsing their catalog, to find which are good projects and which aren't, given how many projects there often are (you can do it, but it's quite a lot of work). The only real filter is by already popular projects, which means that project has already gotten attention from external sources. Every project I've funded on there I've found out about through a different site.
You have been misinformed. http://defensetech.org/2012/04/13/army-wants-to-replace-c-12-fleet/
Yeah, the C-12 is not a combat aircraft, it's a transport aircraft. Carrying cargo does not count as combat, no matter what kind of cargo it is carrying (not unless the cargo is dropped midflight, and is explosive, in which case it's a "bomber", and not cargo but a payload). Combat aricraft are aircraft that engage in combat, and the Army is forbidden to operate any (the Air Force considers that their job). In fact, you can see the list of aircraft they do operate here.
If the tax crosses state borders, then it should be collected by the Feds - or at least the rules should be national and consistent. Collect, say, 5% from everyone and then distribute it according to billing address. Making merchants deal with 50 different tax codes is onerous. I hope this bill is defeated.
It's not 50, it's closer to 10,000 (according to TFA). Different counties can have different tax rates (even a zip code doesn't guarantee a single tax rate).
Umm, wasn't it techncially a "representation" revolt? Taxes are needed to pay for the services that are provided. Taxation without political power in return is what was the cause of the revolt.
Yep, exactly. Which makes it even more relevant to the present case, not less.
This tax would be collected from the retailer, just like a normal sales tax, not from the end purchaser. Technically, at least a few states already require you to pay a "usage" tax on things bought online or over the phone (from out-of-state), but that requires the purchaser to pay the tax, not the seller, so it ends up not being paid. Thats why the states want to go after the retailers: because then it becomes much easier for the state to enforce the taxes, which they currently cannot.
Useful research into vulnerabilities, wasn't used for personal gain, was reported to educate others and so security lapses could be fixed. They're so going to jail.
Of course. They used broke into others computers, uploaded and executed binary files on them, without their permission, for their own purposes. That is both illegal and unethical. They should be punished for that.
The reason why they did it is not terribly relevant (although it doesn't make it worse, since the end was not itself a crime). The ends do not justify the means. Breaking the door of a house down to tell the owners their door is easily broken down is still breaking and entering.
If someone wants to have more daylight hours in their work day, wakeup just before daylight. Why move the freaking clocks? It doesn't make any sense, and it never has. Hours are just a measurement, there's nothing that says you have to be asleep at 7am. If you want to get up early because you'll get more daylight for things you're doing, get up early!
Sure, and if you could convince a few hundred million people to do that, you probably wouldn't be commenting on Slashdot, you'd be President of the whole planet. People are not rational, and they do not behave rationally. A person is, sure, but people as a group are not, and they never have been. You can make all the theories you want about how daylight savings was always a stupid idea, but if you forget that large groups of people are involved, and that those people won't follow the logical path, you're just wasting energy typing.
Mind you, with how cheap electricity is now, and with how much interior lighting is used anyways, it doesn't matter anymore and hasn't for decades, but it made sense at one point.
I know I am going to get a bunch of people who tell me, "Idiocracy is not real dude.". But ...
If you continue to make life simple for the stupid they will in fact breed more. Being stupid is no longer a death sentence nor does it seem to hinder reproduction in the current society.
So we are in fact getting stupider.
It's not real. First of all, you're assuming that intelligence correlates necessarily with genetics, i.e. that a stupid person cannot have smart children. Thats false. Obviously, genetics plays some role, but upbringing and other factors play a strong role as well, and even with the genetic influence a stupid person can carry "smart" genes. Secondly, the "stupid" people have always bred more than the smarter ones. Quite often, the "smart" people are too busy studying things to have sex (for example, Tesla considered sex a distraction, so he remained a virgin his whole life). Being "stupid" has never hindered reproduction. I'd even argue thats a good thing for society in a way: if everyone spent their entire time studying math and physics (or other theoreticals, as intelligent people tend to), we'd all have died a long, long time ago from starvation.
And finally, it's been demonstrated that people have been getting smarter over the past century or so, so Idiocracy is demonstrably false.
Yeah. Yeah, that's really depressing to know that someone can have a doctorate from Yale and Harvard and cling to this idea that science owes its existence to religion. It's even more disgusting that you restrict your examples specifically to Christianity and not Hindi or Muslim contributions.
Actually, it does. You see, the first religions were attempts at explaining phenomena in nature, such as lightning. The very earliest religions *were* attempts at science (granted, not very good ones by today's standards, but nevertheless they followed the idea of observing natural phenomenon and attempted to produce explanations for them). "Gods do it" was one of the earliest proposed explanations for magnetics (not a popular one even then, and it may not satisfy the modern idea of a proper explanation, but it's still an explanation of a sort for natural phenomenon, i.e. a prototypical science).
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old [gallup.com].
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans. And lets not get into questions about global warming or vaccination, which is are counter-factual movements that cross all boundaries of religion and ideology, seemingly.
Here's a better question: Would Augustine have been a saint or would he have been excommunicated/burned at the stake if he had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?
No? Nice fallacious loaded question, though. But seriously, no, he wouldn't have. I know, I've read him, and I've studied the period of history during which he lived (burning at the stake was... a bit less popular at that time, shall we say).
And then at the end of the day someone else is still calling you a sinner and your science is hobbled by what is and isn't taboo to explore.
Not really, no, because the answer is and always has been "nothing, except that which is ruled out by ethics" (you know, like experiments on unconsenting humans).
The fact is most people who badmouth religion and it's connection to science know very little about religion itself. On the flip side, the religious people who bash science know very little about science. Ignorance generates fear: it always has.
Can someone explain to me how discovering the THIRD closes system to ours in 2013 doesn't suggest that all the Dark Matter(tm) that's out there just isn't a mass of brown dwarfs that we can't see, and not a whole new class of matter?
Because of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. We can know how much baryonic matter ("normal" matter) there is in the universe by certain cosmological observations. Other cosmological observations show there is more matter out there than that (about 5 times more) and therefore it cannot all be brown dwarfs, black holes, or other dark but non-exotic forms of matter.
another thing that would lend credence to the end of democracy would be the majority enacting laws to punish the minority.
Actually, thats almost the textbook definition of democracy (in a true democracy, the majority is always right). It's also why the US isn't a pure democracy.
Is it can be forked. But then we have the question of whether Android, the open source part, is really enough to build a phone or if only basic elements are open source, while key elements are closed or so severely controlled that they might as well be closed.
What question? Tons of devices use just the open source part without Google's proprietary stuff. All you have to add are hardware drivers if you're using non-standard hardware, everything else you need comes open source. Only stuff like Google Play and Google Maps are close course.
I'd be suprised if supermarkets hadn't thought about this for their trolleys - only put off by price of course. Clearly 'analogue' restrictions are often cheaper than digital ones.
I have seen stores with carts that state they do this. Not sure if they actually do or not, but the signs stated the wheels lock up if it leaves the parking lot.
Actually, they state that the 3-8% better maximum compression than zlib is 2-3 orders of magnitude longer to compress.
I can't imagine what kind of content you're hosting that'd justify 3 orders of magnitude compression time to gain 3% compression.
Static content that only has to be compressed once, yet is downloaded hundreds of thousands or millions of times. 3-8% is a pretty significant savings in that case.
I don't buy EA's games already. There are two problems. They continue to make crappy games, and the industry tends to follow the big leaders examples. It isn't like EA is making bucketloads of money with that strategy, they lost, what, a few hundred million last year? Something like that. Obviously, people are already not buying their games. But they aren't listening. Instead, they make Real Racing 3 and charge $80 for a single ingame car, and they've stated explicitly that they intend to focus even more on F2P, microtransactions, mobile games, and DLC to increase their revenue. Why? Because they've seen how much that strategy can make, without realizing they probably never will because their games are crap (and their prices are as well). Then we have other people who look at them going down that path, think "thats a good idea", and overall we end up with lots more shit games, and whats more, games that could be good. You see, F2P can work, but not in every case, and not when run by incompetent money-grabbing arseholes.
Which brings me to my second point. The publishers own lots of promising IP. For example, EA owns Bioware. Bioware was an amazing studio. They made one of my favorite games ever, KOTOR, and Baldur's gate, and similar. Now, though, they've ended up being destroyed and ripped apart by EA's focus on making money in the short term (which, as mentioned above, doesn't even work), and instead of producing gems like they have, they produce crap like SWTOR (sure, some people might like it, but it's nothing at heart but a cheap WoW rip-off), or the "ending" to Mass Effect 3. So we end up with games that should have been good, and even in some cases are if you move past the micro-transaction crap (like the aforementioned Real Racing 3 aparently is), but are simply stupid thanks to the publishers greed.
So in short, people already are voting with their wallets. The big studios just aren't listening, because they're run by a bunch of marketers and buzzword-obsessed executives, not by the people who actually care about the games themselves (except, of course, for the privately own Valve, which is why so many people praise them). Plus, of course, you can't get everyone to stop spending money, especially because a lot of gamers genuinely do like playing AAA titles, and if we stopped playing every game with DLC we simply wouldn't be playing AAA titles anymore. We'd just prefer not to be asked to insert our credit card every 5 minutes.
If you're running a PC at 1080 then resolution isn't a strong argument since many/most TVs are 1080p.
Console games, however, are often not. Seriously, check the box next time. Quite a lot of them run at either 720p or 1080i (God of War III, for example, can only run up to 1080i). I've seen some that don't even offer 1080i, although I can't remember which ones.
Is this a thing? People get tribal about browsers?
Well, he could just be annoyed about the summary being blatantly wrong, since it specifically says that the bug exists in Opera when, in fact, it does not.
But yeah, people can be a bit competitive about their favorite browser. Not as bad as emacs vs. vi or anything, but it does happen a bit.
So it's wrong when they do it but not when the US does it, is that what you're saying?
That depends. Self-defense is not wrong, so if the US is doing it in self-defense, then yes. Since we know the Chinese have been launching attacks against the US for many years now, it seems likely that the US is in fact doing it in self-defense, so yes, it is OK when the US does it but not when they do it. Ideally, neither one would do it, but in the case of war the aggressor is in the wrong (barring any other extenuating circumstances, like the defender attacking it's neighbors, or committing genocide).
It takes a special kind of terrorist to deploy a bioweapon, because bioweapons don't distinguish based on religion (although you could theoretically make one that distinguishes on race, it's a bit tricky). That means it'll hit everyone indiscriminately, and not even most terrorists want that. The only ones who would use something like that are people who want to destroy everyone, and finding a large enough group of people (as you would need to create and deploy such a weapon) willing to do that is quite difficult.
Also even the most lethal bioweapons won't kill everyone, whether thanks to natural immunity or proper quarantine procedures, a lot of people will survive. Anything nasty enough to actually kill everyone will almost certainly burn out very rapidly.
The typo is in TFA as well, so I'm not sure proofreading would have helped. It is, after all, quite possible her name actually is Kindra Check (it isn't, I checked).
What they need is a fix to rid the world of all of these ridiculous, horrible "Slideshow" websites. 21 fixes? OK Give me a list on one page - maybe two if you want to increase your ad revenue. There's not much in Web 3.0 or whatever the fuck we call ourselves on, but it's horseshit.
See the "Article View" up on the right side of the page? Yeah, that works for Cracked. Other sites, YMMV. Usually they have a "print page" link that does the trick, but not always.
That summary is utterly meaningless without a scale factor. I mean, if there are 2 wind towers and a million cats, it's pretty obvious the cats are going to kill more birds even if each cat only kills 1 bird and the turbines kill a thousand each. And there are quite a lot of cats in the US (86 million or so), but relatively few wind turbines (some rough math places a top figure of 60,000 turbines in the entire US, and it's probably closer to half that in actuality).
At some point the "hunt" for these special quantum particles is going to go to far and lead us into an area we as of now don't know we don't want to enter. Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.
What? Are you seriously proposing that we stop doing scientific research? Yes, of course, what happens 10 billion or more years from now is completely irrelevant to us as individuals. It might be relevant to our species, however, and the physics behind it is relevant always. Pretty much all of our technology is based on research like this that was once considered merely of academic interest. Who knows, maybe we could discover how to travel to other galaxies by manipulating the Higgs field. We won't know until we try. And it's improbable that anything we invent will be all that much worse than the nuclear or chemical weapons that already exist.
And it's not a dichotomy: we don't have to stop physics research to solve all our current issues in the world. In fact, it wouldn't even help to do so. At all.
Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.
Could be as simple as page views. A story saying the car doesn't perform as advertised generates a lot more interest than one saying "yep, everything worked as expected." Just like Top Gear did a while back. Of course, I stopped expecting Top Gear to be reliable a while back and now just enjoy it as pure entertainment (which it really is), but this guy pretended to be writing a genuine news story.