Do researchers ever ask specific questions, as in talk to managers and ask them about specific individuals to find the reason or will they forever look at to level numbers and speculate?
Some people are more naturally more competitive than others and not always money related. Some people will want to be the most productive person in a group, have the best, cleanest, most efficient and cost effective design and not for monetary rewards. But sometimes companies recognize this and compensate. I've gotten big bonuses before for coming into work after hours and being in the right place at the wrong time and being able to solve some major problems.
You missed 3d printers. My theory is that most tech has already been invented and we're picking the scraps at this point. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm waiting.
Sociopaths oftentimes feel overly entitled to certain positions, people, and things. They believe that their own beliefs and opinions are the absolute authority, and disregard the opinions of others.
Most bombs are not that larger because there is no point. The goal was to take out the other guys missiles and the US had developed very precise targeting. The more accurate you are with the bomb, the smaller the bomb can be and still accomplish its goal. The smaller and lighter the bombs are, te more you can load into a missile. So the US strategy was many small bombs delivered with precision, vs a few big bombs and hope that you hit something.
The outcome was no longer in doubt from June 1942, yet they still kept fighting. Even Yamamoto, prior to the beginning of the war, said that Japan could not win a prolonged conflict.
Both parents of one of my closest friends lived through the bombing in Hiroshima (and still live there) and they seem fine with it (as in it's a part of a sad part of history, but it's in the past. I don't think they think about it much, it was 70 yeas ago and they were only 3 and 4 at the time). I used to live in Hiroshima and have a few friends who live there, nobody is hung up in it or anything.
in history to be in a position to take over the world (intact industrial military infrastructure, energy reserves, unmolested populous and don't forget the capacity to make 30 nuclear bombs a day) and yet did not. At the time, the US could have easily taken over the entire planet. I'm pretty sure Japan or Germany would not have had any reservations about doing so. No country was even remotely in a position to challenge or even resist the US, yet the the US did nothing.
George Washington makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot Mirror
why is there so much political junk on a tech/nerd site?
Artificial Wombs Are Coming, but the Controversy Is Already Here which seems strange since it would eliminate most problems.
There will never be another big war. If there is, it will last 20-30 minutes with equal casualties on all sides (including the ones not fighting).
Do researchers ever ask specific questions, as in talk to managers and ask them about specific individuals to find the reason or will they forever look at to level numbers and speculate?
be less competitive in the workplace.
Some people are more naturally more competitive than others and not always money related. Some people will want to be the most productive person in a group, have the best, cleanest, most efficient and cost effective design and not for monetary rewards. But sometimes companies recognize this and compensate. I've gotten big bonuses before for coming into work after hours and being in the right place at the wrong time and being able to solve some major problems.
Lasers are light. It's right there in the acronym.
You missed 3d printers. My theory is that most tech has already been invented and we're picking the scraps at this point. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm waiting.
Lidar exists as an acronym of Light Detection And Ranging, and was originally created as a portmanteau of "light" and "radar".
I think I saw a TED talk on that. Clean it up, install toilets and make it nice. No one wants to be the first to mess something up.
Haha. 'Just grow up'.
The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age Was Published in 1929
Evil sells. There is too much money in it. In fact if you are one of the ones making money from it, its in your best interest to promote it.
http://www.healthguidance.org/...
Have you been shadow banned?
http://nuclearweaponarchive.or...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yup.
The outcome was no longer in doubt from June 1942, yet they still kept fighting. Even Yamamoto, prior to the beginning of the war, said that Japan could not win a prolonged conflict.
Both parents of one of my closest friends lived through the bombing in Hiroshima (and still live there) and they seem fine with it (as in it's a part of a sad part of history, but it's in the past. I don't think they think about it much, it was 70 yeas ago and they were only 3 and 4 at the time). I used to live in Hiroshima and have a few friends who live there, nobody is hung up in it or anything.
in history to be in a position to take over the world (intact industrial military infrastructure, energy reserves, unmolested populous and don't forget the capacity to make 30 nuclear bombs a day) and yet did not. At the time, the US could have easily taken over the entire planet. I'm pretty sure Japan or Germany would not have had any reservations about doing so. No country was even remotely in a position to challenge or even resist the US, yet the the US did nothing.
In philosophy, this is called means to an end which is a utilitarian morality, which allow for use of individuals as means to benefit the many.
Just take the derivative and multiply by velocity.
George Washington makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I you take the gadient of a potential, you get force.
All the crazy people will vote for this sole reason. FWIW, Jimmy Carter said the same thing.