They're not all lying. Any Wendy's has all the ingredients to make a burger that looks fairly close to what the advert is. If you doubt me, take a look at the burgers that they make for themselves sometime.
Secondly, many, but not all, adverts do stretch things or leave out facts that might paint a different picture. There used to be a show in LA, (IIRC) that got national syndication for a few seasons that debunked any ad that exaggerated. Even once, they debunked one of their own statements.
Thirdly, you have the power to have these ads pulled, by proving them wrong and/or filing a complaint. This is why you see many ads that come out and then later add a disclaimer in tiny print about it being a time-lapse commercial.
Personally, I couldn't care less. I don't pay attention to ads. I know what I want and how to determine what it's capabilities are.
You're half right. It's been so long. I was thinking of the 4p (the luggable). Not the tiny 100 with 8 rows of 40 characters (hardly a laptop, and more of an oversized pim). I had to go out and find a picture. I do remember them, though. But with everything else to remember - I may not recall things precisely always. One of the downsides of typing at 2am, when I should be sleeping.
If things turn out the way they look. Stevens will get re-elected. Then the Senate will eject him, causing a special election, and Palin will be elected to the Senate. So, hold on to your Moose horns, because she's gonna be back a lot sooner than 2012.
The Osborne I in 1981, was the first portable, arguably a "laptop". However, I remember both the Osborne and the TRS80-100. Neither of which I would have wanted in my lap for more than, oh..., 10 minutes. I consider the NEC Ultralite, about 1989, to be the first "true" laptop. All the other predecessors were simply portables. Although the TRS80-100 could arguably be called a laptop, due to a slightly better design than the osborne. So, I can't say you're right or wrong. It's really more a bit of how you want to define laptop and personal opinion.
However, I want to know where I can buy what the author of this article is smoking. It's some bad -a** sh**! Forty years! ROFLMAO. Hell, I grew up in Poughkeepsie (ie IBM home town), and the high school got it's first desktop from IBM about the time I entered HS, and that wasn't any 40 years ago! I didn't know trolls were allowed to write articles! Wow. Maybe I'm dreaming that I'm awake, or maybe I'm awake dreaming I'm asleep dreaming, I'm awake, or...
Actually, this is just a matter of a judge re-affirming a court order he produced in secret in violation of probably some Kentucky and US laws and also in violation of Judicial ethics. And if you now tell me there are no laws to prevent this, let me direct you to the Bill of Rights paragraph 6, 7, and 8. This was originally a secret ex parte seizure of assets. The defendants never had a chance to defend themselves prior to having those IP addresses taken, and thus had no due process, which is also required.
In my opinion this Judge should be removed from the bench and prosecuted for crimes against the people. But it will never happen.
LOL! I've just been reading letters from my ancestors, as part of an inheritance (I'm getting all the genealogy related papers that no one else wants, lol), and they're full of these stone weights, and most of these letters are internal US and some from Scotland/Australia/Poland. The conversion for us Americans is 14lb to the stone, btw.
I never said to make one that "looks" like the actual plane, I said "replica". A replica is a precise copy at a scaled size. It has to be precisely the same in all aerodynamic aspects including yes center of gravity, but not all aspect of the plane need to be duplicated to determine simply aerodynamic stability at sub-sonic speeds. It's not an easy task that just anyone could do. Which is why I didn't say go down to you local hobby shop and assemble a scaled model and try to fly it. I am educated as an Aerospace Engineer. But rather than sit down and spout engineering speak, I chose to just use lay English.
Remember, we were talking about the ability of a plane to self-correct itself aerodynamically speaking, not whether it was possible to fly a plane through intervention. It is certainly possible to fly many things that are not aerodynamically stable, and all commercial craft are aerodynamically stable. It is only military aircraft that are pushing the envelope, to obtain key military advantages not possible inside that framework.
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that the Airbus plane in question could self correct if allowed to or be corrected by the pilots if allowed to, but the system is built in such a way as to lock out the manual control of the plane in certain situations and to take away manual control in certain situations. Hence these planes cannot be prevented from crashing once the onboard system is convinced it must do something that will in actuality cause a crash. All the pilots can do is sit and watch it happen, or bail out if they can.
I never said a plane that wasn't aerodynamically stable couldn't be flown by hand, only that current military ones can't. While the flying wing was controllable without aid of a computer control, it is aerodynamically unstable and killed many pilots, which is why the Air Force stopped using them, until they had the ability to use computer control.
I never said it was easy to make a Styrofoam replica of a full size airplane. Stop trying to make my words say things they didn't. Don't make me pull out airfoil designs and engineering schematics and fluid dynamics equations to prove that what I said is true.
You're absolutely wrong, an accurate scale model glider absolutely will tell precisely how aerodynamically stable a full size plane will be at sub-sonic speeds. It doesn't have to be Styrofoam, I was just using an example material; use any appropriate material you like.
If a 3' wingspan model plane sinks like a rock when launched so will 30' wingspan full size plane. Lastly, I choose Styrofoam because it gives an advantage in having natural buoyancy tendencies and will make even some poor aerodynamic designs flight capable, even when there might not be comparable materials to make a full size craft light enough to achieve sufficient lift.
I'm sorry, but I still feel this is an answer in search of a problem. I don't see how this makes anyone's life easier, only poorer, but hey feel free to throw your money away at anything you like. It's your money and this is (or used to be) a free country. I however in true FOSS spirit will continue to use the totally free and far superior intelligent choice of ignoring the phone when it rings while I'm driving, unless it is an important call or emergency message and I'm in a position to safely answer it.
I guess you're a lucky person, then, because I know lots of really ignorant people to whom the words: tone down, self control, be quiet are quite meaningless. Fortunately though, they are a minority.;)
Of course I was going for a bit of humor there, based on my 30+ years of experiences driving. With my only at fault accident, resulting from a poor choice in girlfriends who didn't know the meaning of "don't distract the driver". Fortunately, no one lost any body parts or was even injured. Had the car had brakes (funny story there) I probably could have avoided the accident.
So according to your logic, it's ok for someone to spend say 200 hours of their time to create music to hopefully sell and make a living, and then it's ok for you to take that music and give it away free to 3000 of your closest "friends" for free and for those 3000 to do the same thing and for those 9,000,000 to do the same thing also? And you see nothing wrong with this? I'm curious would you be this generous if every time someone downloaded a copy of a song from your shared folder it cost you $0.15?
I used the word piracy because that is what most people call it today, I'll call it foobar if you like, but then most people would probably be confused by my word usage.
Lastly, tell me when is the last time you copied and improved a song from known artist and redistributed it on a filesharing site? How many filesharers do this? This is news to me. I thought the point in filesharing was to share original works.
The problem is that the fly-by-wire computer in the Airbus determines the state of the plane. The plane will only stabilize if the computer tells the plane to. The fact that the plane has a stable design is irrelevant to the fact that the computer controls the plane and not the pilot. If the computer decides that crashing the plane is the proper thing to do, there is nothing anyone can do except take out the computer. This is not your grandfather's autopilot. Think more along the lines of Airplane 2's autopilot, which is where I think Airbus gets it's design from [cue MI theme music].
You're also wrong on the stability of military aircraft. Several US fighter jets and even the new bombers are not aerodynamically stable, and cannot be flown by hand. Many others are also only aerodynamically stable at supersonic speeds. You can prove this by making Styrofoam replicas of military aircraft and launching them by hand. An aerodynamically stable design will glide, and one that is not will crash spectacularly. If you cannot make a glider of an aircraft design, then it is not aerodynamically stable at subsonic speeds.
So, this is something we need because we are all so lacking in self control that we can't ignore a phone when it rings? I don't see how this is going to solve anything, I expect the only people who will use this are the ones who already don't talk on the phone when they drive - similar to the parent statement. Some people like to talk on the phone and simply won't use this feature. I would generally say anyone who buys this deserves a Darwin award, or something similar.
There are already ways to do nearly exactly this: 1) don't answer the phone when driving, 2) turn off the ringer and buzzer, 3) turn off the phone.
Option one requires the most fool proof way, and also requires the least effort. The benefit of these three things are they are all free as in no cost.
All these great new think-of-the-children devices will increase the IQ of the children as they learn great new 133t hacker skills to defeat all the devices so they can use them how they like and lure the parents into deeper levels of false confidence than any parent-child relationship since Medieval times and those wonderfully secure devices known as "chastity belts" - which more resemble torture devices than belts.
You're making an assumption that is not backed up by reality. While it is true that some passengers may be marginally aware of what is going on in the car and on the road, and modulate the conversation with the driver, there are a great many people who will instantly switch gears into co-pilot mode and being spouting off driving directions should anything untoward happen on the road and thus further exasperate the situation and make it even worse.
You can see the same behavior in Congress. The Republicans will come up with a bad idea (billions to bail out Wall St), and the Democrats will take that idea and make it even worse (stuff billions in pork into the bill).
So in the end, having a conversation in a car either in person or over the phone or over a CB can be dangerous. But then, it's no more dangerous than giving a license to drive to people who really aren't properly trained. Of course if people drove reasonably and didn't ride up my ass, they have time to react.
When I was 6 or 7, I looked directly at a total eclipse. I still have 20/20 vision decades later. Although, I may have reduced vision in one particular spot, although I have never noticed any. Looking briefly at the Sun won't make you blind, just as looking briefly at a welding light won't make you instantly blind. It takes repeated or extended exposure to do this. Kind of like my father in-law, who did a lot of welding in his youth without benefit of protection. Some people who are very smart still do stupid or risky things, just ask Bill Clinton. So your technique of spotting dumbasses is very error prone and likely to produce less than optimal results, with many false positives. Just a heads up there.
Using a welding glass will certainly protect you eyes. The light from welding is many times brighter than the Sun. In fact welding glass is so dark it turns day into moonless night. However, I wouldn't recommend using this as a means to take photos of the Sun, although you could, theoretically speaking.
Your best bet is to use a pinhole camera to project the light onto a white screen and take a picture of the screen.
If that is unsatisfactory: dig yourself a hole in the ground big enough to fit into, cover it so almost no light gets in, install a tube that completely covers the small circle of light allowed in, then use a telescope (or lens combination) to focus that light and direct it to a white flat surface and take pictures that way. Of course, you'll have to line the tube up so that it is aligned with the Sun. This is also a handy way of taking pictures of and looking at the stars in the daytime.
Some geek kid hack's Dad's car and disables the blackbox and speed limiter, and the Men in Black come and arrest poor old Dad on unlawful modification of a safety device.
I give this device 24 hours on the street before some Norwegian hack's it and posts a howto on the internet. (Don't ask me how the Norwegian got his hands on an American Ford)
I give it 48 hrs before Ford files a DMCA takedown notice.
I give it 48 hrs and 2 minutes before it's downloaded and multiplies by 10,000.
I give it 72 hours before you can buy the shirt with the howto from ThinkGeek.
Then everyone will know how to defeat them, and render another stupid bit of DRM useless. Except in this case it's not actually DRM per se, or is it?
Safe to assume, my daughter won't drive one, because she'll actually know how to drive. God forbid we should take responsibility for teaching teenagers anything. If I find a black box in my car it's history! Even it it means ripping out all the wiring and redoing it - not something I relish.
Piracy existed before the RIAA, et al started adding DRM and calling fair use piracy, etc. RIAA reacted with extremism to the rampant global copying that was going on. I have doubts that if the RIAA and gang were removed from the picture, that the Artists would fair much better. Those who are making excuses now for their bad behavior will find new excuses later. Not all of course, but a significant number.
You can't fly airplanes underwater. Flying can only be done in the air. You might be able to build a swimming airplane, but then that would be a submarine. "Sub" as in "below" and "marine" as in "water".
Oh, I get it, they're building an amphibious vehicle that travels in the air and in the water. Interesting, but stupid. Since you would have to compromise the abilities of each and wind up with a mediocre compromise. Unless of course you have a way of altering the physical feature of the vehicle. I won't hold my breath on that one.
Although it may produce some very useful information on building subs that are superior to the current generation ones.
Hey, you! Butt out. Don't tell me how to raise my kid! I know where my child is! Glued in front of the TV watching commercials, with some commercialized programming interspersed. When my child isn't watching TV, my child is playing massively disgusting, gross, anti-social, kill or be killed, rob or get robbed violent a** videogames. By neglecting my child, I am empowering my child to become a normal average American, who will hopefully grow up to build the next great video-sharing site and upload lots and lots of copyrighted works to distribute and screw the artists... err... big bad corporations out of their righfu... err... greedy a** profits. I'm too busy vegging out and getting drunk, so I can numb my brain to this sick world to worry about what my child is doing, and I resent being told by insensitive jerks that I'm not responsible!
My parents told me no, all the time, and made me play boardgames and card games and made me interact with people and go outside and play! I'm not going to subject my child to that kind of abuse! NO WAY!
Ever look at what's available in the way of chemistry sets today? Ha, so much for the days when you could potentially do real damage with a chemistry set. Good thing, I have a local science store that will build them to spec.
Yes, an interesting and unproven technology that would be, perhaps much more expensive than using coal.
However, I still fail to see how this has anything to do with President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter.
Nor does this address the very stupid idea of putting a water sensor at the bottom of a drain trap in a Nuclear reactor and then relying on that information to tell you that, yes, there is coolant covering the core of the reactor?
"Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, has found the rate of wrongful conviction in death row cases to be somewhere between 2.3 and 5 percent." You'll have to ask him about his methodology.
While this is for only death row persons, it should be easily extrapolated to other crimes. You should also, watch the video, "Why I'll never talk to the Police" (or something like that). It does wonders to explain the American "justice" system. Police might do whatever they need to do get an indictment or prosecution. American law isn't about what's right or wrong anymore, but about who can tell the best, most convincing story.
I have no doubt there are many, many innocent people in jail for things they didn't do and also many guilty people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, but had gotten away with others just as bad or worse. Not to mention all the guilty people who got away with doing crimes who are living in your and my neighborhoods right now.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not all lying. Any Wendy's has all the ingredients to make a burger that looks fairly close to what the advert is. If you doubt me, take a look at the burgers that they make for themselves sometime.
Secondly, many, but not all, adverts do stretch things or leave out facts that might paint a different picture. There used to be a show in LA, (IIRC) that got national syndication for a few seasons that debunked any ad that exaggerated. Even once, they debunked one of their own statements.
Thirdly, you have the power to have these ads pulled, by proving them wrong and/or filing a complaint. This is why you see many ads that come out and then later add a disclaimer in tiny print about it being a time-lapse commercial.
Personally, I couldn't care less. I don't pay attention to ads. I know what I want and how to determine what it's capabilities are.
Caveat emptor
You're half right. It's been so long. I was thinking of the 4p (the luggable). Not the tiny 100 with 8 rows of 40 characters (hardly a laptop, and more of an oversized pim). I had to go out and find a picture. I do remember them, though. But with everything else to remember - I may not recall things precisely always. One of the downsides of typing at 2am, when I should be sleeping.
If things turn out the way they look. Stevens will get re-elected. Then the Senate will eject him, causing a special election, and Palin will be elected to the Senate. So, hold on to your Moose horns, because she's gonna be back a lot sooner than 2012.
The Osborne I in 1981, was the first portable, arguably a "laptop". However, I remember both the Osborne and the TRS80-100. Neither of which I would have wanted in my lap for more than, oh ..., 10 minutes. I consider the NEC Ultralite, about 1989, to be the first "true" laptop. All the other predecessors were simply portables. Although the TRS80-100 could arguably be called a laptop, due to a slightly better design than the osborne. So, I can't say you're right or wrong. It's really more a bit of how you want to define laptop and personal opinion.
However, I want to know where I can buy what the author of this article is smoking. It's some bad -a** sh**! Forty years! ROFLMAO. Hell, I grew up in Poughkeepsie (ie IBM home town), and the high school got it's first desktop from IBM about the time I entered HS, and that wasn't any 40 years ago! I didn't know trolls were allowed to write articles! Wow. Maybe I'm dreaming that I'm awake, or maybe I'm awake dreaming I'm asleep dreaming, I'm awake, or ...
Actually, this is just a matter of a judge re-affirming a court order he produced in secret in violation of probably some Kentucky and US laws and also in violation of Judicial ethics. And if you now tell me there are no laws to prevent this, let me direct you to the Bill of Rights paragraph 6, 7, and 8. This was originally a secret ex parte seizure of assets. The defendants never had a chance to defend themselves prior to having those IP addresses taken, and thus had no due process, which is also required.
In my opinion this Judge should be removed from the bench and prosecuted for crimes against the people. But it will never happen.
LOL! I've just been reading letters from my ancestors, as part of an inheritance (I'm getting all the genealogy related papers that no one else wants, lol), and they're full of these stone weights, and most of these letters are internal US and some from Scotland/Australia/Poland.
The conversion for us Americans is 14lb to the stone, btw.
I never said to make one that "looks" like the actual plane, I said "replica". A replica is a precise copy at a scaled size. It has to be precisely the same in all aerodynamic aspects including yes center of gravity, but not all aspect of the plane need to be duplicated to determine simply aerodynamic stability at sub-sonic speeds. It's not an easy task that just anyone could do. Which is why I didn't say go down to you local hobby shop and assemble a scaled model and try to fly it. I am educated as an Aerospace Engineer. But rather than sit down and spout engineering speak, I chose to just use lay English.
Remember, we were talking about the ability of a plane to self-correct itself aerodynamically speaking, not whether it was possible to fly a plane through intervention. It is certainly possible to fly many things that are not aerodynamically stable, and all commercial craft are aerodynamically stable. It is only military aircraft that are pushing the envelope, to obtain key military advantages not possible inside that framework.
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that the Airbus plane in question could self correct if allowed to or be corrected by the pilots if allowed to, but the system is built in such a way as to lock out the manual control of the plane in certain situations and to take away manual control in certain situations. Hence these planes cannot be prevented from crashing once the onboard system is convinced it must do something that will in actuality cause a crash. All the pilots can do is sit and watch it happen, or bail out if they can.
I never said a plane that wasn't aerodynamically stable couldn't be flown by hand, only that current military ones can't. While the flying wing was controllable without aid of a computer control, it is aerodynamically unstable and killed many pilots, which is why the Air Force stopped using them, until they had the ability to use computer control.
I never said it was easy to make a Styrofoam replica of a full size airplane. Stop trying to make my words say things they didn't. Don't make me pull out airfoil designs and engineering schematics and fluid dynamics equations to prove that what I said is true.
You're absolutely wrong, an accurate scale model glider absolutely will tell precisely how aerodynamically stable a full size plane will be at sub-sonic speeds. It doesn't have to be Styrofoam, I was just using an example material; use any appropriate material you like.
If a 3' wingspan model plane sinks like a rock when launched so will 30' wingspan full size plane. Lastly, I choose Styrofoam because it gives an advantage in having natural buoyancy tendencies and will make even some poor aerodynamic designs flight capable, even when there might not be comparable materials to make a full size craft light enough to achieve sufficient lift.
Whining?
Wow, thanks.
I'm sorry, but I still feel this is an answer in search of a problem. I don't see how this makes anyone's life easier, only poorer, but hey feel free to throw your money away at anything you like. It's your money and this is (or used to be) a free country. I however in true FOSS spirit will continue to use the totally free and far superior intelligent choice of ignoring the phone when it rings while I'm driving, unless it is an important call or emergency message and I'm in a position to safely answer it.
I guess you're a lucky person, then, because I know lots of really ignorant people to whom the words: tone down, self control, be quiet are quite meaningless. Fortunately though, they are a minority. ;)
Of course I was going for a bit of humor there, based on my 30+ years of experiences driving. With my only at fault accident, resulting from a poor choice in girlfriends who didn't know the meaning of "don't distract the driver". Fortunately, no one lost any body parts or was even injured. Had the car had brakes (funny story there) I probably could have avoided the accident.
So according to your logic, it's ok for someone to spend say 200 hours of their time to create music to hopefully sell and make a living, and then it's ok for you to take that music and give it away free to 3000 of your closest "friends" for free and for those 3000 to do the same thing and for those 9,000,000 to do the same thing also? And you see nothing wrong with this?
I'm curious would you be this generous if every time someone downloaded a copy of a song from your shared folder it cost you $0.15?
I used the word piracy because that is what most people call it today, I'll call it foobar if you like, but then most people would probably be confused by my word usage.
Lastly, tell me when is the last time you copied and improved a song from known artist and redistributed it on a filesharing site? How many filesharers do this? This is news to me. I thought the point in filesharing was to share original works.
The problem is that the fly-by-wire computer in the Airbus determines the state of the plane. The plane will only stabilize if the computer tells the plane to. The fact that the plane has a stable design is irrelevant to the fact that the computer controls the plane and not the pilot. If the computer decides that crashing the plane is the proper thing to do, there is nothing anyone can do except take out the computer. This is not your grandfather's autopilot. Think more along the lines of Airplane 2's autopilot, which is where I think Airbus gets it's design from [cue MI theme music].
You're also wrong on the stability of military aircraft. Several US fighter jets and even the new bombers are not aerodynamically stable, and cannot be flown by hand. Many others are also only aerodynamically stable at supersonic speeds. You can prove this by making Styrofoam replicas of military aircraft and launching them by hand. An aerodynamically stable design will glide, and one that is not will crash spectacularly. If you cannot make a glider of an aircraft design, then it is not aerodynamically stable at subsonic speeds.
So, this is something we need because we are all so lacking in self control that we can't ignore a phone when it rings? I don't see how this is going to solve anything, I expect the only people who will use this are the ones who already don't talk on the phone when they drive - similar to the parent statement. Some people like to talk on the phone and simply won't use this feature. I would generally say anyone who buys this deserves a Darwin award, or something similar.
There are already ways to do nearly exactly this:
1) don't answer the phone when driving,
2) turn off the ringer and buzzer,
3) turn off the phone.
Option one requires the most fool proof way, and also requires the least effort. The benefit of these three things are they are all free as in no cost.
All these great new think-of-the-children devices will increase the IQ of the children as they learn great new 133t hacker skills to defeat all the devices so they can use them how they like and lure the parents into deeper levels of false confidence than any parent-child relationship since Medieval times and those wonderfully secure devices known as "chastity belts" - which more resemble torture devices than belts.
You're making an assumption that is not backed up by reality. While it is true that some passengers may be marginally aware of what is going on in the car and on the road, and modulate the conversation with the driver, there are a great many people who will instantly switch gears into co-pilot mode and being spouting off driving directions should anything untoward happen on the road and thus further exasperate the situation and make it even worse.
You can see the same behavior in Congress. The Republicans will come up with a bad idea (billions to bail out Wall St), and the Democrats will take that idea and make it even worse (stuff billions in pork into the bill).
So in the end, having a conversation in a car either in person or over the phone or over a CB can be dangerous. But then, it's no more dangerous than giving a license to drive to people who really aren't properly trained. Of course if people drove reasonably and didn't ride up my ass, they have time to react.
When I was 6 or 7, I looked directly at a total eclipse. I still have 20/20 vision decades later. Although, I may have reduced vision in one particular spot, although I have never noticed any. Looking briefly at the Sun won't make you blind, just as looking briefly at a welding light won't make you instantly blind. It takes repeated or extended exposure to do this. Kind of like my father in-law, who did a lot of welding in his youth without benefit of protection. Some people who are very smart still do stupid or risky things, just ask Bill Clinton. So your technique of spotting dumbasses is very error prone and likely to produce less than optimal results, with many false positives. Just a heads up there.
Using a welding glass will certainly protect you eyes. The light from welding is many times brighter than the Sun. In fact welding glass is so dark it turns day into moonless night. However, I wouldn't recommend using this as a means to take photos of the Sun, although you could, theoretically speaking.
Your best bet is to use a pinhole camera to project the light onto a white screen and take a picture of the screen.
If that is unsatisfactory: dig yourself a hole in the ground big enough to fit into, cover it so almost no light gets in, install a tube that completely covers the small circle of light allowed in, then use a telescope (or lens combination) to focus that light and direct it to a white flat surface and take pictures that way. Of course, you'll have to line the tube up so that it is aligned with the Sun. This is also a handy way of taking pictures of and looking at the stars in the daytime.
Some geek kid hack's Dad's car and disables the blackbox and speed limiter, and the Men in Black come and arrest poor old Dad on unlawful modification of a safety device.
I give this device 24 hours on the street before some Norwegian hack's it and posts a howto on the internet. (Don't ask me how the Norwegian got his hands on an American Ford)
I give it 48 hrs before Ford files a DMCA takedown notice.
I give it 48 hrs and 2 minutes before it's downloaded and multiplies by 10,000.
I give it 72 hours before you can buy the shirt with the howto from ThinkGeek.
Then everyone will know how to defeat them, and render another stupid bit of DRM useless. Except in this case it's not actually DRM per se, or is it?
Safe to assume, my daughter won't drive one, because she'll actually know how to drive. God forbid we should take responsibility for teaching teenagers anything. If I find a black box in my car it's history! Even it it means ripping out all the wiring and redoing it - not something I relish.
It only becomes a meteorite if it doesn't become and ELE. Then it becomes a HYHTTKYAGite.
Piracy existed before the RIAA, et al started adding DRM and calling fair use piracy, etc. RIAA reacted with extremism to the rampant global copying that was going on. I have doubts that if the RIAA and gang were removed from the picture, that the Artists would fair much better. Those who are making excuses now for their bad behavior will find new excuses later. Not all of course, but a significant number.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not.
You can't fly airplanes underwater. Flying can only be done in the air. You might be able to build a swimming airplane, but then that would be a submarine. "Sub" as in "below" and "marine" as in "water".
Oh, I get it, they're building an amphibious vehicle that travels in the air and in the water. Interesting, but stupid. Since you would have to compromise the abilities of each and wind up with a mediocre compromise. Unless of course you have a way of altering the physical feature of the vehicle. I won't hold my breath on that one.
Although it may produce some very useful information on building subs that are superior to the current generation ones.
Hey, you! Butt out. Don't tell me how to raise my kid! I know where my child is! Glued in front of the TV watching commercials, with some commercialized programming interspersed. When my child isn't watching TV, my child is playing massively disgusting, gross, anti-social, kill or be killed, rob or get robbed violent a** videogames. By neglecting my child, I am empowering my child to become a normal average American, who will hopefully grow up to build the next great video-sharing site and upload lots and lots of copyrighted works to distribute and screw the artists ... err ... big bad corporations out of their righfu ... err ... greedy a** profits. I'm too busy vegging out and getting drunk, so I can numb my brain to this sick world to worry about what my child is doing, and I resent being told by insensitive jerks that I'm not responsible!
My parents told me no, all the time, and made me play boardgames and card games and made me interact with people and go outside and play! I'm not going to subject my child to that kind of abuse! NO WAY!
Ever look at what's available in the way of chemistry sets today? Ha, so much for the days when you could potentially do real damage with a chemistry set. Good thing, I have a local science store that will build them to spec.
Yes, an interesting and unproven technology that would be, perhaps much more expensive than using coal.
However, I still fail to see how this has anything to do with President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter.
Nor does this address the very stupid idea of putting a water sensor at the bottom of a drain trap in a Nuclear reactor and then relying on that information to tell you that, yes, there is coolant covering the core of the reactor?
"Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, has found the rate of wrongful conviction in death row cases to be somewhere between 2.3 and 5 percent." You'll have to ask him about his methodology.
While this is for only death row persons, it should be easily extrapolated to other crimes. You should also, watch the video, "Why I'll never talk to the Police" (or something like that). It does wonders to explain the American "justice" system. Police might do whatever they need to do get an indictment or prosecution. American law isn't about what's right or wrong anymore, but about who can tell the best, most convincing story.
I have no doubt there are many, many innocent people in jail for things they didn't do and also many guilty people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, but had gotten away with others just as bad or worse. Not to mention all the guilty people who got away with doing crimes who are living in your and my neighborhoods right now.
don't eat the Soylent Green!