The report also says cabin pressure was lost. The incident happened at over 50,000 feet. At that altitude, air pressure is about 1/10th that at sea level. Even if you're breathing 100% oxygen, you're only getting about half the oxygen you would at sea level, about as much as you get at 15,000-20,000 feet. While that would've been enough to stave off unconsciousness, I'm skeptical just how useful the pilot's mental faculties would have been even if he turned on the emergency oxygen at that altitude.
From the plane's trajectory, it seems his first action upon comprehending the failure was to put the plane into a dive to get it into thicker, breathable air. Unfortunately it sounds like he lost consciousness during this maneuver, before he could turn on the emergency oxygen generator, and only regained consciousness a few seconds before impact.
Say what you want about Apple, they *do* spend billions researching new technology.
Apple is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to R&D spending by tech companies in recent years. I think this is part of the reason they so irk technology enthusiasts. We don't like having proof that marketing > technology rubbed in our faces.
They're also the only major carrier which reduces your monthly fee once your contract ends. With the other carriers, while you're in contract, part of your service bill goes to paying off our phone's subsidy. And when you're out of contract, your service bill remains the same, and what used to pay for your subsidy goes to lining the company's coffers.
The House of Reps may very well pass this bill since it's currently Republican controlled, but it stands very little chance of making it through the Senate or getting signed by the President.
This is one of the problems in politics today - people automatically attributing everything bad to the party they oppose. Erroneously convinced that they bear no fault for the ills of the country, they continue voting the exact same corrupt politicians into office year after year. (In this case Democrat voters are in the wrong, but the exact same thing happens with Republican voters.)
The entertainment industry favors Democrats by a 2:1 to 4:1 margin. 7 of their top 10 recipients and 13 of their top 20 recipients are Democrats. Obama is their biggest recipient, receiving 4x more money from them than the next highest recipient (also a Democrat), and nearly 10x more than the highest Republican recipient. Barring a miraculous attack of conscience, he is sure to sign this into law if it passes.
The only thing that's stopping SOPA from passing in the Senate is that it's a House bill. The Senate equivalent is Protect IP.
The comet shrinks as it gets sublimated away by the heat. This leads to both a decrease in mass and surface area. Modeling it as a sphere:
m ~ V (mass is proportional to volume)
V = 4/3 pi * r^3
so r ~ m^(1/3)
surface area = 4 pi * r^2
so SA ~ m^(2/3)
Assuming the velocity of a vaporization jet is constant (constant sublimation temperature means gas molecules have constant kinetic energy), the force is proportional to the amount of escaping gases. The amount of escaping gases is proportional to surface area, so:
F ~ SA = m^(2/3)
a = F/m
a ~ m^(2/3) / m
a ~ m^(-1/3)
The smaller the mass of the comet, the greater the acceleration.
When the comet is approaching the sun, m is large, so vapor jets contribute acceleration away from the sun (slows the comet down).
When the comet is leaving the sun, m is small, so vapor jets contribute greater acceleration away from the sun (speeds the comet up more than it was slowed down before).
In the U.S., design patents can only be granted for "ornamental" features. i.e. features which serve no functional purpose. The Coca-Cola bottle is the archetypical example. Making that bottle that shape serves no function, it's completely ornamental.
In that regard, flat, rectangular, and rounded corners are all functional, which is why Apple was denied the injunction they sought against Samsung in the U.S. The color of the bezel could be regarded as ornamental, but with black, white, and silver being the most common choices, I seriously doubt any design patent based on a black bezel would stand. If Apple striped it a certain way, that might qualify. The only other design patent-worthy aspect of the Apple's complaint I can think of is the radius of the rounded corners. But that can easily be circumvented by using rounded corners with a slightly different radius.
And by the way, the appearance of the iPad from the front is a near-clone of a Samsung digital picture frame released in 2006. Be careful who you accuse of copying whom.
Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expense, will have those unintended consequences you claim you don't want.
I suspect you've never run a business, or at least not handled the accounting side of one. Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expenses is exactly what you want.
The ROI from owning (licensing) spectrum is a rate: e.g. dollars per year.
The cost of the spectrum is an amount: e.g. dollars.
The only way to reconcile these two is to either:
Limit the amount of time they can use the spectrum. Then:
ROI = (dollars / year) * (years) = dollars
Cost = dollars
or
Make the licensing cost a recurring annual fee, not a one time payment. Then:
ROI = dollars / year
Cost = dollars / year
Only when the units for cost and return are consistent can you make an analytical fiscal decision. Even purchases with a one-time fee, like a car, are turned into rates in accounting. You amortize the car's cost over the number of years you expect the car to remain in service. So if the company buys a car with a loan whose total payments work out to $35k, and you expect to use the car for 7 years, then the cost of the car is $35k / 7 years = $5k per year.
Any cap you place won't be arbitrary. It will taken into account in the bidding process. If a company thinks they can make $1 million/yr from the spectrum, and you place an arbitrary cap of 5 years, then they will not bid more than (assuming 10% profit margin) $4.5 million minus interest. If your cap is 10 years, then they will not bid more than $9 million minus interest.
As a fiscal conservative who has run a business and done the accounting for it, our government's insistence on auctioning spectrum in perpetuity for a one-time fee has always baffled me. It's like saying if you pay me $1000 one time, I will clean your bathroom once a week forever. It makes no business sense because it's impossible to tell if I'm getting a good deal (maybe you'll die next week) or a bad deal (maybe you'll live to be 120).
On an abstract level, this is the same (unanswered) question I've had about democracy, especially in light of the recent elections in Egypt. Can a democratic society truly be free if it requires that the society must remain democratic? Or can the people (democratically) choose to replace democracy with something less than democratic?
I'm still unsure of the answer, but I've been leaning towards the latter. If a system cannot self-sustain itself, then it can only be sustained through force and intimidation - the antithesis of freedom. If GPL's requirement to "give back if you've taken" causes it to decline in popularity, forcing people to adopt it isn't the answer.
I mean, is what you've said any different from paid software? I take something (in exchange for giving money), and that encourages me to give (in exchange for receiving money). All that's really happened is you've removed the intermediary of money and converted it into a barter system, and shifted cost in a way which makes it cheaper to acquire but harder to recoup development expenses.
I'm all for experimenting with different cost structuring systems, but if this one happens to be failing due to unpopularity, arguing that it should be more popular because it's fairer would seem to indicate the problem is with your definition of "fair", not with everyone else's definition of "fair". You cut the cake, and I pick which slice I get. It's not you cut the cake, and you pick which slice I get. You put together the GPL license in a manner in which you think is fair, and if people aren't adopting it, it must be because they don't really think it's as fair as you think it is.
If the cost of compliance on Youtube is too great for Google to bear, there has to be a better solution than just giving the keys to the castle away to a media company so they have free reign to take what is billed as a free and open video sharing site and turn it into "whatever UMG thinks you should be able to watch".
Seems to me Google was using the "give them enough rope to hang themselves" strategy.
The problem with all this bickering over copyright is that, outside of tech circles like slashdot, the general public doesn't give a damn. The media companies, by definition, always have an open mic to broadcast their side of the debate to the public. The opposition does not have this luxury, at least not without paying for it. So they have to resort to stories which are juicy enough to overcome the pro-media bias of the press, and get them to run it. "UMG has power to censor your YouTube videos!" sounds like a pretty successful result in that respect.
The alternative would be for Google to fight the media companies in the courts, to be decided by judges and juries who've been indoctrinated by decades of single-sided "piracy is stealing" brainwashing. This is no longer a legal fight - the media companies have pretty much won that and have the law on their side. This is a public policy fight. The public needs to be educated why the pendulum has swung too far in favor of copyright holders, so that they pressure their legislators to change the law.
Most people care about how food tastes, not how it looks (I recommend you give this book a read if you disagree). As smell advertisements are limited to scratch and sniff, and nobody has invented taste-o-vision yet, the visual advertisement of food is mostly orthogonal to the actual experience of eating it.
With makeup, the whole point is how it looks. So altering its appearance with Photoshop or airbrushing is by definition deceptive.
I would feel much safer to take off from a carrier that has ski-jump at end of the ramp. Without it you're basically taking off from under the deck, almost hitting water if you don't have enough speed. Ski-jump gives you much more vertical speed on take off.
That vertical speed comes by trading off some horizontal speed. The kinetic energy imparted to the aircraft is the same. A straight-launched aircraft which crashes into the sea due to insufficient lift would also have crashed into the sea if it had launched off a ski-jump. In both cases, your airspeed was insufficient to generate enough lift to keep the plane in the air. And in fact the ski-jumped plane is worse off since the initial vertical velocity means it's already in a trajectory which trades off kinetic energy for potential energy (i.e. it's slowing down and thus losing even more lift).
Put another way, if your plane is in danger of stalling, the correct thing to do is to lower the nose to increase airspeed over your wings so they can generate more lift. Raising the nose (increasing your angle of attack, trading off horizontal speed for vertical speed, as a ski-jump does) is precisely the wrong thing to do.
Three gorges dam is another strange project. Yes, you can build ONE BIG DAM or 1 hundred little ones that are cheaper, achieve better flood control, yield as much or more power and are easier to dredge when they silt up
It's not strange if you want to be able to brag that you have the largest hydroelectric dam in the world (even if actual electricity generation is second in the world).
Agreed. Especially since correctly timing the spoofed GPS signals requires knowing the location of the (stealth) drone you're trying to trick.
Most aircraft use a variety of navigation methods too, not just GPS. You have inertial, radio beacons (e.g. the old LORAN system and current VOR), terrain recognition. If the military didn't specify during the design phase that the drone be able to determine its position using a variety of these different methods and to reasonably handle loss of one or several of these methods of navigation, then it deserved to lose its drone.
We're looking at opportunity costs. You need housing and food whether or not you go to school, so those costs should not be included. (Unless the school's housing and/or meal plan costs significantly more, in which case you should including the cost above regular housing and meals. You should also be asking yourself why you're living on campus and eating in the cafeteria.)
If you don't look at it in terms of opportunity costs, someone could add up their housing and food expenses, and claim they have $20k in student debt even though they never went to school.
Tuition and fees? In 2011-12, public four-year colleges charge, on average, $8,244 in tuition and fees for in-state students. Per year [...]
Average cost of a four-year degree at an in-state school for someone living off-campus?
(8244+1168+1082)*4 = $41,976
Most financially strapped students (or at least the ones who research how to go to school cheaply) spend the first few years attending course at a considerably cheaper community college. Then they get those credits transferred to a regular public university and get their degree there.
And if you're working part-time while going to school, that $42k in expenses only translates into about $20k-$25k of debt. Not $60k of debt as GP claimed.
Because we believe in no taxation without representation. Corporations get taxed, so they get a say in politics. They're not allowed to vote, so all they can do is lobby and donate. I take it from your post that you believe in taxation without representation?
And to answer the criticism raised last time I posted this, yes corporations are just made of people, and thus represented by the votes of the people who work there. But if we follow this reasoning that corporations are pass-through entities, then we should convert all corporate income taxes to personal income taxes. The employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes needs to be shifted to the employee. Basically the same thing as not taxing corporations.
If you take this "it's all run and paid for by people in the end" viewpoint, then there's no difference between taxing the employer and taxing the employee. The whole rationale for taxing corporations becomes simply to hide from the employees just how large a share of their productivity is going to taxes. If you see 20% of your paycheck going to taxes, but you don't see the 15% your employing corporation had to pay in taxes, you think the government is only taking 20% of your wages, not the 35% it really is.
Adjusted properly, this would not change anything about the economy. The money corporations saved in taxes would have to be paid to employees as additional wages, for them to pay for their additional taxes. So in the end it's all the same whether we tax corporations or not. But philosophically, taxing them gives us an obligation to let them have a say in politics. Something I actually agree we'd be better off without. But if we're going to take the stance that corporations aren't people, and don't have the right to lobby/donate, then I can't find a valid argument for taxing them.
Those figures are just for the U.S. Globally, smartphones are only about a quarter of all mobile phone sales (i.e. 3x as many regular phones sold as smartphones).
The problem is rather: Where do you put all that irradiated waste, ranging from water over metals, concrete, oils, various sealants and so on? After all, most of this stuff happily glows for a few decades at minimum and hundreds of thousands of years at the upper echelon.
The problem is, we ask these questions only of nuclear.
Of course things like coal, gas, etc. are not better -- especially regarding the climate. But at least they don't cause such extremely permanent issues that we can't even imagine a kind of physical or chemical process to get rid of it.
The elemental mercury released by burning coal sticks around not for years, or decades, or hundreds of thousands of years. It sticks around practically forever. At least as long as it'll take for current organisms to absorb it, die, and turn into coal themselves. Yet we're happily pumping it into the atmosphere because we're too afraid of nuclear.
Each year, the U.S. generates about 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel (high level radioactive waste) in exchange for ~20% of its electricity. By volume that's about two tractor trailers. This is the stuff which can potentially be dangerous for thousands of years. (The 10,000 to 100,000 year stuff lasts so long precisely because it has low radioactivity. By the time it got that old, it would no longer be high-level waste, contrary to what anti-nuclear activists like to imagine.) This "waste" could actually be used as fuel in breeder reactors, reducing the total amount of "high level radioactive waste" to just 1/10th or 1/20th what we currently generate.
But because we're scared to death of what to do with such a small quantity of nuclear waste, we continue to pump into the environment billions of tons of coal ash, including mercury, CO2, radioactive uranium and thorium, and a host of other nasty materials which together kill an estimated 250x as many people as Chernobyl every year. That is what saddens me so much about the energy situation. Yes long-term we should be working towards renewables like wind, geothermal, solar. But while we are working towards scaling those up and making them cost effective, it is absolutely criminal not to be switching out our fossil fuel plants for nuclear. Environmentalists have fabricated a false dichotomy between nuclear and renewables, where we must choose either nuclear or rewnewables. There is no such choice. We can switch to nuclear while we continue to work on renewables.
And if you finally arrive at hydroelectric, geothermal, solar and wind generation, the scope of the problems you cause by running them can be measured in "less than a decade" for cleaning up a broken dam and "what problems?" for solar and wind
Just how do you define "problem"? People see the evacuation zone around Fukushima as a problem. A hydroelectric dam creates a permanent evacuation zone behind it larger than Fukushima's. It's called a reservoir. Why is vacating people for one bad, while the other acceptable? Because one has the N word and the other is just water? Water kills nearly 100x more people each year than nuclear power has in its entire history. So which is truly more dangerous?
Measured in lives lost per unit of energy generated, nuclear is by far the safest power source. So your "less than a decade" and "what problem" assessments are only accurate if you assign zero value to people's lives.
Solar is diffuse and inconsistent. Collecting it requires vast amounts of surface area. This is why it remains, by far, the most expensive energy source. Realistically, the only way I see enough solar collection happening to power the country is using plants to collect solar energy and converting them into biofuels.
Geothermal is (relatively) concentrated, consistent, and for all practical purposes as inexhaustible as solar (how long until the Earth's core cools down?).
Your life isn't nearly as interesting as you think. Your mundanity is your privacy. Your value to Facebook is your eyeballs and the ads they can serve.
If I'm really that uninteresting, and my only value is in my interests and the ads respond best to, then why the hell is Facebook retaining practically everything about me?
Airspace violations happen allthetime. Usually all that happens is planes are scrambled to intercept and escort the offending craft out, and a formal protest is filed at the embassy of the country who did the violating. Iran is just milking this for all that it's worth. (Which is not to say they're unjustified in doing so, if the drone was in fact on a spying mission rather than malfunctioned and flew over on its own. Unfortunately that's probably something we'll never know for sure.)
Apple has always had a strong educational support program at the K-12 level. Schools are using iPads because of the connections and support structure Apple has been building with them since the 1980s. It's not a reflection of the iPad being better or safer, it's a reflection of the schools feeling more comfortable with using Apple's tablets because Apple has been there, helping them with technology in education for the past 3 decades. They know their Apple educational sales rep. They probably send each other Christmas cards this time of year, while their kids make snowmen at the local park together. The Samsung tablet sales rep is just a traveling salesman to them.
Microsoft's educational support program doesn't really kick in until university/college level.
In this day and age, problem sets don't belong in textbooks. They belong on the school's website. The high school of one of the students I tutored did this for his physics course.
Not only were the problems independent of the textbook, but the problems he got were different than the problems every other student got. Conceptually, they all got the same problem, but the numbers (mass of the ball, angle of the ramp, radius of the spinning string, etc) were different for each student, probably based on the ID the student used to login. So he couldn't ask his classmates for the answer to problem 5 and just copy that. He had to ask them to explain how they solved problem 5, so he could calculate "his" answer. At which point it's not copying, it's learning.
I would imagine this is the problem with releasing works into the public domain. It's like giving away software you write "for free". By giving up all rights to it, you are also giving up the right to sue people who lie and claim it is theirs, package it, and sell it to people for money.
You have to structure it more like Open Source licenses. Don't put it into the public domain. Retain copyright, but allow free rebroadcast and distribution provided certain terms are met. e.g. YouTube is allowed to broadcast it provided no ad revenue is collected. That way if Columbia Records claims a YouTube video belongs to them and gets ad revenue from it, well then you just notify the real copyright holder. They can then file suit claiming copyright infringement by Columbia who falsely claimed ownership of their work, and violated your copyright by making ad money off of it. Skip YouTube altogether, send it straight to the courts as a standard copyright infringement case.
Slashdot Mirror
The report also says cabin pressure was lost. The incident happened at over 50,000 feet. At that altitude, air pressure is about 1/10th that at sea level. Even if you're breathing 100% oxygen, you're only getting about half the oxygen you would at sea level, about as much as you get at 15,000-20,000 feet. While that would've been enough to stave off unconsciousness, I'm skeptical just how useful the pilot's mental faculties would have been even if he turned on the emergency oxygen at that altitude.
From the plane's trajectory, it seems his first action upon comprehending the failure was to put the plane into a dive to get it into thicker, breathable air. Unfortunately it sounds like he lost consciousness during this maneuver, before he could turn on the emergency oxygen generator, and only regained consciousness a few seconds before impact.
The irony of course being that those lines were in reality delivered by a human voice actor, not a computer.
Apple is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to R&D spending by tech companies in recent years. I think this is part of the reason they so irk technology enthusiasts. We don't like having proof that marketing > technology rubbed in our faces.
They're also the only major carrier which reduces your monthly fee once your contract ends. With the other carriers, while you're in contract, part of your service bill goes to paying off our phone's subsidy. And when you're out of contract, your service bill remains the same, and what used to pay for your subsidy goes to lining the company's coffers.
This is one of the problems in politics today - people automatically attributing everything bad to the party they oppose. Erroneously convinced that they bear no fault for the ills of the country, they continue voting the exact same corrupt politicians into office year after year. (In this case Democrat voters are in the wrong, but the exact same thing happens with Republican voters.)
The entertainment industry favors Democrats by a 2:1 to 4:1 margin. 7 of their top 10 recipients and 13 of their top 20 recipients are Democrats. Obama is their biggest recipient, receiving 4x more money from them than the next highest recipient (also a Democrat), and nearly 10x more than the highest Republican recipient. Barring a miraculous attack of conscience, he is sure to sign this into law if it passes.
The only thing that's stopping SOPA from passing in the Senate is that it's a House bill. The Senate equivalent is Protect IP.
The comet shrinks as it gets sublimated away by the heat. This leads to both a decrease in mass and surface area. Modeling it as a sphere:
m ~ V (mass is proportional to volume)
V = 4/3 pi * r^3
so r ~ m^(1/3)
surface area = 4 pi * r^2
so SA ~ m^(2/3)
Assuming the velocity of a vaporization jet is constant (constant sublimation temperature means gas molecules have constant kinetic energy), the force is proportional to the amount of escaping gases. The amount of escaping gases is proportional to surface area, so:
F ~ SA = m^(2/3)
a = F/m
a ~ m^(2/3) / m
a ~ m^(-1/3)
The smaller the mass of the comet, the greater the acceleration.
When the comet is approaching the sun, m is large, so vapor jets contribute acceleration away from the sun (slows the comet down).
When the comet is leaving the sun, m is small, so vapor jets contribute greater acceleration away from the sun (speeds the comet up more than it was slowed down before).
In the U.S., design patents can only be granted for "ornamental" features. i.e. features which serve no functional purpose. The Coca-Cola bottle is the archetypical example. Making that bottle that shape serves no function, it's completely ornamental.
In that regard, flat, rectangular, and rounded corners are all functional, which is why Apple was denied the injunction they sought against Samsung in the U.S. The color of the bezel could be regarded as ornamental, but with black, white, and silver being the most common choices, I seriously doubt any design patent based on a black bezel would stand. If Apple striped it a certain way, that might qualify. The only other design patent-worthy aspect of the Apple's complaint I can think of is the radius of the rounded corners. But that can easily be circumvented by using rounded corners with a slightly different radius.
And by the way, the appearance of the iPad from the front is a near-clone of a Samsung digital picture frame released in 2006. Be careful who you accuse of copying whom.
I suspect you've never run a business, or at least not handled the accounting side of one. Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expenses is exactly what you want.
The ROI from owning (licensing) spectrum is a rate: e.g. dollars per year.
The cost of the spectrum is an amount: e.g. dollars.
The only way to reconcile these two is to either:
Limit the amount of time they can use the spectrum. Then:
ROI = (dollars / year) * (years) = dollars
Cost = dollars
or
Make the licensing cost a recurring annual fee, not a one time payment. Then:
ROI = dollars / year
Cost = dollars / year
Only when the units for cost and return are consistent can you make an analytical fiscal decision. Even purchases with a one-time fee, like a car, are turned into rates in accounting. You amortize the car's cost over the number of years you expect the car to remain in service. So if the company buys a car with a loan whose total payments work out to $35k, and you expect to use the car for 7 years, then the cost of the car is $35k / 7 years = $5k per year.
Any cap you place won't be arbitrary. It will taken into account in the bidding process. If a company thinks they can make $1 million/yr from the spectrum, and you place an arbitrary cap of 5 years, then they will not bid more than (assuming 10% profit margin) $4.5 million minus interest. If your cap is 10 years, then they will not bid more than $9 million minus interest.
As a fiscal conservative who has run a business and done the accounting for it, our government's insistence on auctioning spectrum in perpetuity for a one-time fee has always baffled me. It's like saying if you pay me $1000 one time, I will clean your bathroom once a week forever. It makes no business sense because it's impossible to tell if I'm getting a good deal (maybe you'll die next week) or a bad deal (maybe you'll live to be 120).
On an abstract level, this is the same (unanswered) question I've had about democracy, especially in light of the recent elections in Egypt. Can a democratic society truly be free if it requires that the society must remain democratic? Or can the people (democratically) choose to replace democracy with something less than democratic?
I'm still unsure of the answer, but I've been leaning towards the latter. If a system cannot self-sustain itself, then it can only be sustained through force and intimidation - the antithesis of freedom. If GPL's requirement to "give back if you've taken" causes it to decline in popularity, forcing people to adopt it isn't the answer.
I mean, is what you've said any different from paid software? I take something (in exchange for giving money), and that encourages me to give (in exchange for receiving money). All that's really happened is you've removed the intermediary of money and converted it into a barter system, and shifted cost in a way which makes it cheaper to acquire but harder to recoup development expenses.
I'm all for experimenting with different cost structuring systems, but if this one happens to be failing due to unpopularity, arguing that it should be more popular because it's fairer would seem to indicate the problem is with your definition of "fair", not with everyone else's definition of "fair". You cut the cake, and I pick which slice I get. It's not you cut the cake, and you pick which slice I get. You put together the GPL license in a manner in which you think is fair, and if people aren't adopting it, it must be because they don't really think it's as fair as you think it is.
Seems to me Google was using the "give them enough rope to hang themselves" strategy.
The problem with all this bickering over copyright is that, outside of tech circles like slashdot, the general public doesn't give a damn. The media companies, by definition, always have an open mic to broadcast their side of the debate to the public. The opposition does not have this luxury, at least not without paying for it. So they have to resort to stories which are juicy enough to overcome the pro-media bias of the press, and get them to run it. "UMG has power to censor your YouTube videos!" sounds like a pretty successful result in that respect.
The alternative would be for Google to fight the media companies in the courts, to be decided by judges and juries who've been indoctrinated by decades of single-sided "piracy is stealing" brainwashing. This is no longer a legal fight - the media companies have pretty much won that and have the law on their side. This is a public policy fight. The public needs to be educated why the pendulum has swung too far in favor of copyright holders, so that they pressure their legislators to change the law.
Most people care about how food tastes, not how it looks (I recommend you give this book a read if you disagree). As smell advertisements are limited to scratch and sniff, and nobody has invented taste-o-vision yet, the visual advertisement of food is mostly orthogonal to the actual experience of eating it.
With makeup, the whole point is how it looks. So altering its appearance with Photoshop or airbrushing is by definition deceptive.
That vertical speed comes by trading off some horizontal speed. The kinetic energy imparted to the aircraft is the same. A straight-launched aircraft which crashes into the sea due to insufficient lift would also have crashed into the sea if it had launched off a ski-jump. In both cases, your airspeed was insufficient to generate enough lift to keep the plane in the air. And in fact the ski-jumped plane is worse off since the initial vertical velocity means it's already in a trajectory which trades off kinetic energy for potential energy (i.e. it's slowing down and thus losing even more lift).
Put another way, if your plane is in danger of stalling, the correct thing to do is to lower the nose to increase airspeed over your wings so they can generate more lift. Raising the nose (increasing your angle of attack, trading off horizontal speed for vertical speed, as a ski-jump does) is precisely the wrong thing to do.
It's not strange if you want to be able to brag that you have the largest hydroelectric dam in the world (even if actual electricity generation is second in the world).
Agreed. Especially since correctly timing the spoofed GPS signals requires knowing the location of the (stealth) drone you're trying to trick.
Most aircraft use a variety of navigation methods too, not just GPS. You have inertial, radio beacons (e.g. the old LORAN system and current VOR), terrain recognition. If the military didn't specify during the design phase that the drone be able to determine its position using a variety of these different methods and to reasonably handle loss of one or several of these methods of navigation, then it deserved to lose its drone.
We're looking at opportunity costs. You need housing and food whether or not you go to school, so those costs should not be included. (Unless the school's housing and/or meal plan costs significantly more, in which case you should including the cost above regular housing and meals. You should also be asking yourself why you're living on campus and eating in the cafeteria.)
If you don't look at it in terms of opportunity costs, someone could add up their housing and food expenses, and claim they have $20k in student debt even though they never went to school.
Most financially strapped students (or at least the ones who research how to go to school cheaply) spend the first few years attending course at a considerably cheaper community college. Then they get those credits transferred to a regular public university and get their degree there.
And if you're working part-time while going to school, that $42k in expenses only translates into about $20k-$25k of debt. Not $60k of debt as GP claimed.
Because we believe in no taxation without representation. Corporations get taxed, so they get a say in politics. They're not allowed to vote, so all they can do is lobby and donate. I take it from your post that you believe in taxation without representation?
And to answer the criticism raised last time I posted this, yes corporations are just made of people, and thus represented by the votes of the people who work there. But if we follow this reasoning that corporations are pass-through entities, then we should convert all corporate income taxes to personal income taxes. The employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes needs to be shifted to the employee. Basically the same thing as not taxing corporations.
If you take this "it's all run and paid for by people in the end" viewpoint, then there's no difference between taxing the employer and taxing the employee. The whole rationale for taxing corporations becomes simply to hide from the employees just how large a share of their productivity is going to taxes. If you see 20% of your paycheck going to taxes, but you don't see the 15% your employing corporation had to pay in taxes, you think the government is only taking 20% of your wages, not the 35% it really is.
Adjusted properly, this would not change anything about the economy. The money corporations saved in taxes would have to be paid to employees as additional wages, for them to pay for their additional taxes. So in the end it's all the same whether we tax corporations or not. But philosophically, taxing them gives us an obligation to let them have a say in politics. Something I actually agree we'd be better off without. But if we're going to take the stance that corporations aren't people, and don't have the right to lobby/donate, then I can't find a valid argument for taxing them.
Those figures are just for the U.S. Globally, smartphones are only about a quarter of all mobile phone sales (i.e. 3x as many regular phones sold as smartphones).
The problem is, we ask these questions only of nuclear.
The elemental mercury released by burning coal sticks around not for years, or decades, or hundreds of thousands of years. It sticks around practically forever. At least as long as it'll take for current organisms to absorb it, die, and turn into coal themselves. Yet we're happily pumping it into the atmosphere because we're too afraid of nuclear.
Each year, the U.S. generates about 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel (high level radioactive waste) in exchange for ~20% of its electricity. By volume that's about two tractor trailers. This is the stuff which can potentially be dangerous for thousands of years. (The 10,000 to 100,000 year stuff lasts so long precisely because it has low radioactivity. By the time it got that old, it would no longer be high-level waste, contrary to what anti-nuclear activists like to imagine.) This "waste" could actually be used as fuel in breeder reactors, reducing the total amount of "high level radioactive waste" to just 1/10th or 1/20th what we currently generate.
But because we're scared to death of what to do with such a small quantity of nuclear waste, we continue to pump into the environment billions of tons of coal ash, including mercury, CO2, radioactive uranium and thorium, and a host of other nasty materials which together kill an estimated 250x as many people as Chernobyl every year. That is what saddens me so much about the energy situation. Yes long-term we should be working towards renewables like wind, geothermal, solar. But while we are working towards scaling those up and making them cost effective, it is absolutely criminal not to be switching out our fossil fuel plants for nuclear. Environmentalists have fabricated a false dichotomy between nuclear and renewables, where we must choose either nuclear or rewnewables. There is no such choice. We can switch to nuclear while we continue to work on renewables.
Just how do you define "problem"? People see the evacuation zone around Fukushima as a problem. A hydroelectric dam creates a permanent evacuation zone behind it larger than Fukushima's. It's called a reservoir. Why is vacating people for one bad, while the other acceptable? Because one has the N word and the other is just water? Water kills nearly 100x more people each year than nuclear power has in its entire history. So which is truly more dangerous?
Measured in lives lost per unit of energy generated, nuclear is by far the safest power source. So your "less than a decade" and "what problem" assessments are only accurate if you assign zero value to people's lives.
Solar is diffuse and inconsistent. Collecting it requires vast amounts of surface area. This is why it remains, by far, the most expensive energy source. Realistically, the only way I see enough solar collection happening to power the country is using plants to collect solar energy and converting them into biofuels.
Geothermal is (relatively) concentrated, consistent, and for all practical purposes as inexhaustible as solar (how long until the Earth's core cools down?).
If I'm really that uninteresting, and my only value is in my interests and the ads respond best to, then why the hell is Facebook retaining practically everything about me?
Airspace violations happen all the time. Usually all that happens is planes are scrambled to intercept and escort the offending craft out, and a formal protest is filed at the embassy of the country who did the violating. Iran is just milking this for all that it's worth. (Which is not to say they're unjustified in doing so, if the drone was in fact on a spying mission rather than malfunctioned and flew over on its own. Unfortunately that's probably something we'll never know for sure.)
Apple has always had a strong educational support program at the K-12 level. Schools are using iPads because of the connections and support structure Apple has been building with them since the 1980s. It's not a reflection of the iPad being better or safer, it's a reflection of the schools feeling more comfortable with using Apple's tablets because Apple has been there, helping them with technology in education for the past 3 decades. They know their Apple educational sales rep. They probably send each other Christmas cards this time of year, while their kids make snowmen at the local park together. The Samsung tablet sales rep is just a traveling salesman to them.
Microsoft's educational support program doesn't really kick in until university/college level.
In this day and age, problem sets don't belong in textbooks. They belong on the school's website. The high school of one of the students I tutored did this for his physics course.
Not only were the problems independent of the textbook, but the problems he got were different than the problems every other student got. Conceptually, they all got the same problem, but the numbers (mass of the ball, angle of the ramp, radius of the spinning string, etc) were different for each student, probably based on the ID the student used to login. So he couldn't ask his classmates for the answer to problem 5 and just copy that. He had to ask them to explain how they solved problem 5, so he could calculate "his" answer. At which point it's not copying, it's learning.
I would imagine this is the problem with releasing works into the public domain. It's like giving away software you write "for free". By giving up all rights to it, you are also giving up the right to sue people who lie and claim it is theirs, package it, and sell it to people for money.
You have to structure it more like Open Source licenses. Don't put it into the public domain. Retain copyright, but allow free rebroadcast and distribution provided certain terms are met. e.g. YouTube is allowed to broadcast it provided no ad revenue is collected. That way if Columbia Records claims a YouTube video belongs to them and gets ad revenue from it, well then you just notify the real copyright holder. They can then file suit claiming copyright infringement by Columbia who falsely claimed ownership of their work, and violated your copyright by making ad money off of it. Skip YouTube altogether, send it straight to the courts as a standard copyright infringement case.