Personally, I find it hard to believe that a cell phone or wireless device can bring down an airliner.
That's because it doesn't pose a significant risk. This has always been about cell site congestion and the potential of up sales on limited, in flight resources. Anyone who told you otherwise is either ignorant or lying.
The devices are COMMONLY used in light aircraft which have very little in the way of RF shielding. The bulk of which is typically, simply, shielded wire insulation. The simple fact is, use of these devices is more likely to lead to early detection of a problem via minor glitching rather than catastrophic failure. In either case, is extremely, extremely unlikely on US commercial aircraft.
Seems to me, you've universally redefined what a bad driver is so as to have an irrational rant, which adds absolutely nothing to the thread at hand. I don't believe you'll find any reasonable person (which seemingly excludes you) who will argue that a bad driver is not someone who has lots of wrecks. Inversely, you're not going to find a reasonable person (again, excluding you) who will argue the definition of a good driver is one who has frequent wrecks.
Made even worse is the fact that your completely irrational and unique definition means all of the world's top drivers are, according to you, "bad drivers."
I'm sorry, but your post is ignorant to say the least.
so even those women on their cell phones are a danger.
A fact which always surprises people is that some stereotypes are actually true. Women are far, far worse drivers then men. BUT, while women have far more frequent wrecks, they are typically less severe than those created by male drivers. Whereas male drivers have far less frequent accidents but when they do wreck its typically far more serious. This is why young males are more expensive to insure.
So if you say women are bad drivers, its not only a stereotype but statistically accurate. Just the same, a male driver is far more likely to kill or seriously injure you.
By far, most questions are not about passing or failing the background check. The primary purpose is to allow for full disclosure so as to avoid extortion down the road. Now then, the answers may dictate what level of clearance as well as the types of projects you're ultimately allowed to work on, but the answers to those types of questions, in of themselves, typically don't exclude.
In other words they want to create this situation rather than one even worse: 1: "If you don't give us secrets, we will let NASA know you've had sex with animals. You'll lose your job."
Except, empirically, we know that not to be the case. Software such as Ad Block works by potentially performing a large number of comparisons, including but not limited to, expensive regular expressions. These comparisons are neither free in memory or CPU and specifically for the CPU, must be paid, to some degree, large or small, with every page load.
As others stated, they were not powered by hydrogen. And airship, such as the Hindenburg, had a very poor combination of elements which all but demanded disaster. For starters, because hydrogen is so small, requires a special coating to prevent it from escaping its rather large, cotton, bladders. Their solution? Coat the cotton airship with thermite.
You can read more about it here. Even Myth Busters did a segment on it which more or less confirms the thermite theory mentioned in Wikipedia's Hindenburg article. As a note, Myth Busters claims, "Busted", because it didn't meet their odd test requirements. Regardless of their bizarre conclusion, the combination of thermite, cotton, air, heat, and hydrogen, creates a literal tinderbox god, demanding human sacrifice.
Regardless of old world, lighter than air, airships, there is a huge difference between them and pressurized tanks feeding an engine.
The bull shark is one of the few sharks which can make the fresh/salt water transition. They even have a special gland which secretes salt, allowing them to function properly. In fact, its believed that bull sharks may actually raise their young in fresh water - which provides many advantages.
Bull sharks are actually fairly common in large rivers in the US, including and especially in the Mississippi. Over the last century, its now believed many cases of both humans and pets going missing in such rivers are likely explained by bull sharks. Likewise, jumpers, where bodies are never found, are also likely explained with bull sharks.
You won't have any trouble finding videos of sharks in rivers. Yet despite bull sharks being extremely common in such waters, attacks are surprisingly rare. Even odder, sharks living in these waters typically predate in conditions which scientists say yield the highest human-shark encounters, leading to mistaken identity of humans for prey, and yet attacks are extremely rare.
People seem to assume that Firefox has become insanely slow over the years but forget that they are actively using a number of plugins for Firefox which slows things down - such as Ad Block. They then go and test alternate browsers, forgetting that their alternative isn't doing the same thing or sometimes, isn't even possible to do the same thing and yet get the feeling that things are way faster than before. Unfortunately, many people don't realize they are actually doing a seat of the pants, apples to oranges comparison, which almost always yields poor and inaccurate results.
I'm surprised the most obvious challenge in going to the moon isn't mentioned in the article: that it takes a huge amount of energy to get to the moon and then to get back.
Not as much as you seem to imply. Escape velocity from the moon does not take nearly as much energy as the other way around. Furthermore, sending cargo vs humans does not require the same timeliness and thusly, the same energy.
So yes, sending stuff to the moon requires lots of energy. Send stuff home without a human cargo, not so much. This is especially so once you consider the Earth's pull can greatly contribute to return trips if time is not a significant consideration.
Unfortunately, that's not true in the least. Both games and TV absolutely can negatively and positively affect people. As can music. The problem is, it doesn't affect ALL people nor does it affect them the same way. And that seems to be what confuses so many people. When you have people who already suffer from some type of social or mental issue, they are far more likely to find escapes and rationalizations within their escapes. Furthermore, in the pursuit of their escape, as mentioned, they tend to disengage from people and society which can have very negative and very real repercussions.
So blaming it entirely on TV or games or whatever, isn't entirely accurate because the game isn't really to blame. But, the personality and whatever disorders they may have are certainly affected by the game and/or TV.
Example: Child has a violent tendency. He watches kung fu movie and after doing so, uses "kung fu moves" to beat up his siblings. Behavior almost never occurs without fung fu movies. Behavior always follows that of watching a kung fu movie. Is the movie to blame? No. Did the movie have an affect? Yes.
People who are in denial about such things are themselves somehow deluded. The simple fact is, there is endless research that clearly shows causation between our environment and our behavior. With TV and games so prevalent these days, only a fool would argue they are no part of our environment.
Ultimately, the problem stems from parents who want to blame the evils of the world rather than hold their own precious child accountable. Because obviously their child would never have any type of negative behavior by themselves...and its easier to blame an external factor that it is to properly parent and make sure your child isn't unduly influenced by the factors which contribute to a negative personality trait. After all, TV and games are the modern day sitter. And if you don't have those, you're forced to do the job yourself. Easier to simply blame and attempt to hold accountable everything else but yourself and your child.
You're fairly nieve. This exact concept is what has destroyed light aviation in much of the world. Example, pilot, in small plane, flies into clouds, without training, and crashes into a tower. Reasonable people say this is the pilot's fault. Owners of tower are without service and so they sue. Turns out they are not happy with the insurance of the pilot so they also sue the pilot's instructors, airplane manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the tire manufacturer, the prop manufacturer, and the mechanics who last annual'ed the aircraft. And that's the short list.
Its widely estimated that half of all aviation costs are directly and indirectly attributed to legal liability suits and insurance premiums. Think about that for a second. Now ponder the absolute greed and massive stupidity which is required to allow such a thing to happen. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that a new plane could be purchased for the cost of a low end luxury car. These days that will only get you into the used market. In doing so, lawyers have literally destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs.
America is literally one of the most litigious places on Earth. We elect lawyers who then create idiotic laws who primarily and secondarily only benefit other lawyers. Absolutely do not under estimate both the stupidity and greed of the masses; nor the greed and desire of lawyers to lie, manipulate, and generally misrepresent to said masses.
One of the biggest dangers America has ever faced is lawyers.
Just FYI, its actually documented Jesus did NOT carry his own cross. That's a combination of Hollywood and theatrical church lore. A man named Simon carried Jesus' cross. When its said Jesus bore his own cross, they mean metaphorically - as in his fate to come; which was later expanded to include the sins of man. Wait - should I be upset about your reference?;)
Blood libel was used as an excuse to persecute Jews for centuries, it simply minimizes the effect of this for Palin to compare it to herself.
Except most people don't even know what the reference means. So its fairly safe to say, its metaphorical hyperbole which accurately reflects her statement. Simply stating his historical reference doesn't suddenly make it inflammatory given her context was not inflammatory. To be upset about her reference means citing history is inflammatory - which its not. The simple fact is, many, many, coined phrases which people commonly use in the vernacular have somewhat distasteful origins and you don't hear people getting upset about those. As I originally state, this is people manufacturing crap to either have "news" or they're living a rather pitiful excuse of a life.
In the segment I saw, they explained the origin and what it meant. I had never heard of the reference before. The Rabbi then offered his own definition which closely matched that of what was previously offered. Nothing I heard could possibly be considered offensive, given the context, unless one was specifically looking to find offense out of the general public's ignorance. But then again, I'm not looking for an excuse to be offended. As such, I'm more apt to believe this is a bunch of bullshit created out of nothing such that the media can buzz about something. Sadly, buzzing about Palin is news these days. Argh...
Programming is one of those jobs where adding more hours is almost certain to be counter productive. Study after study has clearly indicated that most programmers are truly productive maybe six hours of their work day. An eight hour work day allows for two hours of various busy work plus planning, documentation, communication, and contemplation.
Adding yet more hours is going to result in very low quality work, especially if they feel demoralized as a result. So much so that it will quickly prove to be very counter productive. What I typically wind up seeing is, at first, productivity as usual for the first couple of days. Then the fatigue sets in and morale begins to decline. After that, even more work day productivity is reduced and more and more time is spent fixed the mistakes from the day before. It quickly spirals into weekends which further pushes morale downward and resentment through the roof.
It can work so long as the duration is very short and with a specific goal in mind. But as stated, its very open ended and will shatter morale. As a result, the likely result is an exodus of workers to better jobs where they'll actually be valued and not forced to constantly create and fix a slurry of forced mistakes while giving up their nights and weekends.
Think about it - how often have you heard some idiot boss come forward and say, "You are all working double shifts and will not be paid for it!", and heard of good results? I've never heard it work for any creative work. Programmers are not assembly line workers and chances are, your workers will find a place which actually understands the difference.
It really sounds like the boss is a dope. If he needs more sales, the best thing he can do is invest in sales. Without sales, it doesn't matter how many features exist. Sounds like he's pushing the rock up the wrong hill. After all, if he needs more sales, its hardly surprising he to hear he needs more sales. Salesmen generate sales - not features.
I don't know if he did or didn't - though likely he did. Having said that, ever since the Homeland Security was created, much entry level security no longer requires a background check. Furthermore, what used to take months is frequently, now abbreviated into days - or day. They have little choice because of the scale of the problem, which is to provide access to unprecedented numbers of people.
But ultimately, people are conflating so many issues and completely missing the point. Some of the worst leaks in US history have occurred by high level, high ranking, intelligence operators. Leaking really has absolutely nothing to do with rank. Period.
The real problem, which I've not seem anyone really focus on, is the fact that this will continue to happen so long as we have Homeland Security. The number of people which are mandated to have access is absurd. The number one rule of security is, your ability to keep a secret is inversely proportional to the number of people who have access. To cure this, Homeland Security needs to be abolished. Its that simple. The very concept is ripe for abuse. And the reason it never existed before is because everyone before Bush implicitly understood that as soon as you create such an organization, it will be horribly abused and information will leak like a sieve - and all in exchange for billions more for tax payers.
Long story short, if you want less leaks, you must limit access and restore what was once a rather extensive background check process. Rank has nothing to do with it.
When auto brightness came it, people said it saved battery life. Since that time, most people agree it uses even more. It frequently sets the display too bright and is constantly readjusting, not to mention is using yet another sensor to determine the brightness level.
I personally use DimBot, which automatically adjusts based on sunrise/sunset. Aside from that, I frequently don't need to adjust. And when I do, it can a cool feature which allows me to set it by rotating the phone. Its called a "virtual knob."
First, a good reason to NOT be dual core is battery life - slower is better.
Not so. Sometimes running faster uses less power. It depends on the operation and the CPU. Furthermore, the multi-core processors I've seen which target phones typically shutdown the second core when not needed. So for simple operations, battery life is equal to that of a single core system.
Furthermore, Android (Linux actually) supports dynamic CPU scaling. So its very possible (actually commonly done with third party ROMs) to use two, three, or even four different clock rates depending on current load. Meaning, the CPU is only ever maxed for loads which last for some measurable duration.
Long story short, for common, non-CPU bound tasks, multi-core can actually offer better battery life. Now then, for something like a game, which may leverage both cores and have them both CPU-bound, expect battery life to suffer accordingly.
As for your clock rate comparisons - they are almost useless. There is a lot more to performance than simple clock rates. For example, when the G1 was introduced, it had slow memory and a slow bus. As a result, most devices which were introduced after it, ran at the same clock speed but were frequently 30%-60% faster.
Furthermore, all too often the biggest battery draw for is the screen (especially when at maximum brightness) and GPS. Both of these can account for a huge portion of battery. WIFI should also not be forgotten as its impact can be considerable.
For Android, multi-core is especially attractive because of various design decisions which are unique to Android. For example, you could potentially do JIT and GC on the second CPU, thereby improving UI responsiveness. Furthermore, Android has the notion of services, which means its frequently a natural fit to have a service running on one CPU and the UI running another.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I find it hard to believe that a cell phone or wireless device can bring down an airliner.
That's because it doesn't pose a significant risk. This has always been about cell site congestion and the potential of up sales on limited, in flight resources. Anyone who told you otherwise is either ignorant or lying.
The devices are COMMONLY used in light aircraft which have very little in the way of RF shielding. The bulk of which is typically, simply, shielded wire insulation. The simple fact is, use of these devices is more likely to lead to early detection of a problem via minor glitching rather than catastrophic failure. In either case, is extremely, extremely unlikely on US commercial aircraft.
Thankfully, in the above case, all three perfectly align.
That's really beside the point. That's not how things generally work.
Seems to me, you've universally redefined what a bad driver is so as to have an irrational rant, which adds absolutely nothing to the thread at hand. I don't believe you'll find any reasonable person (which seemingly excludes you) who will argue that a bad driver is not someone who has lots of wrecks. Inversely, you're not going to find a reasonable person (again, excluding you) who will argue the definition of a good driver is one who has frequent wrecks.
Made even worse is the fact that your completely irrational and unique definition means all of the world's top drivers are, according to you, "bad drivers."
I'm sorry, but your post is ignorant to say the least.
so even those women on their cell phones are a danger.
A fact which always surprises people is that some stereotypes are actually true. Women are far, far worse drivers then men. BUT, while women have far more frequent wrecks, they are typically less severe than those created by male drivers. Whereas male drivers have far less frequent accidents but when they do wreck its typically far more serious. This is why young males are more expensive to insure.
So if you say women are bad drivers, its not only a stereotype but statistically accurate. Just the same, a male driver is far more likely to kill or seriously injure you.
You might be surprised how many people fail that.
By far, most questions are not about passing or failing the background check. The primary purpose is to allow for full disclosure so as to avoid extortion down the road. Now then, the answers may dictate what level of clearance as well as the types of projects you're ultimately allowed to work on, but the answers to those types of questions, in of themselves, typically don't exclude.
In other words they want to create this situation rather than one even worse:
1: "If you don't give us secrets, we will let NASA know you've had sex with animals. You'll lose your job."
2: "They already know."
1: "Oh! Carry on."
That cost is relative to the number of ads. Whereas Ad Block overhead is relative to the number of external references.
Except, empirically, we know that not to be the case. Software such as Ad Block works by potentially performing a large number of comparisons, including but not limited to, expensive regular expressions. These comparisons are neither free in memory or CPU and specifically for the CPU, must be paid, to some degree, large or small, with every page load.
As others stated, they were not powered by hydrogen. And airship, such as the Hindenburg, had a very poor combination of elements which all but demanded disaster. For starters, because hydrogen is so small, requires a special coating to prevent it from escaping its rather large, cotton, bladders. Their solution? Coat the cotton airship with thermite.
You can read more about it here. Even Myth Busters did a segment on it which more or less confirms the thermite theory mentioned in Wikipedia's Hindenburg article. As a note, Myth Busters claims, "Busted", because it didn't meet their odd test requirements. Regardless of their bizarre conclusion, the combination of thermite, cotton, air, heat, and hydrogen, creates a literal tinderbox god, demanding human sacrifice.
Regardless of old world, lighter than air, airships, there is a huge difference between them and pressurized tanks feeding an engine.
The bull shark is one of the few sharks which can make the fresh/salt water transition. They even have a special gland which secretes salt, allowing them to function properly. In fact, its believed that bull sharks may actually raise their young in fresh water - which provides many advantages.
Bull sharks are actually fairly common in large rivers in the US, including and especially in the Mississippi. Over the last century, its now believed many cases of both humans and pets going missing in such rivers are likely explained by bull sharks. Likewise, jumpers, where bodies are never found, are also likely explained with bull sharks.
You won't have any trouble finding videos of sharks in rivers. Yet despite bull sharks being extremely common in such waters, attacks are surprisingly rare. Even odder, sharks living in these waters typically predate in conditions which scientists say yield the highest human-shark encounters, leading to mistaken identity of humans for prey, and yet attacks are extremely rare.
I'm sure those sharks were looking for the laser store.
People seem to assume that Firefox has become insanely slow over the years but forget that they are actively using a number of plugins for Firefox which slows things down - such as Ad Block. They then go and test alternate browsers, forgetting that their alternative isn't doing the same thing or sometimes, isn't even possible to do the same thing and yet get the feeling that things are way faster than before. Unfortunately, many people don't realize they are actually doing a seat of the pants, apples to oranges comparison, which almost always yields poor and inaccurate results.
I'm surprised the most obvious challenge in going to the moon isn't mentioned in the article: that it takes a huge amount of energy to get to the moon and then to get back.
Not as much as you seem to imply. Escape velocity from the moon does not take nearly as much energy as the other way around. Furthermore, sending cargo vs humans does not require the same timeliness and thusly, the same energy.
So yes, sending stuff to the moon requires lots of energy. Send stuff home without a human cargo, not so much. This is especially so once you consider the Earth's pull can greatly contribute to return trips if time is not a significant consideration.
Obviously I misread that.
Video games do affect people.
Unfortunately, that's not true in the least. Both games and TV absolutely can negatively and positively affect people. As can music. The problem is, it doesn't affect ALL people nor does it affect them the same way. And that seems to be what confuses so many people. When you have people who already suffer from some type of social or mental issue, they are far more likely to find escapes and rationalizations within their escapes. Furthermore, in the pursuit of their escape, as mentioned, they tend to disengage from people and society which can have very negative and very real repercussions.
So blaming it entirely on TV or games or whatever, isn't entirely accurate because the game isn't really to blame. But, the personality and whatever disorders they may have are certainly affected by the game and/or TV.
Example: Child has a violent tendency. He watches kung fu movie and after doing so, uses "kung fu moves" to beat up his siblings. Behavior almost never occurs without fung fu movies. Behavior always follows that of watching a kung fu movie. Is the movie to blame? No. Did the movie have an affect? Yes.
People who are in denial about such things are themselves somehow deluded. The simple fact is, there is endless research that clearly shows causation between our environment and our behavior. With TV and games so prevalent these days, only a fool would argue they are no part of our environment.
Ultimately, the problem stems from parents who want to blame the evils of the world rather than hold their own precious child accountable. Because obviously their child would never have any type of negative behavior by themselves...and its easier to blame an external factor that it is to properly parent and make sure your child isn't unduly influenced by the factors which contribute to a negative personality trait. After all, TV and games are the modern day sitter. And if you don't have those, you're forced to do the job yourself. Easier to simply blame and attempt to hold accountable everything else but yourself and your child.
Why would they be liable?
You're fairly nieve. This exact concept is what has destroyed light aviation in much of the world. Example, pilot, in small plane, flies into clouds, without training, and crashes into a tower. Reasonable people say this is the pilot's fault. Owners of tower are without service and so they sue. Turns out they are not happy with the insurance of the pilot so they also sue the pilot's instructors, airplane manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the tire manufacturer, the prop manufacturer, and the mechanics who last annual'ed the aircraft. And that's the short list.
Its widely estimated that half of all aviation costs are directly and indirectly attributed to legal liability suits and insurance premiums. Think about that for a second. Now ponder the absolute greed and massive stupidity which is required to allow such a thing to happen. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that a new plane could be purchased for the cost of a low end luxury car. These days that will only get you into the used market. In doing so, lawyers have literally destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs.
America is literally one of the most litigious places on Earth. We elect lawyers who then create idiotic laws who primarily and secondarily only benefit other lawyers. Absolutely do not under estimate both the stupidity and greed of the masses; nor the greed and desire of lawyers to lie, manipulate, and generally misrepresent to said masses.
One of the biggest dangers America has ever faced is lawyers.
Just FYI, its actually documented Jesus did NOT carry his own cross. That's a combination of Hollywood and theatrical church lore. A man named Simon carried Jesus' cross. When its said Jesus bore his own cross, they mean metaphorically - as in his fate to come; which was later expanded to include the sins of man. Wait - should I be upset about your reference? ;)
Blood libel was used as an excuse to persecute Jews for centuries, it simply minimizes the effect of this for Palin to compare it to herself.
Except most people don't even know what the reference means. So its fairly safe to say, its metaphorical hyperbole which accurately reflects her statement. Simply stating his historical reference doesn't suddenly make it inflammatory given her context was not inflammatory. To be upset about her reference means citing history is inflammatory - which its not. The simple fact is, many, many, coined phrases which people commonly use in the vernacular have somewhat distasteful origins and you don't hear people getting upset about those. As I originally state, this is people manufacturing crap to either have "news" or they're living a rather pitiful excuse of a life.
Did he explain why it was offensive?
In the segment I saw, they explained the origin and what it meant. I had never heard of the reference before. The Rabbi then offered his own definition which closely matched that of what was previously offered. Nothing I heard could possibly be considered offensive, given the context, unless one was specifically looking to find offense out of the general public's ignorance. But then again, I'm not looking for an excuse to be offended. As such, I'm more apt to believe this is a bunch of bullshit created out of nothing such that the media can buzz about something. Sadly, buzzing about Palin is news these days. Argh...
Programming is one of those jobs where adding more hours is almost certain to be counter productive. Study after study has clearly indicated that most programmers are truly productive maybe six hours of their work day. An eight hour work day allows for two hours of various busy work plus planning, documentation, communication, and contemplation.
Adding yet more hours is going to result in very low quality work, especially if they feel demoralized as a result. So much so that it will quickly prove to be very counter productive. What I typically wind up seeing is, at first, productivity as usual for the first couple of days. Then the fatigue sets in and morale begins to decline. After that, even more work day productivity is reduced and more and more time is spent fixed the mistakes from the day before. It quickly spirals into weekends which further pushes morale downward and resentment through the roof.
It can work so long as the duration is very short and with a specific goal in mind. But as stated, its very open ended and will shatter morale. As a result, the likely result is an exodus of workers to better jobs where they'll actually be valued and not forced to constantly create and fix a slurry of forced mistakes while giving up their nights and weekends.
Think about it - how often have you heard some idiot boss come forward and say, "You are all working double shifts and will not be paid for it!", and heard of good results? I've never heard it work for any creative work. Programmers are not assembly line workers and chances are, your workers will find a place which actually understands the difference.
It really sounds like the boss is a dope. If he needs more sales, the best thing he can do is invest in sales. Without sales, it doesn't matter how many features exist. Sounds like he's pushing the rock up the wrong hill. After all, if he needs more sales, its hardly surprising he to hear he needs more sales. Salesmen generate sales - not features.
I don't know if he did or didn't - though likely he did. Having said that, ever since the Homeland Security was created, much entry level security no longer requires a background check. Furthermore, what used to take months is frequently, now abbreviated into days - or day. They have little choice because of the scale of the problem, which is to provide access to unprecedented numbers of people.
But ultimately, people are conflating so many issues and completely missing the point. Some of the worst leaks in US history have occurred by high level, high ranking, intelligence operators. Leaking really has absolutely nothing to do with rank. Period.
The real problem, which I've not seem anyone really focus on, is the fact that this will continue to happen so long as we have Homeland Security. The number of people which are mandated to have access is absurd. The number one rule of security is, your ability to keep a secret is inversely proportional to the number of people who have access. To cure this, Homeland Security needs to be abolished. Its that simple. The very concept is ripe for abuse. And the reason it never existed before is because everyone before Bush implicitly understood that as soon as you create such an organization, it will be horribly abused and information will leak like a sieve - and all in exchange for billions more for tax payers.
Long story short, if you want less leaks, you must limit access and restore what was once a rather extensive background check process. Rank has nothing to do with it.
When auto brightness came it, people said it saved battery life. Since that time, most people agree it uses even more. It frequently sets the display too bright and is constantly readjusting, not to mention is using yet another sensor to determine the brightness level.
I personally use DimBot, which automatically adjusts based on sunrise/sunset. Aside from that, I frequently don't need to adjust. And when I do, it can a cool feature which allows me to set it by rotating the phone. Its called a "virtual knob."
I'm guessing a "whoosh" is in order. I think he was making a joke. After all, your screen only uses power, "when looking at it."
First, a good reason to NOT be dual core is battery life - slower is better.
Not so. Sometimes running faster uses less power. It depends on the operation and the CPU. Furthermore, the multi-core processors I've seen which target phones typically shutdown the second core when not needed. So for simple operations, battery life is equal to that of a single core system.
Furthermore, Android (Linux actually) supports dynamic CPU scaling. So its very possible (actually commonly done with third party ROMs) to use two, three, or even four different clock rates depending on current load. Meaning, the CPU is only ever maxed for loads which last for some measurable duration.
Long story short, for common, non-CPU bound tasks, multi-core can actually offer better battery life. Now then, for something like a game, which may leverage both cores and have them both CPU-bound, expect battery life to suffer accordingly.
As for your clock rate comparisons - they are almost useless. There is a lot more to performance than simple clock rates. For example, when the G1 was introduced, it had slow memory and a slow bus. As a result, most devices which were introduced after it, ran at the same clock speed but were frequently 30%-60% faster.
Furthermore, all too often the biggest battery draw for is the screen (especially when at maximum brightness) and GPS. Both of these can account for a huge portion of battery. WIFI should also not be forgotten as its impact can be considerable.
For Android, multi-core is especially attractive because of various design decisions which are unique to Android. For example, you could potentially do JIT and GC on the second CPU, thereby improving UI responsiveness. Furthermore, Android has the notion of services, which means its frequently a natural fit to have a service running on one CPU and the UI running another.
They have what is known as background checks. Access is about authenticity.
Rank is irrelevant when it comes to access. Access is about performing a job - not rank.