In short as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups.
You don't have to be part of a religion to read and comprehend. Likewise, you can be in a religion and not be a brainless zealot.
There's only wrong and wrong.
Meaning this is factually incorrect.
You cannot possibly know what true followers of Islams
You're, assuming no one actually reads and comprehends. But since people can read and the majority of Muslims are not extremists, who also completely agree with my statement, its safe to say my statements are completely accurate and yours are, well, seemingly very biased, misleading, and completely inaccurate.
Interestingly, I read an article the other day that specifically said the problem is converts. They're the one without rational thought.
I don't buy that for a second. They may be a factor, but I don't believe they are the root cause.
Almost without exception radicalization of ideologies stem from poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or puppeteering. In the case of the Islamic world, all factors are rampant.
The largest printer of the Koran in the world is Saudi. And in their version, they include both anti-Western bigotry, radicalized views, and the call-to-arms via modern weaponry. All this despite they actually represent the smallest sect in Islam. In turn these Korans are all provided to some of the most impoverished and ignorant countries in the world.
In short, there is not need for converts when you're born indoctrinated with malice, ignorance, and corruption of your own religion.
Made far, far worse, in the case of Muslims, is the fact that they are all learning an incorrect translation of the Koran - where it turns out your reward in the afterlife is grapes rather than virgins. The corrected translation also refines what it is to be a Muslim and oddly enough, the fifth verse in every stance suddenly makes perfect sense. Go figure.
Basically, Muslims in the Middle East are at a huge disadvantage to resist radicalization.
Can you construct a compelling reason that this vehicle, rather than its payload, should loiter in space on a military mission?
Because the military has repeatedly stated they desire such ability since the shuttle's inception for the reasons I stated. And the fact is, the vehicle can loiter for something like 30-day missions; based on what I read. This is, of course, not to say the can't or wont use it to insert additional objects into space for yet additional missions which require yet additional loiter time.
You also bring up an excellent point about being able to drop off and/or bring back objects, which has also been a long term stated goal of the DoD and Air Force.
My point being, a vehicle such as this brings with it the potential for a far reaching list of missions.
Really? This is technically possible, of course, but your wording implies something deliberate on the part of Google. That's a pretty strong statement and needs substantiation, since there's little evidence this takes place unless the user is running a particular app. You're implying that the base android environment does this somehow. Citation needed.
Citation needed? Minus serious IQ points for that part... Wish people would understand they sound like an idiot when they say that and the topic is not about research. Doubly so if the knowledge is part of the common body.
Try enabling the feature on the phone. It as much says it. Also, bother to learn to use some modern technology such as an Internet browser and a search engine. The topic has been extensively covered and discussed. Google openly admits. Its only because developers reported concern after seeing the traffic report this stuff back to Google did Google bother to provide a notice that they were doing this type thing when you enable the Wireless Location provider. In original Android releases, Google did not provide a notice they were collecting such information. Regardless, collection and reporting has always been part of Android - at least since 1.0.
If your WIFI device is enabled, your WIFI will periodically scan (typically every two to five minutes) for APs in your area. All scanned WIFIs are both cached on the device and reported to Google. If location information is available, it too is reported. The periodic scanning is now the device is able to notify users an open AP has been found, allowing you to connect to it.
This is all common knowledge. If this concerns you, don't enable the Wireless Location provider. Just the same, be prepared to take a battery life hit as everything will be forced to turn on/off the GPS to determine your location. And if you're inside, unable to obtain a GPS fix, the constant retry will eat serious battery life. And unless you've disabled the feature, even starting your browser will attempt to determine your current location and report it to Google for all search queries.
And here's an excellent video on the subject. For example, the corrected translation means after you die you get grapes rather than virgins. That may sound funny today but when placed in proper historical and idealogical context, it makes absolute sense.
This is of course, contrary to the incorrect assertions in the Wikipedia quotes which serve as follow up to the quote I provided in another reply.
Of course, all this ignores the fact that a growing body of research seems to indicate that Muslims don't even have the Koran properly translated; to which the newly discovered Koran which proves human changes seems to also further strengthen.
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur'anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur'an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not--there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.
-Puin
In other words, things don't make sense because its been mistranslated. A properly translated Koran is now available which not only makes the firth sentence make sense but also makes the bulk of the Koran make sense - versus its ambiguous and poetic, traditional reading.
Literally, Islam and the Koran is a hot bed of research. Sadly the people who are doing this research constantly receive death threats. Regardless, the research is being done so by accredited researchers. And at the end of the day, it would appear the entire Islamic body doesn't even understand their own cannon and that the cannon it self forcefully claims it is itself not cannon.
Of course, getting the Islamic word to understand they've been studying the wrong translation is a literal Pandora's box - ignoring the fact the Koran has been changed by man.
The military has long desired sub-orbital and low orbital satellite capability. Right now, orbital patterns are well known which means its fairly easy to obstruct view during an orbital pass. Moving a satellite requires using precious fuel and analysis to ensure you're not placing it into a path of orbital debris or other objects. And even still, the changes in time allowed by changing its orbit is generally not all that considerable from what I understand.
Enter this vehicle. You can launch it. Keep in in orbit for what, thirty days? It provides for surveillance and potentially a "rod from god" weapon capability which existing satellites current don't provide. And I assume, at the cost of orbital longevity, its extremely maneuverable. And given its lower orbital plane, changing its orbit, I'd guess, means far less potential debris to hit during orbital changes.
This assumes they are continuously recording signal strength with GPS position. Perhaps they are, I dunno. Just the same, as someone up above already pointed out, if you have an Android phone and enable the Wireless Location provider, it can pinpoint your accuracy to within 35m or so, which likely indicates they don't continuously capture signal/location (or don't do the calculations to enhance the reported accuacy) and that its very roughly 2x the distance between the street and your location.
Of course, the first time you enable your GPS AND Wireless Location providers AND turn on your WIFI device on your phone, they now have enough information to very precisely associate your GPS location in relation to a number of wireless cell towers and all neighboring AP's. In other words, its very likely they absolutely understand which SSID is at which physical location. Of course, they also re-capture the MAC address/SSID as this is all reported back to Google.
And as a side note, many Android applications periodically turn your WIFI on, scan, turn back off, and report your location to third parties. Popular applications such as Locale and ShopSavvy both do this. And if you leave your WIFI device plus Wireless Location provider on, Google will use your phone as a war driving device whereby they periodically scan and return the results back to Google.
Sure, but by that same token, I seriously doubt the Koran explicitly advocates killing people indiscriminately.
It does not. It has very specific conditions which must be met to allow for the legal killing as defined by Islamic law. The problem has been, extremists, by far, stretch the conditions and ambiguity of some text to say that indiscriminate murder is demanded for anything and everything which isn't Islam.
In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.
In Islam, those who truly understand what it is they are reading, abhor violence and understand the Koran is very much against it. True followers of Islam are extremely peaceful and also accept both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as many of the Christian Gospels, as tenets of faith and articles to be read and understood. Its important to understand, Islam is entirely built on top of Judaism and Christianity. All three are considered to be religions of Abraham and worship the same god; be it Yahweh, God, or Allah.
However, because koran is the 'unchanged' word of god (so says islam)
Interestingly enough, we now have proof that isn't true. Islam maintains the Koran is as it always has been and that it is unchanged, literal transcription of Mohammed. That's why they condemn the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah. Turns out, the Koran has been proved to be in flux as late as 160+ years AFTER Mohamed died.
Naturally Islam is claiming everything from blasphemy to the work of Satan. Some even claim the West created this Koran in question and planted it within the hidden set of text to be "discovered" again so as to discredit Islam and the Koran.
Oddly enough, if you take the Koran as literal truth, it is itself mandating you understand the Koran is not true. Makes me wonder how many people are likely to die in the future as more and more come to understand the book which open touts it is both the literal word and unchanging truth, has in fact been changed by man and remained in flux well after Mohammed's death; which is contrary to ALL Islamic teachings. Even worse, the Koran argues all text which has been changed by man has been corrupted by Satan; which is why they largely ignore the old testament and Torah despite being squarely rooted in it. In short, the Koran it self now argues the Koran is the work of Satan and can not be trusted any more than the Torah or the Old Testament.
Yes, but the topic was long term R&D. Since that's the context, you're completely wrong. Taking and adapting isn't innovative nor a significant investment in long term R&D. Adopting someone else's technology after someone else has done the serious R&D is hardly innovating. That's the point. People, like you, constantly give them credit where none is due. And frankly, even still, most of the serious innovation was forced on them by government; which is again, topical and within context. So once again, we have to blink and stair at "what" R&D they've been doing.
Before you make yourself out to be an even bigger idiot, please go bother to research the subject matter yourself. This is not trade secret information. Its all widely available for anyone who cares not to be an idiot.
I'm so tired or armchair physicists who have the most basic comprehension of physics and no comprehension of the real world constantly trying to correctly well established facts. Facts, I might add, which are made available by the fucking researchers and manufacturers.
Why do you think "traction control" systems have also been added to vehicles which already have ABS???? Because its yet ANOTHER system meant to compliment ABS in situations where ABS fucking falls on its face - contrary to statements made by idiots like you.
and yes, most of the cool new automotive technology HAS come from American companies.
Sorry. No. Here's the real answers.
who invented the electric starter (don't know), power windows (likely European, if not Germany), power seats (not sure, but hardly significant tech), power brakes (American - but by the Rail Road), power steering (European - UK specifically), fuel injection (European), airbags (NASA), antilock brakes (European)......... etc?
Not sure what "evidence" you require. Most modern safety design and features did not come from American cars. Most safety features introduced into cars were forced on them. Do some modest history lessons and you'll find some even required Congressional oversight. Most long term research which does exist is a result of foreign research - such that they don't want to be left behind.
No one is saying American car companies do zero R&D. Clearly that would be a false assertion. Just the same, most every significant car technology came from foreign car manufacturers (drive by wire, crumple zones, anti-lock) or NASA (airbags, material sciences). So it is in this way American car companies have consistently been pulled along on the coat tails of others.
Chevrolet had fuel injection for Corvettes and Impala sedans and coupes since 1958
Which was created by Audi, dumbed down, and used in Corvettes. I'm not sure about Impala, but I don't have a problem taking your word for it. Needless to say, NOT an American innovation. What was an American innovation, was making fuel injection less reliable and less fuel efficient than carbs.
Notice one of the other replies to my parent comment and you'll notice someone else is unknowingly saying the same thing from a different perspective.
It isn't going to help much if the bullet has enough force to make the t-shirt penetrate you. If we're talking a 2-inch stretch, then it'll make things less messy, but no less lethal.
Actually, this is exactly why most people who are shot while wearing modern vests typically have broken ribs and/or other bones. There are only a small number of ways to effectively and pragmatically stop a bullet. One is to deflect it like an armored vehicle. The second is to completely absorb the energy by means of a sacrificial material, such as ceramics. These materials are typically only good for stopping a bullet or two. The third is to prevent penetration and to slow the round as quickly as possible using a super strong albeit slightly elastic material. The third route typically means organ and bone displacement, despite lack of penetration, while its energy is absorbed by the vest.
So your options are; deflect, absorb, or slow over time - or some combination. Most soft body armors use the last option which is why black and blue bruises are typically considered a blessing. Armor such Dragon Skin uses a combination of the first two - which is why its so much more effective at preventing all forms of bodily injury. Its also why the military typically augments soft body armor with ceramic plates over vital body parts.
This is exactly why I always say, "identify theft" doesn't exist. This is credit fraud which is encouraged by banks and especially credit reporting agencies. If laws didn't exist specifically to protect banks and credit agencies, we would all be calling them fraudulent organizations and lots of people would be jail. But since lots and lots of politicians financially benefit from fraud, the status quo is actively maintained.
It is impossible to fix credit fraud until lenders and credit agencies are help liable for their willfully fraudulent actions.
Take a look at how the automobile has developed since the 60's and tell me that the private sector doesn't do anything "inspiring". (As long as there is some regulatory oversight for safety)
So to say it correctly, "Thank you Mr. Government". They, US companies anyways, did nothing which was not forced on them by oversight, regulation, and new laws. Most of the cool new technology didn't even come from US companies. It actually came from foreign auto makers who actually invest in long term R&D.
You need to keep in mind, something like fuel injection existed during the 50s and 60s but wasn't widely introduced into vehicles until the government mandated better economy.
So realistically, at the end of the day, you can thank government and foreign companies which are not completely fucked up like American companies are. American companies don't understand the word, "long term". And if they use those words, its an absolute fact they are lying. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but not with US car companies.
The fact this post was moderated as "Troll" pretty well validates everything I said. People want to be lied to. They'll do anything to keep from hear the truth, including censorship.
Its important to read and comprehend. I very clearly said, "in ideal conditions", which you even quoted. There are many conditions where ABS absolutely does help. In some corner cases it helps A LOT. Likewise, in some corner cases, it actually makes things, FAR, FAR, FAR worse. There are many conditions where ABS absolutely makes braking distance far worse. Its a classic trade off. For the average driver, it makes absolutely sense. Far too many wrecks were made far, far worse because of total loss of control. Loss of control often changed what would have been a frontal impact into a side impact. So what would have otherwise been a relatively minor impact may have been changed into a life threatening event. The introduction of ABS has drastically changed the equation because loss of control is fairly rare these days.
And contrary to popular misconceptions, on dry, flat road surfaces, locking your brakes provides for maximum brake potential. This is because the longer the braking action takes, the more surface area is exposed from tire erosion, which continues to further increase braking action. This may leave flat spots on your tires but ultimately, it will make a big reduction in total distance.
To be clear, I'm not preaching ABS is bad. I'm simply saying ABS isn't the the panacea everyone tries to make it out to be. And that's ignoring the fact that the majority of drivers still don't know how to properly use them. As it pertains to the topic at hand, ABS reduces the overall braking capability of the vehicle where maximum braking is required and likely contributes to overheating of the brake system.
Unless McCain dies in the next two years, which doesn't look likely in the least, such statements are idiotic at best. Besides, Obama, with the exception of health care, has followed the Republican plan, the plan stated by McCain, almost to the letter. He never had any other choice regardless of what he told dopes willing to believe him. The only difference is, ignorant people *wanted* to be lied to and so voted for Obama. The truth was simply not palatable to most. At least with McCain, you would of have honesty and integrity. With Obama, we got a charismatic liar.
Obama won the election on emotion. McCain lost the election on truth. People simply did not want to hear the truth and so they voted for an obvious pack of lies. Now people are upset because they got exactly what they voted for - a liar.
Frankly, Obama seems more "Republican" than many Republicans.
At the end of the day, Obama has done little to help reduce our oil consumption. Did he mandate a jobs program to create and retrofit the Air Force's turbines with more fuel efficient designs? Nope! Did you know the US military, especially the Air Force, is one of the largest consumers of oil in the world? Ahh - suddenly makes since doesn't it. Many turbines in the Air Force inventory were designed in the sixties or seventies. Massive turbine design improvements have been made since then; not to mention manufacturing improvements. Its widely believed only modest improvements to the Air Force's turbines alone could reduce the US' oil consumption by 10%-20%. And frankly, likely a lot more so long as we are engaged in war zones.
It appears his energy policy is more or less mainstream Republican.
Slashdot Mirror
In short as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups.
You don't have to be part of a religion to read and comprehend. Likewise, you can be in a religion and not be a brainless zealot.
There's only wrong and wrong.
Meaning this is factually incorrect.
You cannot possibly know what true followers of Islams
You're, assuming no one actually reads and comprehends. But since people can read and the majority of Muslims are not extremists, who also completely agree with my statement, its safe to say my statements are completely accurate and yours are, well, seemingly very biased, misleading, and completely inaccurate.
Interestingly, I read an article the other day that specifically said the problem is converts. They're the one without rational thought.
I don't buy that for a second. They may be a factor, but I don't believe they are the root cause.
Almost without exception radicalization of ideologies stem from poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or puppeteering. In the case of the Islamic world, all factors are rampant.
The largest printer of the Koran in the world is Saudi. And in their version, they include both anti-Western bigotry, radicalized views, and the call-to-arms via modern weaponry. All this despite they actually represent the smallest sect in Islam. In turn these Korans are all provided to some of the most impoverished and ignorant countries in the world.
In short, there is not need for converts when you're born indoctrinated with malice, ignorance, and corruption of your own religion.
Made far, far worse, in the case of Muslims, is the fact that they are all learning an incorrect translation of the Koran - where it turns out your reward in the afterlife is grapes rather than virgins. The corrected translation also refines what it is to be a Muslim and oddly enough, the fifth verse in every stance suddenly makes perfect sense. Go figure.
Basically, Muslims in the Middle East are at a huge disadvantage to resist radicalization.
Can you construct a compelling reason that this vehicle, rather than its payload, should loiter in space on a military mission?
Because the military has repeatedly stated they desire such ability since the shuttle's inception for the reasons I stated. And the fact is, the vehicle can loiter for something like 30-day missions; based on what I read. This is, of course, not to say the can't or wont use it to insert additional objects into space for yet additional missions which require yet additional loiter time.
You also bring up an excellent point about being able to drop off and/or bring back objects, which has also been a long term stated goal of the DoD and Air Force.
My point being, a vehicle such as this brings with it the potential for a far reaching list of missions.
Oh ya - and if you still want to disbelieve reality, go read the source. Its all available. Its not like its hidden that Google does this.
And yes, I have read that portion of the source.
Really? This is technically possible, of course, but your wording implies something deliberate on the part of Google. That's a pretty strong statement and needs substantiation, since there's little evidence this takes place unless the user is running a particular app. You're implying that the base android environment does this somehow. Citation needed.
Citation needed? Minus serious IQ points for that part... Wish people would understand they sound like an idiot when they say that and the topic is not about research. Doubly so if the knowledge is part of the common body.
Try enabling the feature on the phone. It as much says it. Also, bother to learn to use some modern technology such as an Internet browser and a search engine. The topic has been extensively covered and discussed. Google openly admits. Its only because developers reported concern after seeing the traffic report this stuff back to Google did Google bother to provide a notice that they were doing this type thing when you enable the Wireless Location provider. In original Android releases, Google did not provide a notice they were collecting such information. Regardless, collection and reporting has always been part of Android - at least since 1.0.
If your WIFI device is enabled, your WIFI will periodically scan (typically every two to five minutes) for APs in your area. All scanned WIFIs are both cached on the device and reported to Google. If location information is available, it too is reported. The periodic scanning is now the device is able to notify users an open AP has been found, allowing you to connect to it.
This is all common knowledge. If this concerns you, don't enable the Wireless Location provider. Just the same, be prepared to take a battery life hit as everything will be forced to turn on/off the GPS to determine your location. And if you're inside, unable to obtain a GPS fix, the constant retry will eat serious battery life. And unless you've disabled the feature, even starting your browser will attempt to determine your current location and report it to Google for all search queries.
And here's an excellent video on the subject. For example, the corrected translation means after you die you get grapes rather than virgins. That may sound funny today but when placed in proper historical and idealogical context, it makes absolute sense.
This is of course, contrary to the incorrect assertions in the Wikipedia quotes which serve as follow up to the quote I provided in another reply.
Opps - messed up the link
Of course, all this ignores the fact that a growing body of research seems to indicate that Muslims don't even have the Koran properly translated; to which the newly discovered Koran which proves human changes seems to also further strengthen.
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur'anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur'an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not--there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.
-Puin
In other words, things don't make sense because its been mistranslated. A properly translated Koran is now available which not only makes the firth sentence make sense but also makes the bulk of the Koran make sense - versus its ambiguous and poetic, traditional reading.
Literally, Islam and the Koran is a hot bed of research. Sadly the people who are doing this research constantly receive death threats. Regardless, the research is being done so by accredited researchers. And at the end of the day, it would appear the entire Islamic body doesn't even understand their own cannon and that the cannon it self forcefully claims it is itself not cannon.
Of course, getting the Islamic word to understand they've been studying the wrong translation is a literal Pandora's box - ignoring the fact the Koran has been changed by man.
I don't believe this is the correct perspective.
The military has long desired sub-orbital and low orbital satellite capability. Right now, orbital patterns are well known which means its fairly easy to obstruct view during an orbital pass. Moving a satellite requires using precious fuel and analysis to ensure you're not placing it into a path of orbital debris or other objects. And even still, the changes in time allowed by changing its orbit is generally not all that considerable from what I understand.
Enter this vehicle. You can launch it. Keep in in orbit for what, thirty days? It provides for surveillance and potentially a "rod from god" weapon capability which existing satellites current don't provide. And I assume, at the cost of orbital longevity, its extremely maneuverable. And given its lower orbital plane, changing its orbit, I'd guess, means far less potential debris to hit during orbital changes.
This assumes they are continuously recording signal strength with GPS position. Perhaps they are, I dunno. Just the same, as someone up above already pointed out, if you have an Android phone and enable the Wireless Location provider, it can pinpoint your accuracy to within 35m or so, which likely indicates they don't continuously capture signal/location (or don't do the calculations to enhance the reported accuacy) and that its very roughly 2x the distance between the street and your location.
Of course, the first time you enable your GPS AND Wireless Location providers AND turn on your WIFI device on your phone, they now have enough information to very precisely associate your GPS location in relation to a number of wireless cell towers and all neighboring AP's. In other words, its very likely they absolutely understand which SSID is at which physical location. Of course, they also re-capture the MAC address/SSID as this is all reported back to Google.
And as a side note, many Android applications periodically turn your WIFI on, scan, turn back off, and report your location to third parties. Popular applications such as Locale and ShopSavvy both do this. And if you leave your WIFI device plus Wireless Location provider on, Google will use your phone as a war driving device whereby they periodically scan and return the results back to Google.
Sure, but by that same token, I seriously doubt the Koran explicitly advocates killing people indiscriminately.
It does not. It has very specific conditions which must be met to allow for the legal killing as defined by Islamic law. The problem has been, extremists, by far, stretch the conditions and ambiguity of some text to say that indiscriminate murder is demanded for anything and everything which isn't Islam.
In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.
In Islam, those who truly understand what it is they are reading, abhor violence and understand the Koran is very much against it. True followers of Islam are extremely peaceful and also accept both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as many of the Christian Gospels, as tenets of faith and articles to be read and understood. Its important to understand, Islam is entirely built on top of Judaism and Christianity. All three are considered to be religions of Abraham and worship the same god; be it Yahweh, God, or Allah.
However, because koran is the 'unchanged' word of god (so says islam)
Interestingly enough, we now have proof that isn't true. Islam maintains the Koran is as it always has been and that it is unchanged, literal transcription of Mohammed. That's why they condemn the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah. Turns out, the Koran has been proved to be in flux as late as 160+ years AFTER Mohamed died.
Naturally Islam is claiming everything from blasphemy to the work of Satan. Some even claim the West created this Koran in question and planted it within the hidden set of text to be "discovered" again so as to discredit Islam and the Koran.
Oddly enough, if you take the Koran as literal truth, it is itself mandating you understand the Koran is not true. Makes me wonder how many people are likely to die in the future as more and more come to understand the book which open touts it is both the literal word and unchanging truth, has in fact been changed by man and remained in flux well after Mohammed's death; which is contrary to ALL Islamic teachings. Even worse, the Koran argues all text which has been changed by man has been corrupted by Satan; which is why they largely ignore the old testament and Torah despite being squarely rooted in it. In short, the Koran it self now argues the Koran is the work of Satan and can not be trusted any more than the Torah or the Old Testament.
Now the developer needs to pretend to "lose" it in a bar so he can get endless free hype and advertising for his iPhone/Android marriage.
Yes, but the topic was long term R&D. Since that's the context, you're completely wrong. Taking and adapting isn't innovative nor a significant investment in long term R&D. Adopting someone else's technology after someone else has done the serious R&D is hardly innovating. That's the point. People, like you, constantly give them credit where none is due. And frankly, even still, most of the serious innovation was forced on them by government; which is again, topical and within context. So once again, we have to blink and stair at "what" R&D they've been doing.
The words, "dip shit", seems very applicable now.
Before you make yourself out to be an even bigger idiot, please go bother to research the subject matter yourself. This is not trade secret information. Its all widely available for anyone who cares not to be an idiot.
I'm so tired or armchair physicists who have the most basic comprehension of physics and no comprehension of the real world constantly trying to correctly well established facts. Facts, I might add, which are made available by the fucking researchers and manufacturers.
Why do you think "traction control" systems have also been added to vehicles which already have ABS???? Because its yet ANOTHER system meant to compliment ABS in situations where ABS fucking falls on its face - contrary to statements made by idiots like you.
and yes, most of the cool new automotive technology HAS come from American companies.
Sorry. No. Here's the real answers.
who invented the electric starter (don't know), power windows (likely European, if not Germany), power seats (not sure, but hardly significant tech), power brakes (American - but by the Rail Road), power steering (European - UK specifically), fuel injection (European), airbags (NASA), antilock brakes (European)......... etc?
Not sure what "evidence" you require. Most modern safety design and features did not come from American cars. Most safety features introduced into cars were forced on them. Do some modest history lessons and you'll find some even required Congressional oversight. Most long term research which does exist is a result of foreign research - such that they don't want to be left behind.
No one is saying American car companies do zero R&D. Clearly that would be a false assertion. Just the same, most every significant car technology came from foreign car manufacturers (drive by wire, crumple zones, anti-lock) or NASA (airbags, material sciences). So it is in this way American car companies have consistently been pulled along on the coat tails of others.
BTW, I'm not 100% it was Audi, but I am 100% its European tech; at least as it applies to cars.
IIRC, someone was experimenting with it for aircraft engines during the later part of WWII - but that's all fuzzy.
Chevrolet had fuel injection for Corvettes and Impala sedans and coupes since 1958
Which was created by Audi, dumbed down, and used in Corvettes. I'm not sure about Impala, but I don't have a problem taking your word for it. Needless to say, NOT an American innovation. What was an American innovation, was making fuel injection less reliable and less fuel efficient than carbs.
Notice one of the other replies to my parent comment and you'll notice someone else is unknowingly saying the same thing from a different perspective.
It isn't going to help much if the bullet has enough force to make the t-shirt penetrate you. If we're talking a 2-inch stretch, then it'll make things less messy, but no less lethal.
Actually, this is exactly why most people who are shot while wearing modern vests typically have broken ribs and/or other bones. There are only a small number of ways to effectively and pragmatically stop a bullet. One is to deflect it like an armored vehicle. The second is to completely absorb the energy by means of a sacrificial material, such as ceramics. These materials are typically only good for stopping a bullet or two. The third is to prevent penetration and to slow the round as quickly as possible using a super strong albeit slightly elastic material. The third route typically means organ and bone displacement, despite lack of penetration, while its energy is absorbed by the vest.
So your options are; deflect, absorb, or slow over time - or some combination. Most soft body armors use the last option which is why black and blue bruises are typically considered a blessing. Armor such Dragon Skin uses a combination of the first two - which is why its so much more effective at preventing all forms of bodily injury. Its also why the military typically augments soft body armor with ceramic plates over vital body parts.
This is exactly why I always say, "identify theft" doesn't exist. This is credit fraud which is encouraged by banks and especially credit reporting agencies. If laws didn't exist specifically to protect banks and credit agencies, we would all be calling them fraudulent organizations and lots of people would be jail. But since lots and lots of politicians financially benefit from fraud, the status quo is actively maintained.
It is impossible to fix credit fraud until lenders and credit agencies are help liable for their willfully fraudulent actions.
Take a look at how the automobile has developed since the 60's and tell me that the private sector doesn't do anything "inspiring". (As long as there is some regulatory oversight for safety)
So to say it correctly, "Thank you Mr. Government". They, US companies anyways, did nothing which was not forced on them by oversight, regulation, and new laws. Most of the cool new technology didn't even come from US companies. It actually came from foreign auto makers who actually invest in long term R&D.
You need to keep in mind, something like fuel injection existed during the 50s and 60s but wasn't widely introduced into vehicles until the government mandated better economy.
So realistically, at the end of the day, you can thank government and foreign companies which are not completely fucked up like American companies are. American companies don't understand the word, "long term". And if they use those words, its an absolute fact they are lying. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but not with US car companies.
The fact this post was moderated as "Troll" pretty well validates everything I said. People want to be lied to. They'll do anything to keep from hear the truth, including censorship.
In wet and slippy conditions, ABS will *always*
Its important to read and comprehend. I very clearly said, "in ideal conditions", which you even quoted. There are many conditions where ABS absolutely does help. In some corner cases it helps A LOT. Likewise, in some corner cases, it actually makes things, FAR, FAR, FAR worse. There are many conditions where ABS absolutely makes braking distance far worse. Its a classic trade off. For the average driver, it makes absolutely sense. Far too many wrecks were made far, far worse because of total loss of control. Loss of control often changed what would have been a frontal impact into a side impact. So what would have otherwise been a relatively minor impact may have been changed into a life threatening event. The introduction of ABS has drastically changed the equation because loss of control is fairly rare these days.
And contrary to popular misconceptions, on dry, flat road surfaces, locking your brakes provides for maximum brake potential. This is because the longer the braking action takes, the more surface area is exposed from tire erosion, which continues to further increase braking action. This may leave flat spots on your tires but ultimately, it will make a big reduction in total distance.
To be clear, I'm not preaching ABS is bad. I'm simply saying ABS isn't the the panacea everyone tries to make it out to be. And that's ignoring the fact that the majority of drivers still don't know how to properly use them. As it pertains to the topic at hand, ABS reduces the overall braking capability of the vehicle where maximum braking is required and likely contributes to overheating of the brake system.
'president palin'
Unless McCain dies in the next two years, which doesn't look likely in the least, such statements are idiotic at best. Besides, Obama, with the exception of health care, has followed the Republican plan, the plan stated by McCain, almost to the letter. He never had any other choice regardless of what he told dopes willing to believe him. The only difference is, ignorant people *wanted* to be lied to and so voted for Obama. The truth was simply not palatable to most. At least with McCain, you would of have honesty and integrity. With Obama, we got a charismatic liar.
Obama won the election on emotion. McCain lost the election on truth. People simply did not want to hear the truth and so they voted for an obvious pack of lies. Now people are upset because they got exactly what they voted for - a liar.
Frankly, Obama seems more "Republican" than many Republicans.
At the end of the day, Obama has done little to help reduce our oil consumption. Did he mandate a jobs program to create and retrofit the Air Force's turbines with more fuel efficient designs? Nope! Did you know the US military, especially the Air Force, is one of the largest consumers of oil in the world? Ahh - suddenly makes since doesn't it. Many turbines in the Air Force inventory were designed in the sixties or seventies. Massive turbine design improvements have been made since then; not to mention manufacturing improvements. Its widely believed only modest improvements to the Air Force's turbines alone could reduce the US' oil consumption by 10%-20%. And frankly, likely a lot more so long as we are engaged in war zones.
It appears his energy policy is more or less mainstream Republican.