I have a consumer cordless screwdriver with a capacitor in place of a battery. It runs for a decent time and runs down, like most such devices. Unlike a battery, it recharges to full in 90 seconds, not hours.
Link please? That sounds like something worth buying...
According to the WSJ article that the AOL article is "borrowing" from (and sensationalizing) these limitations are only applied to "documents used for reports and presentations."
That's bad enough, but we really don't need to discredit them even more for limiting their employees ability to communicate with each other (which they haven't done). They are simply trying to keep emotion out of the official reports & presentations and stick to the facts. I actually don't blame them for trying to do this.
I'm not sure what altitude this flew, but most class B and C airspace goes no higher than 10,000ft MSL so if this was above that altitude, it would not have broken any of those airspace regulations. In order for it to get past the Rocky Mountains, it was probably at least 7,000ft so it's quite possible it was over 10,000 ft.
People want SO BADLY to believe that we're being visited by aliens, that they won't accept a very clear explanation for what they saw. It's kind of sad that we are so disillusioned with our own world that we need to convince ourselves of things like UFOs.
Just wanted to add: If there is research that needs to be done that is not, by itself, profitable, then I believe we should consider funding it without forcing the researchers to make PR statements like these because who knows what ideas or conclusions that research might actually lead to -- It's really too bad that we are so focused on all research building profits for someone. We, as a society, suck at thinking about anything long-term.
Crowdsourcing... well if we have a government of the people then isn't everything they do technically crowdsourced already?
I just don't see how making promises like this is good for anyone. Clearly they are just looking for funding; no scientist or researcher in their right mind would promise something they can't already do by a specific date unless they were lying (or guessing, call it what you want) in order to get funding. This is the kind of crap that makes simpler people no longer "believe in science."
I find this sad because it's one of the sole means we, as a species, have of exploring the next frontier right now. Any time a space launch fails, regardless of who launched it, it sets us all back. The silver lining is, perhaps we can all learn from whatever happened, and hopefully the next launch will be more successful no matter within whose borders it launches.
If the assertion is that surface area increases as mass decreases, the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.
No, of course that's not the assertion. What the hell kind of assertion would that be?
If you spill a glass of water on the counter, the surface area of that water increases greatly but the mass stays the same. In fact, it evaporates faster that way so while the surface area stays much larger than it was, the mass actually reduces much faster as a result. What is likely happening here is very similar, except with ice instead of liquid water
I feel like I'd have better luck explaining this to a three year old.
All they would need to do is omit some results from the search and place others high in the list. They can even insert propaganda into seemingly unrelated searches. Something perhaps designed to manufacture rage at one particular party or candidate.
I don't think this is the case. I think most people when searching about politics are likely to be searching for evidence to back up an opinion they already hold. The other primary use case is likely to look up a candidate to see if they are in the same party as the searcher or not (since a lot of TV ads don't state party affiliation outright).
Of course I haven't done a study to prove this. Like most of you, I don't have time for that. Generally speaking, though, the troll articles that come up when you search on a political topic are very obvious and the only way someone would bite on those is if the article supports what they already want to think.
A strike I would understand, but actively causing traffic congestion seems like a blatant disregard for the very people you're claiming to serve. As we saw with the bridge in NJ, traffic congestion causes real, life-threatening problems and we certainly do not need to be causing it artificially. There's got to be a better way for this organization to make their point.
Then doesn't the service sell itself? Why would they be afraid of something like Uber? Why would they be so afraid that they are literally willing to risk peoples lives to do it? If you intentionally cause traffic congestion, suddenly emergency vehicles also can't get through, which means people who need help won't get it when they need it, and some will die as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
It is kind of strange that the headline mentions the white house adding pressure, but the summary doesn't at all...
Link please? That sounds like something worth buying...
+1 informative if I could -- Thanks, I was trying to figure out what the GP was referring to when they said Comcast was owned by MS...
Ya, thanks. I was trying to find what altitude this flew at before I posted but couldn't find it.
Besides, I don't see how that changes the point. Did you forget to take your "don't be a dick" pills today?
It didn't have to fly over the tallest point...
According to the WSJ article that the AOL article is "borrowing" from (and sensationalizing) these limitations are only applied to "documents used for reports and presentations."
That's bad enough, but we really don't need to discredit them even more for limiting their employees ability to communicate with each other (which they haven't done). They are simply trying to keep emotion out of the official reports & presentations and stick to the facts. I actually don't blame them for trying to do this.
I'm not sure what altitude this flew, but most class B and C airspace goes no higher than 10,000ft MSL so if this was above that altitude, it would not have broken any of those airspace regulations. In order for it to get past the Rocky Mountains, it was probably at least 7,000ft so it's quite possible it was over 10,000 ft.
People want SO BADLY to believe that we're being visited by aliens, that they won't accept a very clear explanation for what they saw. It's kind of sad that we are so disillusioned with our own world that we need to convince ourselves of things like UFOs.
FTFY ;-)
Just wanted to add: If there is research that needs to be done that is not, by itself, profitable, then I believe we should consider funding it without forcing the researchers to make PR statements like these because who knows what ideas or conclusions that research might actually lead to -- It's really too bad that we are so focused on all research building profits for someone. We, as a society, suck at thinking about anything long-term.
Crowdsourcing... well if we have a government of the people then isn't everything they do technically crowdsourced already?
I just don't see how making promises like this is good for anyone. Clearly they are just looking for funding; no scientist or researcher in their right mind would promise something they can't already do by a specific date unless they were lying (or guessing, call it what you want) in order to get funding. This is the kind of crap that makes simpler people no longer "believe in science."
I find this sad because it's one of the sole means we, as a species, have of exploring the next frontier right now. Any time a space launch fails, regardless of who launched it, it sets us all back. The silver lining is, perhaps we can all learn from whatever happened, and hopefully the next launch will be more successful no matter within whose borders it launches.
How is that different from MS Access?
It's not the same piece of ice, you buffoon.
I'm convinced you are being deliberately dense.
Now THAT is insightful.
Yes, thanks, this is the point I was trying to make.
No, of course that's not the assertion. What the hell kind of assertion would that be?
If you spill a glass of water on the counter, the surface area of that water increases greatly but the mass stays the same. In fact, it evaporates faster that way so while the surface area stays much larger than it was, the mass actually reduces much faster as a result. What is likely happening here is very similar, except with ice instead of liquid water
I feel like I'd have better luck explaining this to a three year old.
I don't think this is the case. I think most people when searching about politics are likely to be searching for evidence to back up an opinion they already hold. The other primary use case is likely to look up a candidate to see if they are in the same party as the searcher or not (since a lot of TV ads don't state party affiliation outright).
Of course I haven't done a study to prove this. Like most of you, I don't have time for that. Generally speaking, though, the troll articles that come up when you search on a political topic are very obvious and the only way someone would bite on those is if the article supports what they already want to think.
Well, "missing space" is definitely on-topic at least.
What the hell are you talking about? Mass != surface area. It's not a dodge, it's basic understanding.
I didn't know global warming only affected air temps...?
A strike I would understand, but actively causing traffic congestion seems like a blatant disregard for the very people you're claiming to serve. As we saw with the bridge in NJ, traffic congestion causes real, life-threatening problems and we certainly do not need to be causing it artificially. There's got to be a better way for this organization to make their point.
Then doesn't the service sell itself? Why would they be afraid of something like Uber? Why would they be so afraid that they are literally willing to risk peoples lives to do it? If you intentionally cause traffic congestion, suddenly emergency vehicles also can't get through, which means people who need help won't get it when they need it, and some will die as a result.