I wonder if there is anything special about nitrogen that makes the experience less unpleasant than say breathing too much helium ( which I've done accidentally while making my voice high for fun, and which I found quite unpleasant ).
I've also heard that Carbon Monoxide is quick and supposedly painless - a breathe one deep breath and it's lights out forever experience.
I think a large steam roller moving a 50 mph over concrete which the prisoner was shackled to might be pretty humane as well. The Operator would drive the speeding brain crusher over their head at high speed leaving nothing to feel the pain for more than a subsecond. Oh but what a subsecond. Well aimed shotgun to the head seems more foolproof. I'm sure the state could devise a jig to bolt to a prisoner's head holding the gun well positioned to avoid mistakes.
Market price is a loaded term. Perhaps I should have said 'budget' to mean the price the twenty something is willing to pay for entertainment. And for a specific piece of content, the market price is set by the monopolist ( copyright owner ) so as to maximise revenue. Since the product costs nothing to reproduce this price would be zero were it not for the existence of the monopoly.
However the specific piece of content must compete with other content that can satsify the needs of those who demand entertainment. Only those who value the work you've created far above others are at your mercy. Those who are less obsessed are less apt to pay exorbitant prices. If the potential entertainment market consists of ten people, and all ten would buy your cd for one dollar, but one would buy it for eleven dollars, then you are better off charging eleven dollars, denying the other nine access, and selling only one copy.
It seems to me that eleven dollars could be collected if the nine paid one dollar, and the one obsessive fan paid two dollars. Then eleven dollars are collected, but more people are happy. I don't know how this could be set up so as to happen though..
Hmm, but even in first world countries twenty-somethings that spend 200$ for shoes or go to 30$ entry clubs are quite rare.
The media conglomerate has created a culture for them - the few - that the other far more common (poor) sort of twenty-somethings can not partake of without piracy. An undeniable fact is that nobody is hurt by piracy when that piracy does not result in lost sales. In that case, it's truely a victimless crime.
Of course there are some twenty-somethings who do spend 200$ on shoes and who could afford to buy their music. If these people pirate music they would have bought then there is an effect. However even these people when they pirate content they wouldn't have bought aren't hurting anyone.
Or are they?
Suppose X is only released under DRM making it a little more inconvenient to pirate, so nobody has bothered ripping it, and it's not available in a decent quality from p2p piracy channels, and that it's available legally for 20 bucks.
Suppose Y is available legally for 20 bucks, with no DRM, and is also available to pirate illegally on p2p.
Suppose X and Y can both fill the person's free time with entertainment.
The market price for content that will fill the twenty-something's free time with entertainment is 20 bucks. Their first choice is X. However, since they would not buy Y for 20 bucks given the choice to buy X for 20 bucks, they would not ever buy Y anyway and so pirate it. It fills their free time with entertainment, and now the maximum price they would pay for X is 5 dollars. In fact, if Y had been available for 15 dollars, they might have felt guilty and bought Y legally, were it not for Z also available to pirate illegally, and available legally for 20 bucks. Z is not so good as Y but it's decent. If it had been available for 10 dollars, then the twenty something might even have shelled out the ten spot to buy it valuing the money saved more than the difference in satisfaction between filling their time with either Y or X. It's a happy thing to the twentysomething that they were able to get their second choice Y for free since Y would have charged 20 bucks which they wouldn't have paid anyway.
Free entertainment that is available legally for free has the same effect. The only difference is that creation of that content isn't funded by the structure of copyright law as it is with free content that was free because it's been pirated illegally.
Lynx does have the problem of pausing when it doesn't need to. It seems that lynx could be drawing the page while it's waiting for the bottom half to download.
It is. Once in a while there is a cool vid or picture that really adds something to a web page, but ASCII IS everything. The necessary pic/vid/etc is so infrequent an occurance that downloading it seperately then opening it with an image/vid viewer seperately is only slightly more inconvenient than opening up Firefox and typing in the url.
That's what Star Trek DESPERATELY needs. The fans know what's going to happen long before it does. The fans know too much about the characters, who are stiff and bland appeal to mass TV audiences as well as a knowledgeable fanbase over the years. The old Trek had more spunk than anything since in that regard which makes it the ideal Trek to reboot.
The fans know too much about the Star Trek universe, and even too much about Star Trek technology. This severely needs a reboot. Star Trek Technology has evolved to conveniently resolve plot points. And each technological development elimnates potential plots from being interesting in the future. They have a way out of anything now.
The New Star Trek should have ( if it didn't ) start out with something that loudly proclaims to fans that they don't know shit. Something needs to happen that says forget whatever you think you knew about Star Trek, it's universe or it's characters. The expectations of existing fans should be COMPLETELY and even deliberately disrespected throughout with the goal of forging new and interesting possibilities and plots. Knowing much of anything about a universe is anathema to the feeling of exploring the unknown that a movie about space explorers should drip with, and that goes for the characters too. They shouldn't be too cozy with each other, they shouldn't know each other too well, the audience shouldn't either. Will Spock act human like or vulcan like? He should NOT always act in the way that makes him likeable, or even admirable by a MASS audence. People don't shape their personalities to appeal to a mass audience. Star Trek characters do unless they are wearing a red shirt.
Star Trek needs unpredictablility not just in points of plot, but in points of fact, and in points of character. Without not just disrespecting but deliberately DESTROYING the baggage of the past, can there be any hope to mine the PREMISE for worthwhile stories going forward.
I want half the audience to thing Spock is a dick. I want half the audience to think Kirk is an asshole. Etcetera. Everyone should be able to find someone they like, at least somewhat, and the interaction should be interesting and unpredictable, and most of all worthwhile to watch.
The trailers I've seen for the new Star Trek movie make me actually want to see it. It looks edgier which is exactly what Star Trek needs to survive.
TNG, and Voyager were space soap operas. The original Star Trek had some mild edginess though, albeit necessarily fit for 1960s TV. Star Trek can have more Edginess today.
Star Trek Original re-vampped has at least as much value as the zillions of Comic Book Superhero movies with the same story that have come out of late. I watch those for fun. I'll watch the new Star Trek too.
Scarcity is dead. Yeah right. That's harder to believe than faster than light travel. That's like a computer that will never need a ram upgrade. NO SUCH THING. And why the fuck would the Klingons and the Humans hate each other if Scarcity were dead? I don't think even Klingons fight just for shits and giggles.
I think Colber[t] actually pronounces his name as ColberT in private. This is based on me catching him one time on air saying ColberT when there was no comic reason for him to do so. ( I hate saying there's no comic reason for something since there is always the possibility that a joke flew by undetected ) It's unlikely that someone who had always pronounced their name one way would slip, though not impossible.
The name of a pod has no effect on it's usefulness. It's just a freaking name! Being named Colbert or Xenu (which would have been funnier than Colbert) is really immaterial to any science, like studying the effects of weightlessness on Twinkie shelf life, that they do up there.
What's wrong with humor in space? It's part of putting people in space. Humor and satire comes with them.
It's interesting to wonder about who exactly is pissed about a space station module being named Colbert.. Xenu would have been easy to dismiss for religious tolerance reasons, even people who hate scientology may legitimately be offended by someone poking fun at them, but the name Colbert isn't obviously offensive in any way. Yet the offense exists, or there would be no challenge to the nodule being named Colbert. The interesting question is who is being offended?
Serenity seems to have less offense value than Colbert. If it had won on it's own merits, nobody would have objected, and it wouldn't have even made the news. The people who are offended by the nodule being named Colbert aren't offended by Serenity.
I think there are people for whom space is sort of a religion. It's like a girl they've built up in their minds to some ideal that nobody can ever live up to. In their imagination, it has to them all the attributes they need it to have to be their holy land, the place where all their favorite sci-fi stories took place. And mere mortals can't go there - only NASA annointed astronaughts, so nothing ever happens there to destroy their preconceptions of the holy place.
Yeah, it's a girl and a religion. The probes NASA sends are like these folks' dingaling. Naming one of their nodules Colbert is like painting their dingaling pink.
These people need to snap out of it, and a pink dingaling paintjob is just the ticket. When and if people really start to live and work in space, outer space will offer just as many wedgies and swirlies to these people as earth has justly given them. These people need to realise this and work to correct the here and now, and not wait for the prophesised heavenly age of outer space where losers are cool for being losers. Believe me, the folks really doing things in space, aren't these people. They are winners of a game requiring non-loserness. The people these people worship are more like a boy band with a fanbase of stupid thirteen year old girls. These losers are the thirteen year old girls who have gone off the deep end - not the average fan. These losers are the drunken sports fans who paint their hairy chests, backs and beer bellies blue to cheer on their favorite football team shirtless while it snows.
Somehow, these people are being given more importance than they deserve. They are the base, they make the party. NASA uses these devout space-cultists as pillars of it's church. Without them, they'd have no cult. For that reason, NASA is afraid to alienate them. But that's exactly what they should do, since they alienate everyone else.
I say let there be this 'International Currency'. Guess what? I bet people still use the dollar. People can keep a basket of international currencies in their portfolio without having a 'basket currency'. People can buy things with whatever currency they feel like spending by first exchanging that currency for the one the item is being sold for. And 'International Currency' will just not be adopted because there will be no compelling reason to do so.
If the gubmint is the majority owner, and there is a duty to act in the best interest of shareholders, how the hell can AIG sue the government? They are suing themselves!
I am surprised that 'Pious Fight Deaths' are harder than other deaths. Perhaps it is because of the weapons the Pious use in their Fights. For instance wasn't there a prohibition against spilling blood that once led to the Mace being a perferred weapon among certain Pious Crusaders? Certainly those who fought them would likely be Pious themselves, finding themselves on the recieving end of the Mace. Death by Mace certainly seems more gruesome than death by sword, axe or arrow though I don
t know if it is actually Harder. I have never heard of a soft mace....
The best way to determine whether Pious Fight Deaths are Harder than Non Pious Fight Deaths, would be to have some Pious folks fight each other to the death and also some Non-Pious folks fight themselves to the death and then ask them about how hard they thought their deaths were. It might be difficult however to get the non-pious to participate in the study.
Another problem is that nobody would get to experience both a Pious Fight Death and a Non-Pious Fight Death to compare. Perhaps the very Piety of the Fight Death would effect the percieved Hardness of the Death in such a way as to skew the results away from the true Hardness value. Then again the difference between the true Hardness of a Death and the percieved Hardness of the Death may be only philosophical.
I can't think of ANY ANY ANY concievable reason why IBM's stock SHOULD go up because a computer they made beat Kasparov. Nonetheless, I am not surprised to hear they did.
I won't say Deep Blue was a waste of time and money. It may have had some worth I don't know about, but for the purpose of making the stockholders of IBM richer, the only possible benefit would be to increase the value of existing stockholders shares by attracting new investment. This can't be sustained indefinately any more than a Madoff scheme. Completely inconcievable is any positive effect Deep Blue could have had on the long term value of what a share of IBM represents. Logically, seeing a company doing this kind of thing should make their share price go down if investors were completely rational and informed, but they aren't. Believing they are would be quite irrational in itself. Still I can't imagine having beaten Kasparov with Deep Blue could be having any positive effect on IBM that remains to this day.
You have the irrevokable right to do anything you believe is right if you have the means and can get away with it. You also have a duty to know what is right with confidence commensurate with the effects of your actions IMHO.
Wouldn't it be more effective to build something better, like a remote control missile with webcam and wi-fi card? Qassams just hit something over yonder in that general direction. If you have a guided missile, you can hit valuable targets every time.
You could set up wifi transponders along its route, to repeat and amplify warjammed signals from nearby businesses. The launcher could be installed and camoflaged weeks earlier in the city park. Then from the privacy of your van sitting outside an apartment building where you can steal internet signal, hundreds of miles from the scene of the crime, you initiate the launch sequence, 3 2 1 blastoff.
The missile rockets to a ballistic trajectory in the general direction of the target. As the motor peters out, the first stage breaks off, falling to earth, while control surfaces deploy to steer the warhead toward it's target.
Nobody suspects or hears a thing as the homemade smart bomb homes in on it's target. There's no warning, not even any explosion on impact, the weight and high speed of the projectile being more than sufficient to destroy life. The only sign at first is the fallen body. The 10 foot inflatable SpongeBob on top of Burger King has been assassinated, and the glass canister of concentrated 3-methylindole has been released. Nobody will ever eat at that Burger King again.
I bought my last camera based on how long it takes from the time you press the button to the time the picture is taken ( shutter delay/shutter lag ). ( my current $125 ) camera is speced at.001 seconds. All other cameras I tried, even expensive ones, ranged from 1.5 seconds to.5 seconds. Even this one I have will lag about a half second unless you hold the button down half way for a bit until it beeps. Then you can take a pic of something that's moving ( or catch a cute smile ) by pressing the rest of the way.
If Lexcorp wants to do X they can give their peons every incentive to break the law in their name, but have policies against the practice. Then X gets done, and Lexcorp is off the hook. It's not worth going after the peons, and Lexcorp can actually cite instances when peons have been fired for doing X.
I personally hate it when salespeople bother me. I'd rather have nobody give a rip about me than be hounded by salespeople before I can finish reading labels. That kind of thing will keep me from even going to a store. I'll shop online first.
"How much of the earth's surface is covered by water?" Does one need to know the answer to within one percent, or less? Is that even known so precisely? If the correct answer is 70-75% water (approx 3/4) then are 4/5 and 2/3 water good enough guesses? I think both numbers contain the main idea that there's more water than land.
And as for humans and dinos walking the earth together, I think a majority of those who "didn't know dinos and humans didn't live at the same time" would probably have answered that dinos preceeded humans if asked on a gameshow where prizemoney was at stake. Answering that they thought dinos and humans walked the earth together makes is a statement about the beliefs they choose to espouse.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if there is anything special about nitrogen that makes the experience less unpleasant than say breathing too much helium ( which I've done accidentally while making my voice high for fun, and which I found quite unpleasant ).
I've also heard that Carbon Monoxide is quick and supposedly painless - a breathe one deep breath and it's lights out forever experience.
I think a large steam roller moving a 50 mph over concrete which the prisoner was shackled to might be pretty humane as well. The Operator would drive the speeding brain crusher over their head at high speed leaving nothing to feel the pain for more than a subsecond. Oh but what a subsecond. Well aimed shotgun to the head seems more foolproof. I'm sure the state could devise a jig to bolt to a prisoner's head holding the gun well positioned to avoid mistakes.
However the specific piece of content must compete with other content that can satsify the needs of those who demand entertainment. Only those who value the work you've created far above others are at your mercy. Those who are less obsessed are less apt to pay exorbitant prices. If the potential entertainment market consists of ten people, and all ten would buy your cd for one dollar, but one would buy it for eleven dollars, then you are better off charging eleven dollars, denying the other nine access, and selling only one copy.
It seems to me that eleven dollars could be collected if the nine paid one dollar, and the one obsessive fan paid two dollars. Then eleven dollars are collected, but more people are happy. I don't know how this could be set up so as to happen though..
Hmm, but even in first world countries twenty-somethings that spend 200$ for shoes or go to 30$ entry clubs are quite rare.
The media conglomerate has created a culture for them - the few - that the other far more common (poor) sort of twenty-somethings can not partake of without piracy. An undeniable fact is that nobody is hurt by piracy when that piracy does not result in lost sales. In that case, it's truely a victimless crime.
Of course there are some twenty-somethings who do spend 200$ on shoes and who could afford to buy their music. If these people pirate music they would have bought then there is an effect. However even these people when they pirate content they wouldn't have bought aren't hurting anyone.
Or are they?
Suppose X is only released under DRM making it a little more inconvenient to pirate, so nobody has bothered ripping it, and it's not available in a decent quality from p2p piracy channels, and that it's available legally for 20 bucks.
Suppose Y is available legally for 20 bucks, with no DRM, and is also available to pirate illegally on p2p.
Suppose X and Y can both fill the person's free time with entertainment.
The market price for content that will fill the twenty-something's free time with entertainment is 20 bucks. Their first choice is X. However, since they would not buy Y for 20 bucks given the choice to buy X for 20 bucks, they would not ever buy Y anyway and so pirate it. It fills their free time with entertainment, and now the maximum price they would pay for X is 5 dollars. In fact, if Y had been available for 15 dollars, they might have felt guilty and bought Y legally, were it not for Z also available to pirate illegally, and available legally for 20 bucks. Z is not so good as Y but it's decent. If it had been available for 10 dollars, then the twenty something might even have shelled out the ten spot to buy it valuing the money saved more than the difference in satisfaction between filling their time with either Y or X. It's a happy thing to the twentysomething that they were able to get their second choice Y for free since Y would have charged 20 bucks which they wouldn't have paid anyway.
Free entertainment that is available legally for free has the same effect. The only difference is that creation of that content isn't funded by the structure of copyright law as it is with free content that was free because it's been pirated illegally.
I hope you don't mind me pasting that post into a letter I'm sending Olympia Snowe as one of her constituents.
Lynx does have the problem of pausing when it doesn't need to. It seems that lynx could be drawing the page while it's waiting for the bottom half to download.
It is. Once in a while there is a cool vid or picture that really adds something to a web page, but ASCII IS everything. The necessary pic/vid/etc is so infrequent an occurance that downloading it seperately then opening it with an image/vid viewer seperately is only slightly more inconvenient than opening up Firefox and typing in the url.
Loony Toons rules. I wanna see a royal rumble where they kick Mickey/Donald around the block.
That's what Star Trek DESPERATELY needs. The fans know what's going to happen long before it does. The fans know too much about the characters, who are stiff and bland appeal to mass TV audiences as well as a knowledgeable fanbase over the years. The old Trek had more spunk than anything since in that regard which makes it the ideal Trek to reboot.
The fans know too much about the Star Trek universe, and even too much about Star Trek technology. This severely needs a reboot. Star Trek Technology has evolved to conveniently resolve plot points. And each technological development elimnates potential plots from being interesting in the future. They have a way out of anything now.
The New Star Trek should have ( if it didn't ) start out with something that loudly proclaims to fans that they don't know shit. Something needs to happen that says forget whatever you think you knew about Star Trek, it's universe or it's characters. The expectations of existing fans should be COMPLETELY and even deliberately disrespected throughout with the goal of forging new and interesting possibilities and plots. Knowing much of anything about a universe is anathema to the feeling of exploring the unknown that a movie about space explorers should drip with, and that goes for the characters too. They shouldn't be too cozy with each other, they shouldn't know each other too well, the audience shouldn't either. Will Spock act human like or vulcan like? He should NOT always act in the way that makes him likeable, or even admirable by a MASS audence. People don't shape their personalities to appeal to a mass audience. Star Trek characters do unless they are wearing a red shirt.
Star Trek needs unpredictablility not just in points of plot, but in points of fact, and in points of character. Without not just disrespecting but deliberately DESTROYING the baggage of the past, can there be any hope to mine the PREMISE for worthwhile stories going forward.
I want half the audience to thing Spock is a dick. I want half the audience to think Kirk is an asshole. Etcetera. Everyone should be able to find someone they like, at least somewhat, and the interaction should be interesting and unpredictable, and most of all worthwhile to watch.
The trailers I've seen for the new Star Trek movie make me actually want to see it. It looks edgier which is exactly what Star Trek needs to survive.
TNG, and Voyager were space soap operas. The original Star Trek had some mild edginess though, albeit necessarily fit for 1960s TV. Star Trek can have more Edginess today.
Star Trek Original re-vampped has at least as much value as the zillions of Comic Book Superhero movies with the same story that have come out of late. I watch those for fun. I'll watch the new Star Trek too.
Scarcity is dead. Yeah right. That's harder to believe than faster than light travel. That's like a computer that will never need a ram upgrade. NO SUCH THING. And why the fuck would the Klingons and the Humans hate each other if Scarcity were dead? I don't think even Klingons fight just for shits and giggles.
I think Colber[t] actually pronounces his name as ColberT in private. This is based on me catching him one time on air saying ColberT when there was no comic reason for him to do so. ( I hate saying there's no comic reason for something since there is always the possibility that a joke flew by undetected ) It's unlikely that someone who had always pronounced their name one way would slip, though not impossible.
The name of a pod has no effect on it's usefulness. It's just a freaking name! Being named Colbert or Xenu (which would have been funnier than Colbert) is really immaterial to any science, like studying the effects of weightlessness on Twinkie shelf life, that they do up there.
What's wrong with humor in space? It's part of putting people in space. Humor and satire comes with them.
It's interesting to wonder about who exactly is pissed about a space station module being named Colbert.. Xenu would have been easy to dismiss for religious tolerance reasons, even people who hate scientology may legitimately be offended by someone poking fun at them, but the name Colbert isn't obviously offensive in any way. Yet the offense exists, or there would be no challenge to the nodule being named Colbert. The interesting question is who is being offended?
Serenity seems to have less offense value than Colbert. If it had won on it's own merits, nobody would have objected, and it wouldn't have even made the news. The people who are offended by the nodule being named Colbert aren't offended by Serenity.
I think there are people for whom space is sort of a religion. It's like a girl they've built up in their minds to some ideal that nobody can ever live up to. In their imagination, it has to them all the attributes they need it to have to be their holy land, the place where all their favorite sci-fi stories took place. And mere mortals can't go there - only NASA annointed astronaughts, so nothing ever happens there to destroy their preconceptions of the holy place.
Yeah, it's a girl and a religion. The probes NASA sends are like these folks' dingaling. Naming one of their nodules Colbert is like painting their dingaling pink.
These people need to snap out of it, and a pink dingaling paintjob is just the ticket. When and if people really start to live and work in space, outer space will offer just as many wedgies and swirlies to these people as earth has justly given them. These people need to realise this and work to correct the here and now, and not wait for the prophesised heavenly age of outer space where losers are cool for being losers. Believe me, the folks really doing things in space, aren't these people. They are winners of a game requiring non-loserness. The people these people worship are more like a boy band with a fanbase of stupid thirteen year old girls. These losers are the thirteen year old girls who have gone off the deep end - not the average fan. These losers are the drunken sports fans who paint their hairy chests, backs and beer bellies blue to cheer on their favorite football team shirtless while it snows.
Somehow, these people are being given more importance than they deserve. They are the base, they make the party. NASA uses these devout space-cultists as pillars of it's church. Without them, they'd have no cult. For that reason, NASA is afraid to alienate them. But that's exactly what they should do, since they alienate everyone else.
Explosives, Medicine, Air/Space Travel.
That's it. NO PORN FOR YOU!!!
I say let there be this 'International Currency'. Guess what? I bet people still use the dollar. People can keep a basket of international currencies in their portfolio without having a 'basket currency'. People can buy things with whatever currency they feel like spending by first exchanging that currency for the one the item is being sold for. And 'International Currency' will just not be adopted because there will be no compelling reason to do so.
No. See the movie Idiocracy for why people are stupider and stupider.
If the gubmint is the majority owner, and there is a duty to act in the best interest of shareholders, how the hell can AIG sue the government? They are suing themselves!
The best way to determine whether Pious Fight Deaths are Harder than Non Pious Fight Deaths, would be to have some Pious folks fight each other to the death and also some Non-Pious folks fight themselves to the death and then ask them about how hard they thought their deaths were. It might be difficult however to get the non-pious to participate in the study.
Another problem is that nobody would get to experience both a Pious Fight Death and a Non-Pious Fight Death to compare. Perhaps the very Piety of the Fight Death would effect the percieved Hardness of the Death in such a way as to skew the results away from the true Hardness value. Then again the difference between the true Hardness of a Death and the percieved Hardness of the Death may be only philosophical.
I won't say Deep Blue was a waste of time and money. It may have had some worth I don't know about, but for the purpose of making the stockholders of IBM richer, the only possible benefit would be to increase the value of existing stockholders shares by attracting new investment. This can't be sustained indefinately any more than a Madoff scheme. Completely inconcievable is any positive effect Deep Blue could have had on the long term value of what a share of IBM represents. Logically, seeing a company doing this kind of thing should make their share price go down if investors were completely rational and informed, but they aren't. Believing they are would be quite irrational in itself. Still I can't imagine having beaten Kasparov with Deep Blue could be having any positive effect on IBM that remains to this day.
Yes! Mod parent up.
You have the irrevokable right to do anything you believe is right if you have the means and can get away with it. You also have a duty to know what is right with confidence commensurate with the effects of your actions IMHO.
Wouldn't it be more effective to build something better, like a remote control missile with webcam and wi-fi card? Qassams just hit something over yonder in that general direction. If you have a guided missile, you can hit valuable targets every time.
You could set up wifi transponders along its route, to repeat and amplify warjammed signals from nearby businesses. The launcher could be installed and camoflaged weeks earlier in the city park. Then from the privacy of your van sitting outside an apartment building where you can steal internet signal, hundreds of miles from the scene of the crime, you initiate the launch sequence, 3 2 1 blastoff.
The missile rockets to a ballistic trajectory in the general direction of the target. As the motor peters out, the first stage breaks off, falling to earth, while control surfaces deploy to steer the warhead toward it's target.
Nobody suspects or hears a thing as the homemade smart bomb homes in on it's target. There's no warning, not even any explosion on impact, the weight and high speed of the projectile being more than sufficient to destroy life. The only sign at first is the fallen body. The 10 foot inflatable SpongeBob on top of Burger King has been assassinated, and the glass canister of concentrated 3-methylindole has been released. Nobody will ever eat at that Burger King again.
It's six megapixels which is all I'll ever need.
If Lexcorp wants to do X they can give their peons every incentive to break the law in their name, but have policies against the practice. Then X gets done, and Lexcorp is off the hook. It's not worth going after the peons, and Lexcorp can actually cite instances when peons have been fired for doing X.
I personally hate it when salespeople bother me. I'd rather have nobody give a rip about me than be hounded by salespeople before I can finish reading labels. That kind of thing will keep me from even going to a store. I'll shop online first.
"How much of the earth's surface is covered by water?" Does one need to know the answer to within one percent, or less? Is that even known so precisely? If the correct answer is 70-75% water (approx 3/4) then are 4/5 and 2/3 water good enough guesses? I think both numbers contain the main idea that there's more water than land.
And as for humans and dinos walking the earth together, I think a majority of those who "didn't know dinos and humans didn't live at the same time" would probably have answered that dinos preceeded humans if asked on a gameshow where prizemoney was at stake. Answering that they thought dinos and humans walked the earth together makes is a statement about the beliefs they choose to espouse.