... Objective C is too verbose.
Other than a handful of obvious edge cases (the worst of which were fixed with fast enumeration and string and number constants), I'd argue that it mostly isn't Objective-C that is too verbose, but rather the Cocoa APIs themselves. And you'll be using those same ginormous scrubtheKitchenSink:withBrilloPad:andCleanser:byHand:usingExcessiveForce: methods in Swift, just with slightly different punctuation....
yes they do. Around here you can not legally live in your home if you do not have electrical service at your home. it specifically says, electrical utility with an active account.
Want to get that law changed really quickly? Find yourself a prosecutor who grew up poor. Get that person to press charges against the power company for cutting off people's power when they fail to pay their bills, because doing so forces people to choose between committing a crime and leaving the area, which potentially constitutes election tampering.
All of them?
Just the ones that didn't get eaten by the Morlocks and the Reavers.
And by run backwards, I mean as perceived by an outside observer, i.e. that you would arrive before you left.
I suspect that the solution, assuming FTL travel is possible, is to ignore the time dilation problem. Time dilation occurs at speeds less than c, but IIRC, at least one theory posits that the effects of relativity are backwards for speeds greater than c, so if you traveled at something approaching infinite speed, there's some magic point at which no time dilation would occur, I think. Either that or time would run backwards. I'm not sure which. Either way, the net effect would be the same.
How much would security cost? To do it right?
Not a lot, actually. The most important aspect of real security is compartmentalization—ensuring that you don't have any high-value individual targets:
None of those things should cost significant amounts of money. They're just simple policy decisions. And with a scheme like the above, you typically wouldn't see attacks like this being successful in the absence of a massive zero-day remote kernel exploit.
If you want added security, you could write a piece of software in a few minutes that logs all traffic by IP address and port, then compares it with traffic requested by the user's web browser (by continuously reading the browser's history and uploading any new locations every couple of minutes), and flags anything that doesn't match. Automatically ignore any automatic updates by software that your IT department installed, plus any known addresses owned by your OS manufacturer. If you see any other traffic, shut off the port immediately, and contact the user to verify that the traffic is expected. If so, whitelist that IP and port after verifying that the software the user is running is legit.
Finally, add mail server rules that sanity check any email attachments, and similar rules for your HTTP proxy. If someone receives a disk image, ZIP archive, or other archive, extract the contents and ensure that there are no executables within it. If there are, allow the attachment if the executable is signed by a trusted authority. Otherwise, store a copy of the attachment in a secure location, and either filter it from the mail archive or refuse to send the final packet of data to the web browser. Flag it for review.
Like the two guys running away from the grizzly bear, security doesn't have to be flawless; it just has to be robust enough to convince the attacker to go after an easier target.
They're engaged in competition with avians? Neat. I'd pay to see that.
Just make it high enough that the planes can go under it.
It's clear the movie companies themselves are to blame.
You joke, but IMO, they are largely responsible—a lot more so than ISPs who merely failed to prevent the normal use of their networks by people doing nefarious things. After all, these movies were stolen off of the movie studios' machines, which means they clearly didn't take security seriously enough.
Back on topic, yes, Chernobyl is still dangerous, but probably not that dangerous unless you eat or breathe the dirt. From what I've read, some of the most contaminated objects (300 microsieverts per hour) will give you a year's background radiation in half a day, which is about 30 times the level you'd get flying on an airplane. But for the most part, it's about an order of magnitude less than that.
Just to clarify, there are a few spots that are considerably higher than that—particularly indoors near the reactor, and outdoors downwind from the reactor. Those areas are clearly still unsafe. But a fair percentage of the abandoned areas could potentially be resettled, in theory.
Just because people are doing it doesn't make it safe, it just makes them ignorant.
It's true that the risk from consuming small amounts of produce from the area is low. If you are a reporter visiting for a while the risk is low, but if you live there it's a different story. Children are at particular risk, but even adults who allow long lived radioactive particles to accumulate in their bodies are facing an increased risk of health problems.
Assuming they cleared the top few inches of soil in those farm areas and replaced it with soil from elsewhere, and assuming that they use well water rather than surface water, I'd expect the extra risk from eating local produce to be negligible. If they didn't do those things, then yeah, I'd be a bit concerned.
New Latin, literally, to the person
To be pedantic, that's subtly inaccurate. In English if we say something negative "to the person", we're talking about a face-to-face conversation, whereas an ad hominem attack need not be a conversation at all. A better translation would be "towards the person" or "at the person". In fact our word "at" comes from the Latin word "ad".
Back on topic, yes, Chernobyl is still dangerous, but probably not that dangerous unless you eat or breathe the dirt. From what I've read, some of the most contaminated objects (300 microsieverts per hour) will give you a year's background radiation in half a day, which is about 30 times the level you'd get flying on an airplane. But for the most part, it's about an order of magnitude less than that.
BTW the top speed for a cow is 25mph, not 5mph.
Yeah, that's what I get for taking a number from skimming the first Google hit.
The real problem is that you can't assume you'll have 4 seconds, and that isn't because of the cow running out in the road. The problem is that at 80mph it will take 7.8 seconds to stop, which is over 900ft.
Except you don't. For one thing, at 85 MPH, the total stopping distance is only about 532 feet. You forgot to factor in the fact that your speed isn't 85 MPH for that entire 7.8 seconds.
On straight, flat ground 20 and 55 are going to be about the same for something large and slow like a cow. 80 gets into different territory because most people don't have good enough distance vision, so by the time the supposed shrubbery resolves into a cow, there isn't enough stopping distance left.
That seems like a good reason to keep vegetation clear of the highways. You'll never mistake a nonexistent bush for a cow. I've never seen a 65 MPH (or faster) road without at least a twenty or thirty foot exclusion zone on both sides of the road. Most normal cows can run at about five or six miles per hour—about the speed of a person walking fast. So in the worst case, it will take about four seconds for the animal to get out onto the road. So at a maximum run, the cow will get there about a half second before you're fully stopped. You might hit it, but you'll hit it at maybe 15–20 MPH.
Now moose are a different story....
It's realistic, so long as the quoted EPA highway fuel economy is 45 mpg or higher, it should get around 30 mpg at 85 mph: http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ [mpgforspeed.com]
Or if the vehicle has additional gears to give you a higher gear ratio at higher speeds.
People will buy anything that's one to a customer.
