It's the compromises made to make the B share the same frame as the other planes that cases the problems.

Relatively speaking, the A version is 'great' compared to the B, but note that I didn't say that the F-35 is a suitable replacement, merely that we need new planes.

I followed the link and looked at the photos. I could see how it would make that mistake.
1. The Color balance was off: What we call black people are actually just a richer brown. the color balance gave their color more of a real Black/Gray color, the natural color of a Gorilla.

2. The Angle of the shot. The tilted Angle makes it appeared that they are not upright but slouching in.

3. They were making unnatural facial features for humans. They were making funny faces at the camera.

4. The dark hue of the gentleman who was behind shirt, combined with the ladies hair style, makes it seem the body with much broader shoulder.

I expect the combination of a lot of factors created the wrong choice. But computer decision making, while getting good, isn't perfect, but it is often better then not having it because then it wouldn't be possible to catalog the millions of images. We need to accept that computers make mistakes and there should be a way to fix them when they are found.

Many of our derogatory comments come from the fact that we find similarities with something else, so it come to reason that a computer may make an actual mistake that will reinforce such derogatory meaning.

You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?

There is a huge group of people who's opinion is based on what the party says, I am a loyal Democrat/Republican so my stance will match what they say. There is no attention of the detail of the message nor any attempt to challenge the notion brought up. So the Democrats say Global Warming is a problem, people will blindly follow. If the Democrats say GMO foods are bad, they will blindly follow. Intelligence isn't the issue, it is just the current polarized nature of the two party system which will normally make one side right and the other wrong (assuming one side is right)

Now the Democrats vs Government view on funding. Democrats prefer more of a blanket funding in scientists, So Scientists who are funded via the Democrats policies have invested interests in that party, so they are making a living off of researching climate science due to Democrats funding, so they will be friendly to that party, and in turn that party will listen to their studies. The Republicans will more likely fund Military or Energy science. Where there is less science and more engineering. Thus you will find a lot more Right winged engineers. As their main means of living is due to Republican policy. So the Republicans will more likely push ideas of a new Military Technology or Energy Extraction technology.

It is interesting on how your political views change depending on where you are living and who is controlling your purse strings.
Now they are crazies on both sides. You got the Leftist hippie type who wants to change everything to match their utopian vision where everyone is all happy because they follow one idea of a perfect life. Then you got the Far Right densest who thinks we should go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" life style, that he fondly remembers as a child (too young to realize the pressures of the world). These guys can often get into the House or Representatives thus get enough media attention to direct "The I have to do what the party says" people.

   

It's not the F-35a that's problematic, it's the F-35b STOVL variant that's costing a lot of the money.

Also, as retired USAF, I can tell you that there's reasons WHY we really need new planes. Seriously, we're still flying planes that the pilot's grandfather flew when HE was in.

That's not to say that the current system for acquiring new planes isn't messed up beyond belief. Just the process for new refuelers has been horrifying beyond imagination.

How to put it? While I'd expect accidents because of the trailer, I'd expect accidents no matter what - after all, most accidents in the country, much less the world, don't involve trailers at all.

Basically, the number of accidents would be at 'acceptable' levels such that U-haul and such would be willing to rent them out. You're always going to have 'better idiots', but that can't be used as an excuse to not deploy a technology unless the results are too catastrophic - and a 'few' accidents here and there are acceptable.

Shouldn't be a problem to provide. A Model S uses 37kwh to go 100 miles. At 60 mph, that would be 22.2 kWh/h or 22.2 kW. Please note that this is a 'napkin back' calculation and is more for estimation. There are many real world considerations, including but not limited to: actual driving speed, any grade, additional drag from the trailer, the range of the EV assuming you're starting with the battery full and are willing to end driving with it near empty, any breaks taken, that you're skipping the 'battery' part which removes a 10% loss step, etc... Honestly, I think 22 kW would be 'oversized' in most situations.

And if a ~22kW generator isn't enough for your camp site...

It's actually on the trailer. But I'm of the opinion that technological solutions are often superior to education, because education can be ignored, and often ends up being less effective and more expensive(time's expensive).

In the end, consider this: Most of the accidents you've described were to a person's own property. My scale of 'caring': Other people's lives. The operator's life. Other people's property, the operator's property. If they only damage their own stuff, who cares? If the trailers are costing people their lives, the it matters a great deal.

In the end, I think you're picturing a larger trailer than I am. Seriously, what's I'm figuring on would be tiny. How tiny? Not visible from the rear view mirror tiny.

You're also figuring on a 'vast increase'. I'm not, and even if there is, most of it would be on the highway where it's the safest, not on the roads in the cities.

As for added danger - how do you balance this against cars that will do things like apply the brakes themselves to keep you from hitting something? Backing cams?

As you say, such capacity would have to be engineered into the vehicle. You're looking at about 600 pounds for the generator and fuel alone. Well within range for a class 1 hitch that most EVs can take, but they're normally only rated to 70 pounds or so for tongue weight. Hell, it'd exceed the capability for the class 3 on my light truck if you wanted to just suspend it there. I can't put much more than a bike rack or grill on my hitch if it's going to just be suspended there.

Plus, you might not be thinking about this, but it'd affect the balance of the whole car, and not in a good way. So no, it's not a 'trivial matter'.

It's been a good two years at least!

Of course they know what sweet tastes like. I just took the difficult-but-responsible act of teaching my children to enjoy things that are not sweet, rather than the easy-but-harmful act of teaching them to crave sweets and other harmful substances. My eight year old also does calculus and completely understands the difference between kinetic and potential energy, and does mgh=1/2mv^2 to figure out how fast something is falling, or how fast she needs her bicycle to go before hitting the curb, such that it will have enough speed afterwards to keep upright. She'll also tell you all about gravity, thrust, lift, and drag and then tell you why the F-4 has so much anhedral on the horizontal stabilizer.

I guess it helps that my kids are outside playing, exerting energy and learning how things work, while many other children are snacking away in front of the TV all evening. Some parents go for easy. Some parents invest in their children.

Oops, I fed a troll. If it's an excuse to brag about my smart, healthy kids, then it was worth it.

What? Why not? Why else would you be seeing a surge in Windows 7 licenses now, when they are harder to get than ever before?

The problem in the US is the impression You go to School then you go to College with the college degree you can get a good job.
The marketing for the the For Profit takes advantage of this, and tries to make a Job focuses curriculum. But because employers are expecting a college degree, there is a bunch of other classes and stuff that is needed to take, which overall doesn't help out that much.
The traditional colleges, may have their marketing team say this will get you a good job, once you get into the school it is the impression "College is for learning, not job training"

The real solution is to give a better status of vocational training. So someone who wants a job in a particular field can get job training for that field. It isn't necessary for a Computer Science Degree to be a programmer. Also a Computer Science Degree shouldn't need to focus so much on programming, but more on the abstract concepts, that we normally wont get to until grad school.

College should be for learning. We should have a better quality and more positive few towards vocational schools for the Job training.

It was petering out in both Iran and Iraq before we fueled Saddam to deal with the Shah, and then went into Iraq and deliberately separated peacefully coexisting Sunnis and Shiites into segregated neighborhoods. The USA is behind the success of the hard-line Islamic movement, which probably would be limping and gasping now if not for our deliberate actions to support it.

That is a general argument against most not-for-profit organizations. Because they NFP do seem to spend a lot of time and resources towards collecting money, and investing their "Excess Revenue" into sources where they can bring in more revenue.

For Not for profits do have to deal with being under a fine tooth comb and do not enjoy the same freedoms a for-profit will.

exponentially is a rate of growth, not a total number. If windows 7 licenses sales were really low, exponential growth is quite possible, and can even be below a linear regression for a short period of time.

How do you propose it will even do this? The thermostat just asks the heater for heat, the heater typically has an overheat switch and will shut itself off if somehow it approaches starting a fire.

Isn't this slashdot? Don't we assume that regulars here arw capable of learning this?

Not only is that not a big problem any more, but all a contractor has to do is sign his name to a piece of paper and you're allowed to connect to the grid. And all he has to do before he does that is look over some of what you've done and see that you know what you're doing.

Not long after I moved into this rental I live in now, I corrected a neutral fault to ground, probably created by a prior resident. So yeah, people can screw up badly. But they can also fix things, and get it right. I put in a branch 220 circuit in my last house, and I did it correctly down to wire gauges.

OK.
So you may had good reasons to stick with Windows 7. My place at work is using Windows 7, the UI change to windows 8 would cause way too much issues. Also we just migrated a few years to windows 7. And there was a huge compatibility issues that needed to be address... I do expect it is much easier to go from Windows 7 to Windows 10, as this time we didn't jump from a 32bit OS to a 64 bit.