I know it may not seem like much, but multiply it by millions of bottles sold and it adds up to a hefty hit on their bottom line.
You are completely correct. In the past Heinz has even been caught cheating by underfilling their ketchup bottles.
There's exactly zero ways "I drive a Virgin" sounds good,
Indeed, "I ride a virgin" sounds way better.
The article is misleading. Transmission and reception on the same "frequency" is done today. However, there's some other "discriminator" in the signal. Either modulation method, phase, shift, orientation, or "something" is different so that the receive and transmit don't collide.
Actually, bidirectional, simultaneous transmissions using exactly the same polarisation, modulation etc have been possible for a long time, using circulators/hybrids and echo cancelers. I imagine they had limited succes because typically the power difference between transmitted and received signal is too high for the echo canceler to deal with, but in theory, this "holy grail" is certainly possible.
Apart from that, as you mention correctly, the novelty here is the size.
By definition its not full duplex if its using a shared channel to transmit and receive.
If you define full duplex in your own bizarre way, then, yes this is not full duplex. The more common definition, however, is that transmitting and receiving can be done simultaneously. And that is exactly what is going on here. Obviously using a shared channel, otherwise it would not be news. And even that is nothing new. Echo canceling and circulators have been existing for ages. The novelty here is the size of integration.
The person who thinks they know it all quite often knows all too little. We are not yet at a point where we (collectively) know it all.
Pssst! Looks quite like the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Typically my ex GFs and I used a condom until we trusted each other enough to go for another contraceptive, which typically was The Pill. If she would have objected to this, for whatever reason, I would have been happy to keep using condoms. No sweat. Respect. Responsability, no problem. On the other hand, "forgetting" to take a pill, getting pregnant, not letting me know on time, not taking any other steps (morning after pill, whatever) wouldn't be very respectful either and would indeed piss me off.
Columbus was probably much smarter than your average lad, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to undertake such a voyage.
He may have been much smarter than your average lad, but at the same time -if you pardon my French- Columbus was an arrogant idiot who went against the common (and correct) knowledge of those days by underestimating the circumference of the Earth by a factor of four. Afterwards he was hailed as the discoverer of America and blabla, but the matter of fact is that he would have drowned if it hadn't been for this random unpredicted piece of land (*) in the middle of the ocean.
(*) Actualy middle-agers made some predictions about undiscovered pieces of land that "should exist" based on some symmetry or whatever religious logic they used. This was not the case for America, though: Columbus really underestimated the voyage and thougt he had arrived in India. The fool!
For some vegans they equate dairy as rape
Only if it is still inside the cow.
Well I think that's part of what "respect" means - you don't push your own religious / atheist beliefs in someone else's face when you know they have a different viewpoint.
Publishing cartoons in a magazine one needs to buy in order to see them is not quite "pushing beliefs in someone else's face".
He doesn't say the killings were okay. He just says that people shouldn't mock other's religion. Which, first of all, makes sense since he is the fucking pope and secondly it may be good for his P.R. with the muslem community. If the other church leaders/imams/whatever are denouncing the satirical cartoons, what impression would Francis give by saying "oh well, no problem for me because I am far more forgiving than the Muslems". Sometimes one has to side a bit with the "competition" in order not to piss them off.
The elephant in the room is that Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably offensive to Christians because they say Jesus was not the son of God. There is nothing more blasphemous than denying this fundamental tenant of Christianity.
No, the elephant in the room is that some muslems have a greater tendency than other religions to impose their beliefs onto others and telling them how to behave. Buddhist don't care what you do. Hindus only care about what other Hindus do. Jews aren't interested in the rest of the world because they are the "chosen people". Chinese -whatever religion they adhere to- typically also don't care too much for other people's behaviour. Some -and I am not saying this is a majority- muslems interfere with other people's business. This is significantly more annoying than their ideas about Jesus. Besides: why would Christians care about what Muslems think? According to that logic, they should be furious at the Jews, because those were the ones who crucified Jesus in the first place, yet no-one seems to care.
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.
