It could work in both directions if you eliminated intersections, but that would mean a lot of bridges and/or tunnels.
Traffic circles and eliminate the lights and the need for all the control circuitry completely.
That's not what I asked. Investigating the question is fine in itself, but why was that particular question considered to have a decent chance at yielding meaningful new information? What was the ambiguity that needed clarifying?
There was enough interest in the right people who decided to spend their time on it. There is a lot of widespread interest in how gravity really works and the limits of the General Relativity model of it. I doubt this is sensitive enough to probe into any small deviations from the expected result, but just demonstrating that anti-matter wasn't super different is useful, and constrains anyone working in alternative models to the generally accepted ones.
We still have no real idea why inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. Checking to make sure that anti-matter falls down is worth doing.
Are there "better" things research money could be spent on? Probably. Are there "worse" things we do spend money on? I have no doubt.
Any time delay wouldn't really affect much, and doesn't make much logical sense.
It isn't just the delay, it is the release of data at all. Florida police departments have websites where all arrests are listed, and even email lists where reporters get the daily list of new arrests. Getting any information from police many other states is difficult, and reportedly in Florida the data is not just available for the asking, it is actively disseminated.
https://www.tcpalm.com/story/o...
Why is 'Florida Man' a thing, when 'Pennsylvania Man' (or Iowa Man or Ohio Man) isn't?
Gil Smart
March 25, 2019
"...Florida has one of the most robust public records laws in the nation. Documents, photos, even videos created by a public agency are readily available — with some notable exceptions (and here I'm thinking of the video of New England Patriots' owner Robert Kraft in that massage parlor).
Police agencies routinely make all this available to the media. I was added to the distribution list for one local police agency without even asking to be; now I get daily arrest reports via email.
Let me tell you how this process often worked in Pennsylvania:
Reporter: Officer, can I get a copy of the arrest report?
Officer: No.
Well, OK, it wasn't quite that blatant. But Pennsylvania's open records laws permit law enforcement to withhold information if it's considered a record of a criminal investigation. And that was often the rationale: We can't give you the arrest report because... it's part of the investigation...."
Lots of data out there. Im not going to gather and correlate it. Look for it you will find it you just won't hear it on the news.
The people who have gathered and correlated it have found that the vaccines are as safe or safer than other vaccines in wide use and have been effective in preventing COVID deaths.
That doesn't mean your negative effects were not real. I am sorry you had those troubles.
I was one of the people that had negative cardio affects. I got 3 shots my CRP went up after each one to the point I had to see a cardiologist. Lots of people died from that safe shot.
I guess one needs to define "lots" and compare it with other similar risks.
The number of deaths in the unvaccinated seems to be a lot more than the "lots of people [who] died from that safe shot", so even if the COVID vaccines were particularly "dangerous" (and they are not), one could still justify their use from a public policy point of view.
What I am saying is that it is difficult to figure out what strategy to adopt, and when to pivot to a different one. I have at least SOME sympathy for policymakers. "In practice", the West has had some success in some places with these types of policies, so this isn't just an "in principle" situation.
But yeah, this seems not to have worked as desired, and I would be happy with a policy of "we don't play with people unless they do these things, and we will quit playing if you start doing those things" and then actually follow through on that.
It mentions they scientifically proved people retain information better form celebrities but could that be they just scientifically proved those celebrities are just better at public speaking? The best teachers I ever had were charismatic and went to great lengths to be entertainers in their classrooms to better keep your attention while covering dry material.
Are you sure you actually learned more from those entertaining teachers? I think there is a fair amount of research indicating that while students of entertaining instructors FEEL like they learn more, they are often mistaken. There seems to be a sweet spot the instructor is entertaining enough to keep the students awake and ENGAGED, but still challenging enough that the student does not slip into the passive consuming mode. If things are TOO easy to follow and understand, it is easy for the critical/analytical part of the brain to disengage (it is hard work to keep that sucker going!) and then retention drops off.
Of course, the optimal level of entertainment vs challenge depends on the subject and the student and probably all sorts of other factors. No matter what instructor you have, the student is the one who is actually doing to learning - figuring out exactly what is most beneficial to any one student, let alone the potentially hundreds in any class is not simple.
The continued fairly strong trade relationship and the US being the #1 importer of goods made in China is actually the largest stabilizier of relations and the thing that probably keeps peace in the region.
Same bullshit greedy business leaders have been telling us for decades as they sell us out and make China more and more powerful and aggressive.
Even though it is self-serving, it probably also has some merit. There are a few examples of corrupt, repressive countries that have gradually gotten "better" that were helped by normalized trade and political relations with "the West". Unfortunately there are also a number of examples where actions of "the West" have enabled or encouraged the corruption and repression, both indirectly (and worse) directly. On balance I tend to think that engagement is generally better than isolation, but clearly we have not managed to figure out a guaranteed way of getting the results that most people want.
I had not considered airport fees. That certainly seems like a valid consideration. A quick look does seem to indicate that some fees do not apply, or are smaller, for people with connecting flights rather than terminating flights:
It's when you go to a stadium venue and sit close to the stage, where all the speaker stacks are that you're in danger of hearing-damage.
Most bands use PA systems with speakers distributed around the audience. So they can mix the mics and instruments and then produce an even, consistent volume over a wide area. If you see speaker stacks onstage, chances are that they are fake.
How do they deal with time-of-flight delay? Sound only moves about 300 m/s and those venues can be pretty big. It may be weird to see the singer's lips out of sync by a few tenth's of a second, but surely the sound from the speaker near to you being out of sync with the sound from the one further away would be weirder. Or are all the distributed speakers at the right volume that you really only hear the nearest one or two, so there is minimal delay effects?
The skip lagging costs them money, as in COST, not as in REDUCED profit. Because they keep sitting on the fees the passenger avoids by making a intentionally WRONG booking.
Maybe you explained this elsewhere and I just cannot find it, but how does flying with my fully paid for seat empty cost them more than me being in it? The increased weight of my fat ass actually makes the plane consume a tiny bit more fuel, so I would think it costs them LESS with me not on board.
If me missing the connecting flight makes them delay the flight or requires them to offload my luggage for security purposes, then perhaps there are some extra costs, but if I only have carry-on luggage and were to let them know that I cannot board the second flight because of an existential panic attack, how can my not flying increase their costs?
To be fair, one could argue that thinking that someone's actions or plans might be effective or "savvy" does not necessarily man that you think that they are in the broader sense "good".
Now, if I was in this type of situation, I think I would probably go out of my way to clearly state how much I did NOT support whatever bad stuff was going on, even if I thought those bad things might be very effective in obtaining the goals of the bad actor.
I have seen no indication that Donald has ever had any of this level of nuance in his view of the world.
In Canada, there are more likely to be entrenched interests looking to make more money with a less costly labour pool in IT than in medicine. Money buys politicians here too.
Or... there are more strict requirements for being a doctor than gluing java libraries together so you can't just trust some piece of paper and send them to the operating room.
Or... the supply of new doctors is at least partially controlled by the existing pool of Doctors. Maybe if we create the "College of IT Professionals" to match the medical, dental, and engineering organizations we decrease supply and raise wages in the IT field too by doing stuff like requiring everyone to do an internship and limiting the numbers we offer to immigrants (or anyone for that matter.) We can argue that training provided elsewhere, experience provided elsewhere, and certification provided elsewhere is worthless, even though there are clearly many "elsewheres" that are as good if not better than home-grown.
And in regard to russia, russia answered the call of the self declared 2 states in the east of the Ukraine to protect them from Kyiv, and the war is mainly in those two states. So it's not blatantly invading another country.
All completely wrong.
Both of those 2 states in the east of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian independence. So it is blatantly invading another country, which by the way they have invaded several times in history.
Additionally, the "Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty" of 1997 seemed to say that Russia recognized Ukraine's borders:
Under Article 2:
In accord with provisions of the UN Charter and the obligations of the Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the High Contracting Parties shall respect each others territorial integrity and reaffirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
After being invaded by Russia in 2014 and Annexed Crimea, Ukraine did formally exit this treaty by 2019, so I guess the invasion of Eastern Ukraine in 2022 is not in conflict with this Treaty as it was no longer in force, however the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 had similar pledges ot territorial integrity.
Arguments could be made that the purpose of copyright has been demonstrated to be, not the furtherance of the creative arts, but rather the exploitation of those arts by powerful groups (ie. the continued erosion of the public domain), but that is an aside.
There have been lots of cases where copyright owners have restricted "future content creators" in their education, and researchers have been restricted in their ability to improve tools and techniques. You cannot (in general) copy stuff to look at later for example, even if that later activity is education or research. Using a computer program to do so probably doesn't make it ok. There is a fundamental difference in law between a person learning from your book, and a computer program incorporating your book into a relational database.
With that said, I don't really have a strong feeling for what SHOULD be the way this is treated - I think that many of your arguments (and similar ones) do have merit. I am certainly not confident that the courts would decide one way or another under current legislation.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
