That isn't how things work. Of course the shape of the falling object is important, but the mass is also a big factor. An object as light as an iPhone almost certainly has a much slower terminal velocity than a human. Remember F=ma. Small drag forces create enough acceleration to oppose gravity very quickly with light objects. Also, the iPhone is much less aerodynamic than you seem to think. It will almost certainly tumble during the fall, which will increase drag by quite a bit.

Also, objects do not approach terminal velocity linearly. It is true that it will probably take a human around 2000 ft to reach terminal velocity, but they will probably be 90% of the way there in less than half half that distance. If I had to guess, I'd say that an iPhone could reach terminal velocity in 1000 feet, but even if it didn't it would still be damn close.

Bullshit.

Let's assume a complete and total failure of the pitot static system. That takes out 3 instruments: airspeed, altimeter, and vertical speed indicators. Everything else would be fine. Yes, it's true they had no direct measure of the aircraft's speed but they still should have had a working attitude indicator. That would have given them pitch and roll information, and I'm sure there would have been at least some form of skid/slip indication which would have provided yaw information. Engine instruments should have also continued to work normally.

Now, let's talk about how the information they had was enough to keep them alive even in zero visibility. Since their engine instruments were indicating normal performance, and they had pitch and roll information from the attitude indicator, all they needed to do was place the aircraft in a typical climb attitude. This would have resulted in a normal climb, with an airspeed indication that was decidedly not normal.

At this point, it's up to the pilot to decide which of the instruments depicting this impossible situation are wrong. Their situation was also complicated by altimeters that were also not indicating correctly, but the method of resolution should still be the same. Increase throttles to climb power, maneuver the aircraft to a normal climb attitude, then troubleshoot. The pilot's reliance on the least reliable instruments and fixating on them rather than try to use secondary indications of the aircraft's speed (cockpit noise, control surface responsiveness) were what caused that crash. They were in a bad situation, but were in no way "doomed once they took off."

I've personally experienced an airspeed indicator failure while at the controls of a light aircraft at night. Mine was caused by a failure of the instrument itself, but it was still the only direct speed indication in the cockpit. Shortly after takeoff, the airspeed indicator suddenly stopped increasing. I pitched down to accelerate, but saw no change in the gauge. It became clear that it was impossible for me to have pitched down so far and not increased speed, so I checked the other instruments and found I was in a shallow dive and actually losing altitude. I returned the aircraft to what I knew to be a standard climb attitude and returned to the airport without incident. In the beginning, I was far too focused on the failed airspeed indicator, and should have not let things escalate to the point that I was slowly descending at low altitude. I certainly understand how it's tempting to focus in on that and not step back and consider the big picture, but it's what needs to happen in such a situation.

I assume you forwarded your mail with the post office? USPS will give out your new address to pretty much anyone who requests it (and pays them). It's what "Address Service Requested" means when you see it printed on an envelope.

I think you fail to understand what a differential does. These cars absolutely have a "hardware" differential. What they do not have is a locking differential. Almost no vehicles have locking differentials except vehicles intended for severe off-road conditions or racing vehicles. The reason is, locking differentials are clunky as hell, and most people would never understand how or why they work and complain when they locked up in turns.

I'm not going to go into a full explanation here, because explaining the operation of a differential is beyond this comment. EDL is a completely valid way to transfer torque through a standard differential to whatever wheel is not spinning. If both wheels spin, the wheel with the highest torque gets to apply that torque without being limited by the low torque wheel.

As to your question if engineers would build a car this way, the answer is obviously yes. I am an engineer, and although I don't design cars, I do understand what these systems actually do. The design concept is sound, and it absolutely provides benefits over a non-locking differential without this system. There are various other systems to combat this problem. So called "selectable" systems, that are mechanical lockers with some sort of manual actuator to actually perform the lockup. Limited-slip systems, which are clutch based or fluid based. However most vehicles have none of these. I encourage you to do some more reading about differentials to understand why and how these systems do what they do.

Or you could just get them on GOG. They're even on sale this weekend for $6 each.

Actually, it's what you have left over after the power of 10 to power of 2 conversion. Yes, the manufacturers are lying about this with flash drives as well.

Why do you say this? The 'drag to trash' method is still mentioned in the docs, and it's actually mentioned before the keyboard eject key. All the students I knew that used a Macbook knew about and used this method, and I'm guessing not all of them had experience with OS 9.

Why?

There are always so many people saying they want NAT, but if addresses are plentiful then it serves absolutely no purpose. I think that most people who see it as necessary are confusing its function with a firewall. You do not need NAT to do the same things your home router does today. You can still block all incoming connections to a computer and allow all outgoing connections. You can still allow specific ports to be opened to specific machines.

Using a public address on your internal network doesn't automatically mean that you need to just allow any traffic in. Use a firewall to "stealth" every port and there will continue to be no evidence that you have a computer there.

I know the wikipedia article says that, but it's a perfect example of why wikipedia is not a reliable source. The wife and children were actually spotted at their vehicle as noted in this article. It's a bit lengthy, but the relevant passage is "At about 1:45 p.m. PST on Monday, rescuers were notified that a vehicle and a female waving an umbrella were spotted by a helicopter search crew." As I recall she had only gotten out of the vehicle specifically to try to flag down the helicopter.

The husband left to try to walk to a town, and therefore took much longer to find. If he would have stayed with the vehicle he probably would have survived

It doesn't get around it. Unless you live somewhere enlightened enough to not allow software patents, it probably isn't legal to use without a license for the patented tech.

You don't adjust your compass. There wouldn't be a point, as you would constantly have to readjust. Also, most are suspended in liquid, so you couldn't access it anyway. I believe the previous poster meant to suggest that you (the pilot) can adjust your course for the change. Aviation charts have the lines of magnetic variance printed on them so it becomes a simple addition/subtraction to correct for whatever the local variance is.

It sounds to me like it's pretty much a state by state issue. Here, I am able to get gas without ethanol, but only in the lowest octane rating (87 usually). Mid-grade and premium fuels are required to have ethanol, which is currently mixed at 10%.

As for identifying which fuels contain ethanol, state law here requires labels on the pump indicating if ethanol is mixed in and in what percentage, so what you're getting is very clear.

You should check again, all the rules requiring the telcos to share lines are gone now. Pretty much for no other reason than they complained that they weren't making enough money.

This is a true story from my college days. I was taking a business class (intro to economics, I think) to satisfy one of my credit requirements for my engineering degree. At one point in the class, the professor started explaining the characteristics of a line in what I found to be a really roundabout way. I remember trying to follow along, getting frustrated, and actually writing in my notes, "Why the hell wouldn't we use y=mx+b?"

I was so bothered by this that I approached the professor after class, and asked him why he wasn't just teaching the class y=mx+b. He immediately asked me if I was an engineer (this university had a large engineering program) and I replied that I was. He then said, "The business students can't really understand y=mx+b, it's too hard for them."

I was floored. I actually thought he was joking at first, but as we talked it slowly sank in that he really was serious. I had joked along with a lot of other engineers about how easy business classes must be, but I never thought that they would actually turn out to be worse than our jokes!

This is the next generation of managers. People that really are too stupid to understand the simplest of algebra. Next time you find yourself wondering why a corporation is doing something that is absolutely idiotic, just remember that an accredited university probably vouched for the person involved, even though they can't understand something as simple as y=mx+b.