As other pointed out there are guna ccident which would be lowered or avoided with that tech (suicide from a person in the family not the gun opwner, young kid finding the gun and playing with it (if I recall correctly there is about 300? gun death from kids below 12 per year) or being disarmed by an oppponent (which can't then use the gun)). A not-so-gun-enthiusiast person aka one which only see it as a tool but take no pride or fun into it, may be interrested into avoiding those mode of failure.

Idiot adult forget to close safe to gun (or it is in a shoe box) young kid use it and play with it and it follows fatal shooting (happens sadly far more than it should) or young teenager suicidal thought get gun out of hiding and use it. Both mod of failure which could be stopped or even lowered by smart gun. I am sure we could come up with more.

As a bicycle user (which stops at stops, red light, and pay attention to right coming traffic or pedestrian) I also fail to see how it makes road safer, but it seems to work... So...

And even the "pro" make noob error from time to time out of various reason. I could list them, but let us say that even expert are not perfect programming turing complete automaton. They are human. PLus more often than not they suffer from the NIH syndrom, and from the "it must obey my standard rule" syndrom making them rewrite code or change indent variable name etc...

The main reason stuff stays in fortran is the general best practice of not messing with working shipped code. If the code needs regular work, for goodness sake use a maintainable language. But lots of fortran code has been stable for decades, and only a madman would go changing it.

No. The main reason we program in fortran is because the lirbary are known, have known error bars, known comportment , and are "provable". We *DO* reprogram every time we come up to a new problem which need to be translated. Chance is there is no standard code for what you want to simulate for your own specific problem. There are some rare case, like QM program (Gaussian, Molpro etc...) or some engineering program, but those are the exception not the rule.

There is a wealth of well optimized library out there, for which the mathematical result and the "error bars" are known. Porting such library and checking everything again would cost a lot of money, for what exactely ? FORTRAN is doing the job.

That assumes that we know as much physics as they do. They might be using some medium to communicate that we haven't even discovered yet.

and you can assume pretty much anything whatsoever even instant wormhole stargate to ancient egyptian dude enslaving people. But within the scientific community this guy pretend to have consulted, we have a standard, and it is called what we have evidence for. As such, medium to communicate is light, and very slow compared to the interstellar distances, and distance to travel mind bogglingly vaste and nigh impossible to bridge with known physic. Etc....

"'The scientific community now accepts to some degree that this contact may occur in the next 50 to 100 years" said Gabriel De la Torre, a clinical neuropsychologist.

He should really ask a physicist really , instead of consulting a movie program/ tv shows program.

Then we physicist put our own spin on it :).

As a developer ? 5 years ago when you could easily breach out. As a gamer ? Today with the wide choice of quality indy game.

As said in another post he was a math sophomore. The "furniture salesman" is a red herring, what is important is that he had studied math. Not to put him "down" but he does not appear as interesting once you realize that it is something he studied in university.

Skepticism was all high from those which took the extra step of *checking* what georesonnance pretended to be doing. We aren't speaking of P3C flying over the bengal bay and detecting something, we are speaking of a company pretending that magnetic field (as small as needing a P3C boom M.A.D. to be detected in normal usage) left enough trace on a photo to detect something (or heck a negative) that was BS from the start.

I have to wonder , I always see such uneducated comment in global warming thread. In the mean time I have come to the conclusion that people truly never try to educate themselves, they grasp at the slightest of the information they might have overheard in their live, without checking if that experience is actually supported, then stick to it forever.

To the op, it is not about absolute quantity but about relative effect. A very small change in CO2 is enough to retain much more warmth (trap IR longer). Same with other molecules by the way , like CH4, SF6... Only the half life of those limit their effect. But why bother, you (or any of the ignorant posting the same drivel) will simply skip it and post their ignorance again at the next GW thread.

Why not just use per second (I won't even harp on using 900 km.s-1 at that point it seems neigh useless) and compare to speed of light (that's about 0.3% of speed of light by the way) or other astronomical measurement.

Citation for that please. Our postal service offer the same service as USPS, without the added junk. The added junk is actually done by separate private guy going from door to door. I get far far less junk in germany than my US friends living near Atlanta AND I also get my post on time and whatnot.

I have no idea where you are getting that idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... there is a 60% tax on inheritance but only if you are a remote relative. There are high income tax on very high income (41% top), and there is a very low tax on wealth (around a 1% if you are millionaire , and atround 2% if youa re over 10* millionaire). As for the article it does not speak at all about a 75% tax. As for the article, it was really written by an american "France is famous for its generous social benefits, somewhat relaxed work ethic" there are country (like germany, Sweden) which have as generous and as relaxed "work ethic". In fact I suspect the usage of the word "ethic" here as being american prejudice only.