You are misinterpreting the research. The study says nothing about narrowing the exit, but instead talks about guiding the flow of people to the exit in ways that reduce congestion. It is similar to better aerodynamics reducing turbulent flow.

This isn't mammalian group behavior - it's physics. Reduced crowding as a result of an obstacle inserted into a pathway isn't human behavior any more than gumballs funneled from a vending machine is gumball behavior.

That would be "simulation" not "emulation". Emulation is copying the behavior or characteristics of another. They were simulating bird strikes, they were not emulating bird strikes. And although I know you will argue, they are not synonyms.

I have to agree. No wonder he doesn't make any money - the ads are at the bottom of a long page that no one in his right mind would scroll through (much less read). What a mess. Frankly, he should be paying visitors - not the other way around.

He might qualify for a new Guinness record though: "Most one-time visitors to a web page".

I smell baloney. First, where did you get the idea that ultrasound would be used? I read nothing of the sort. So your statement that ultrasound only travels a few meters in water may be true, but has no bearing on the topic and certainly doesn't prove that anyone was wrong or that the technique would not work.

Second, you are apparently confused about the need for huge "resonant cavities". What resonant cavities? We are not talking about sizing antennae to detect EM radiation, but about simple propagation of pressure waves. Since there is no need to size antenna to be some multiple of the wavelength to detect sounds I see no technical reason the lenses could not be reaonably sized. After all, human ears can detect sound in the 30 to 20,000 Hz range without being meters across, so your insistence that huge impossible receivers would be needed makes no sense. The researchers' technique uses the differences in the speed of sound in various media to focus the sound. It does not "receive" the sound and then amplify it. So there is no need to size components to be multiples of wavelengths.

...and by the way you are now on the Federal no-fly list.

I downloaded last.fm on my iTouch. It was approved by Apple. Did I have the slightest idea that using it might be illegal and get me sued? No I did not. I assumed that because it was an approved Apple app it was legal. Stupid me, I guess.

If users start getting sued I would think there should be recourse to Apple's deep pockets for setting them up with an approved app that causes them to violate the law if used. And no, before you object, there is apprently no way to use last.fm on an iPhone in a legal way - so it isn't a choice of the user to mis-use this official Apple app for illegal purposes.

I agree that this is bad advice. In fact it is VERY bad advice. Get the Master's degree. Everybody will have two years experience in two years, but you will have an advanced degree. Also, you will not want to stay in the low-end of your career forever and a Master's degree will open you up to management positions that mere experience will not.

Well actually.... they won't sell you a key or an electronic fob unless you can prove you own the car.

The second amendment was written specifically to have an armed populace so the government wouldn't get oppressive.

Actually that's just your interpretation. Since at the time of its writing soldiers brought their own guns to war, a more logical reading is that a well-regulated militia made up of citizens bringing their own guns is needed to preserve the State.

Really? You've never heard of photography?

We lose control of letters when we mail them, so by your reasoning we should have no expectation of privacy when we mail a letter.

There is a logical disconnect in your position that simply because it is theoretically possible to breach privacy in electronic communications that there is no privacy. You seem to be saying that just because the government CAN do something it means that it is OK for it to be able to do it. It is possible for the government to employ censors to look through walls to see what you we are doing in our own homes - do you therefore think that we have no expectation of privacy our own homes and therefore the government is free to peer into them?

Privacy isn't really related to what CAN be read or seen by the government, it is about what we ALLOW the government to read and see. Privacy is defined by laws, not walls.

Yes. I remember the very first time I managed to get connected via IP in 1995. I was amazed, simply amazed. I found myself walking around the room talking to myself about how this was going to change the world! And it did!

No, we are not PV cells.

Oh gosh - it's not perfect!? Let's just forget about it then.

A rifle that fires decoy bullets...GUIDED decoy bullets... a bullet with an electromagnetic pulse destabilizer!!? How old are you?