My gf and I looked at it on the same screen.

My answer was periwinkle and brown for the image, but I thought the real dress was probably blue and black. She says white and gold.

I had to spend a moment looking at the background to determine that it was probably blue and black.

The thing is that audio is generally not entirely digital.

I have had computers where moving the mouse produced a specific sound through the headphones. Most are better these days, but shielding the analog components and wires, and generally reducing noise components make can have an impact.

If you are amplifying it this will also amplify your noise, which is an easy way to make it noticeable.

Not true, the idea is to get enough kinetic energy into a solid projectile to produce the same effect as an explosive when it hits.

With a slug of some sort? It would not be just one guy, the amount of energy necessary to affect someone in that location by going down is too much for that.

Your weapon becomes non-functional as part of it was destroyed, as opposed to the magazine exploding.

At 8:30 miles we are not really talking about running at all, we are talking about jogging.

I would say it is a decently fast jog, but is not a run. I would put that cutoff at around 7:30 miles, and say that it involves some changes in the way you move (less bouncing up and down, getting up on the balls of your feet, etc.) Personally my knees hurt if I jog, but not if I run.

I do my morning 5k in just under 18 minutes on most days as a comparison (usually in the 5:40 per mile range, but on a good day I can do it in a little over 15 minutes.)

Your understanding was correct, 97% chance to develop immunity.

Some vaccines effectiveness fades over time if you are not exposed again occasionally (either directly or through another injection), but the op is just misapplying statistics.

If you were vaccinated and developed immunity, then were constantly exposed again you should keep good immunity to it.

Most states require that they file how premiums are determined with a large lead time (the fines for deviating from your filings are large.)

This does not give google much room to mess with it in real time. Insurance carriers already do quite a bit of analysis before issuing a policy (most will pull credit scores and driving records, in addition to information from other providers.)

Insurance companies also make quite a bit of their money from investments, which google is not into very much as far as I am aware.

They already made some people get the expensive version, it is just more people now. I had to use the business version last year as my tax situation tends to be more complicated than most (and it still takes an entire day despite the software.) I was using a CPA before that, but I grew tired of the errors (for which I am still liable) and decided to do it myself from now on.

I think you misunderstand how a deduction works. It does not directly reduce your taxes, it effectively reduces your income for purposes of calculating your taxes. This works out to a 10% - 40% effective discount on the item in question if you can deduct it, but you do not get all the money back.

Pretty much, now that the cost of a drone has gone sub $100, and can be flown with no real understanding of the forces involved in keeping it in the air... it is a very different risk.

Think child, or dude with a mcjob getting all drunk and deciding it would be great fun to park near an airport and fly with the real planes.

I actually mostly agree with the proposed FAA rules for the commercial variety as well: pilot license, stay low, stay away from airports, stay in visual contact. They can relax them as the technology improves.

We could do that... except that it will lead to the requirement to carry insurance, as with other situations where you can cause more damage than you are likely to be able to pay for.

Your insurance company will in turn tell you to stay away from airports or the policy is not valid, meaning you are illegally flying. The end result would basically be a drone tax, and you would still not be allowed to fly near an airport.

It seems easier to just ban drone flight near airports, and cut out the middleman.

There is a big difference between a bird, and a metal drone.

Bird strikes are a bad thing for aircraft, but mostly survivable. If you suck a bird into the engine it is going to cause a ton of damage come out as a fine mist.

Ponder for a moment the amount of energy it will take to render your drone into a fine mist. Now consider the energy content of battery or fuel. If the engine casing breaches the plane probably is coming down, or it will at least be a very bad day for all involved.

Still think it would be no big thing?

I cannot imagine any sort of reasonable risk analysis deciding it is ok to allow drone flight near an airport.

A commercial passenger jet at 700 feet is either taking off, landing, or crashing... so we can safely assume this was in controlled airspace near an airport.

Disclaimer... I am hugely drunk to an unreasonable degree which nobody my age should be.

I am all about personal liberties, and feel that our government has no business at all looking into the life of any citizen without great reason to do so. I do see a very large difference between inciting crime in a normal citizen and inciting someone with a security clearance.

Pushing a citizen into selling or manufacturing narcotics for instance is hugely different from getting someone to publish engineering details which are classified. I stand by my assessment that inciting this kind of thing in someone with a clearance is prudent and reasonable.

Knowing people who do this kind of thing for a living, they pay enough that financial troubles can be nothing other than greed or such horrifically bad life choices that it is ok to come down upon it.