Ah. Mystery meat navigation. Got to love it.
The real killers with Windows 8 and 10, though, are
1: Edge detection. Edge detection only works well on single monitors. It really doesn't work at all if you run a VM in a window.
2: Apps that automatically go full screen, and many of which don't even have a windowed mode. That's a huge productivity killer, and source of errors. It kills drag/drop, but even worse, you can't have source and references visible at the same time, nor copy/paste between multiple windows.
3; No activate without auto-raise. Which now is auto-raise-and-zoom. Why won't you let me type in or paste into a window that isn't on top? It makes no sense. Do people really like to bring an entire IM session to the foreground, and, depending on the program, obscuring everything else, just to type in "ok"?
4: Inconsistent menus and windows, self-organizing depending on use. It's a support nightmare when you can't tell someone how to do something, because the menus and windows are going to be different on each user's machine. You have to shoulder-surf people to support them.
5: Dumbing down DPI support. In W7 and to a smaller extent W8, you can set the DPI correctly and control the physical (as opposed to pixel) size of what you display. in W10, scaling changes on you as you try to work. it doesn't matter if you actually want a 10 dpi font to be, you know, 10 dpi in size. No, what matters now is how to scale a random amount to fit a full-screen window with huge unused borders, and your own settings be damned.

It's like they have looked at Gnome 3 and iPads, and taken all the worst "features", making an unparalleled productivity killer.

Eye candy doesn't make up for that. Sorry.
Aero was at least semi-useful, as you can see other windows through the borders. But W8/W10? It's looks for the sake of looks. And bad looks at that.

It's also bullshit. For a weapon this age, there are no patents, and parts can and are supplied by a multitude of vendors. The number of vendors that specialize on supplying parts for firearms that are no longer produced is quite high.
What I see is an unfounded belief that buying long-term non-OEM support will be more expensive than buying support for a new weapon. In the real world, it's the other way around - new weapons are far more expensive to support. Never mind all the other costs of switching.

Mark my words: Five years from now, there are going to be Canadian news articles about how the original budget was blown several times over.

My guess: Someone has been promised kickbacks and incentives, and the choice of a replacement has already been made. It will now be followed by a circus to "determine" that it's the best choice. And it will end up costing the tax payers a fortune. I.e. a smaller version of the F-35 scam. Follow the money trail.

How about the Lee-Enfield .303?
Obsoleting something because it's old is stupid. If they were obsoleting it because of requirements it doesn't fulfill outweighing the requirements the replacement doesn't fulfill, I can see it being a viable option.

But as it is, using the age as an argument is foolish. There's plenty of tech we use that's far older design.

It weight is a problem, do a root cause analysis, asking a few why's.
1: Why is weight a problem now?
1a: Rengers have to carry more other stuff.
1aq: Why?
1b: Rangers are not as fit as before
1bq: Why? ...
and so on. Presumably most of the root causes have nothing to do with the gun.

Only if coming up with a solution that replaces the rifle, and the risks or problems that may cause does not outweigh the current situation should a replacement be even considered.

People still buy factory new Colt 1911s, precisely because it's an old proven design.

I think the point of TFA was that it does work. And on average, better.

Emulsions can be good.

Yet, they actually do something.
Once companies takes pictures of Neptune or puts a man on the moon, I'll be suitably impressed.
Until then, they're leeches riding on NASAs skirt, playing around in LEO using NASA-derived designs, and not pushing any boundaries except executive bonuses.

... using NASA designs as the foundation.
If they had to research everything from scratch, they would go nowhere. It wasn't a public company that sent up the first space vessel, nor the first satellite, nor the first manned spacecraft, nor the first satellite, nor the first interplanetary vessel, nor the first manned trip to another world, nor.... Catch my drift?

Private enterprises are good at cashing in money on other people's work. But they seldom push the envelope or break boundaries.

No kidding. First manage one presidential term without killing anyone in other countries, and then consider diverting resources to lofty goals.

And why waste money on even collecting ideas? It's not like the republicans are going allow a massive NASA budget increase anyhow, unless it's weaponized.

Don't use the patented implementation at all, no matter how tempting or whether you do it for free. If your employer finds out that you have used tech that you hold the patents to, the likely outcome is an immediate termination and a defensive lawsuit against you.
They can't afford the risk of you suing them.

It's worse than that. If the company you apply for a job at has any interest in the patents, chances are that they will not offer you a job.
The problem is that you selling/licensing patents to them while an employee will easily be seen as a conflict of interest.

If they want you and the patents, I believe they may require you to sign over any and all IP to them as terms of employment, compensated by a signing bonus.

Dear Florian,

What can we do to make you go away?

Science has been rewritten numerous times.
The most known examples are general relativity and quantum mechanics.
With GR, pretty much every single formula of Newtonian physics became obsolete and wrong overnight.
With QM, our whole perspective on a baryonic universe changed.

Scientific models and theories are invalidated and replaced as we come up with new explanations that better fit the observed. That is what science is. Static is the one thing it isn't.

Sorry, but no - you need to read the paper better, because you're jumping to conclusions that the paper does not support.
Rossi did not only provide the test cylinders. He provided the pumps, control boxes, cabling and pretty much everything except the meters.
Just like a stage magician provides everything except the eyes.

And much more telling, the test run and real run are not comparable because of one factor that was introduced in the real run - Rossi himself.
There are so many ways he could have turned on an electric power source while supervising the insertion and extraction with his fingers, and rigged it so this power drain would not show up on the meters.
Especially since he provided all the cabling and physically touching connections through which surplus power could be delivered without showing up on the meters.

The scientists here broke an obvious rule of measuring - when someone else delivers something to be measured, you have to do the measurement outside all the parts of the system that is delivered. Not inside, because that inserts the experiment into the chain of trust.

And it should be obvious, but you don't let outsiders be present during any part of the experiment. Especially not the person who provided the equipment, and absolutely not letting the person touch and control parts of the experiment. That's tainted as fuck.

That should ring a warning bell, because it makes it easier to conduct (no pun intended) electric trickery.

You have two cables, each with a power meter clamped on.
Each cable has three wires. Two form a closed circuit, and the power consumption shows up on the meter. The third forms a closed circuit with the third wire from the other cable. Neither meter shows this current.

Also, power can be supplied in other ways, like through the scaffolding, through inductance, and many other ways.

You need to measure the whole system, and not only the part you think is relevant. Unfortunately, but predictably, no such measurements were done,

On cabling supplied by the magician. They seem to have taken Rossi's word for (a) the cables only providing DC and (b) not having any third conductor with the closed loop only being through two different cables.

And they did not measure the power of the entire system, including all the surrounding equipment. Which is what you really want to do with any over-parity claims. Every bit has to be accounted for, not just what appears to be the power source.

Not true. Around 85% of the helium in the universe comes from the Big Bang, and only 15% has (so far, by our clock) been created by fusion. For elements heavier than lithium, it holds true[*], but the first three elements also coalesced directly from the baryon soup.

[*] For practical purposes. All elements and isotopes were produced directly during big bang, but for all but the first three, the ratio and amounts were so small that they can be disregarded. Not for Helium, though.