Every time they're about to release, things grind to a halt?

It's ok, we don't know what a dotless ii sounds like anyway.

Because that's worked so well for political ads? "Paid for by Citizens for Knowledge? I hate knowledge! I'm not listening to this nonsense!"

The standard for free speech can't be whether or not a person believes what they're saying, otherwise we couldn't have religion, politics, or girlfriends.

Do we really need a story about ham radio after every disaster? I'm sure it's being used, but not to the extent of official radio communication. "People communicating by any means possible," is not news.

They didn't get their way through other means really. Mass surveillance doesn't trump encryption -- on the contrary, encryption is the only protection against mass surveillance. I think it was more that encryption just wasn't used for most communications, so they realized it was a moot point. Now that companies are shifting toward end-to-end encryption, it's becoming relevant again.

Which is still 5 years before this kid's 18th birthday, by the looks of it. And here I thought sweatshops were the only ones using child labor.

BLEND, not bend. 20 replies and nobody noticed?

And besides, Kevlar bends just fine.

This is the most information I could find. Maybe someone else can do better:

Design and Demonstration of a Guided Bullet for Extreme Precision Engagement of Targets at Long Range Performing for the DARPA Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program, the team developed a revolutionary .50 caliber bullet guidance system that will be used to produce the smallest, fastest, highest g projectile to date that is fully guided. To perform across a 70,000-g launch acceleration, they designed a first-of-a-kind, two-body bullet with a decoupled aft section that despins from 120,000 to 0 rpm in under 300 ms. This required the implementation of an innovative, alternator controlled, despun aft section that provides sufficient maneuverability but low drag for the bullet to remain supersonic out to maximum range.
The team worked within an 11-month time frame to deliver a system that exceeded all of the accuracy requirements across a variety of night- and daytime ranges, moving targets, wind speeds and directions, and other environmental conditions. The effort culminated in May with a physics and experimentally-based, fully integrated hardware- and software-in-the-loop demonstration that not only validated superior system performance, but also exceeded designated product requirements over all ranges and all target motion challenges. For this accomplishment, the program was recently awarded Phase II to continue the design and development of the guidance mechanics and electronics in collaboration with a commercial sponsor. The outstanding technical achievements demonstrated in the design, fabrication, simulation, and testing of this miniaturized guidance system are well-deserving of this award.

http://www.draper.com/Document... (page 109)

There's also a picture of a model that differs from those that appear in most other press releases.

From what I could find out, it looks like Draper Laboratories does the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (the interesting part), Teledyne does the optical target acquisition/locking (semi interesting), and Orbital ATK makes the ammunition part -- probably primer, charge, casing, and shell.

In theory maybe. In reality, most criminals are amatuer combatants, at best, and they buy the cheapest, or the most intimidating weapons, not the most effective. And they don't snipe -- they do drive-bys and kick-ins.

At any rate, there is no law banning steerable bullets, and there's no reason to think there will be. They're much better suited to hunting than to the "thug life" anyway.

Obviously the university can't afford to punish its customers. At least, not for very long.

I'm also skeptical that 100% of students deserved to fail. Maybe they did, but that should be a consequence of individual evaluations that have a coincidental outcome, not a group evaluation that affects every individual. The older we get, the more we tend to use the shortcut of categorization instead of individualized evaluation. Categorization is efficient, and often "good enough," but honestly, students deserve the individual evaluation they paid for.

I had a high school teacher burn out in much the same way. He was actually a great teacher -- excited about the material, animated, and he always encouraged debate. He had a large number of students in one of his classes that would taunt him for childish reasons like his mannerisms, and eventually he lost it and told the entire class that they had failed, and told everyone to report to the principal's office in an expletive-laden tirade. Teachers are people, and they have limits. The behavior of the students was inexcusable, and while the reaction of the teacher was understandable, it was unprofessional and thus unacceptable.

The entire class did not fail, nor did it deserve to. It wasn't the job of the well-behaving students to moderate the behavior of the bad actors -- the other students were victims as well. I think the lesson is to really nip this sort of thing in the bud. If disruptive students had been removed after a couple of infractions, it would have both decreased the level of disruption and set an example to the rest of the class. Allowing things to get to the point described in the summary is the real failure.

Also, she's not bad looking as far as judges go. In American politics, good looks count for a lot.

Fortunately, they really don't. Sarah Palin has had limited success. Michelle Bachman too. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has almost been President once, and may be yet.

Politics truly is hollywood for the ugly, and attractive politicians are as much the exception as unattractive stars.

I think you'll find that this answers your question: http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Don't forget Mike Judge! Probably the only one I'd like to see on the bench.

I'll be fair, since you don't define "safe distance," but I would wager that it's more to do with inattention than distances. I see lots of cars keeping well away from the car in front of them, but keeping too much distance decreases traffic flow since it lowers vehicle density, by definition, and in any semi-urban area, that gap is going to be filled with other cars anyway. Sure, you could make another gap, but that requires you to slow down, which causes the cars behind you to slow down, and probably causes a standstill at some point. All of that to avoid the possibility of a $200 fender bender -- not the guarantee, mind you, just the possibility.

Or, you could just pay attention. Very rarely do people slam on the brakes out of nowhere. If there's a red light ahead, and you don't see the guy in front of you slowing down, then go ahead and slow down anyway. Keep an eye out for potential risks, and look at the behavior of several vehicles ahead, not just the one directly ahead.

And as to the original point of poor braking behavior: Traffic laws are designed to make driver behavior predictable. Anything you do that deviates from that predictable behavior increases the chance of an accident, whether that's swerving into oncoming traffic, or unexpectedly slamming on the brakes. If your MO is to mash the brakes at every red light, you're going to get hit eventually.