Another article I read on this had quotes from the AM CEO saying that he knew who did it and was looking at the guy's profile during the interview. We will see what comes of this.

One can argue that Perl is more featureful in its implicit behaviors that are massively confusing to people who don't them. In C you generally have to be pretty explicit with what you're doing, but in Perl you can leave out some of the details and let the interpreter figure them out for you. This is the first area where newcomers get lost. Much of the "crazy punctuation" ends up being helpful once you spend a couple of minutes understanding the basics of the language, clearly denoting which tokens are variables and what kind of access the coder wants. Complex data structures are far far less ugly now than they were in the early days of Perl 5 too, and a normal human being can actually make them without trying a thousand different combinations of dereferencing operators to figure out exactly which one they need. I wouldn't call them "good" or fun to use, but it's not like pounding nails through your dick anymore.

We're also cooking everything else we share the planet with. It's not just humanity that suffers, it's everything on the planet.

I was hoping the solar minimum would give us a little breathing room to get CO2 emissions under control before we cook the planet.

Is the wind resistance from an atmosphere 0.6% as dense as Earth's a major problem? It seems to me that you wouldn't need the tunnel at all, saving considerably on building costs. Or if you need the tunnel it is only to keep the dust from piling up on the tracks and doesn't have to be depressurized.

They are saying there is a 1 in 3 chance that California will experience an earthquake sometime in the next 50 years? Doesn't California suffer Earthquakes on a regular basis? I thought maybe they were talking about major quakes, but the summary immediately goes on to talk about the odds of a major quake.

Is 3 less hours in the air worth $10,000 to you? Fuel prices aren't going to drop back down to 1960s levels without some sort of major energy revolution, and drag still goes up with the square of your speed. One also has to consider how much CO2 they release when they take a flight, and if they're willing to release an order of magnitude more to save 3 hours of their life.

Back when I looked into flying via Concorde (this was obviously several years ago), the price difference was closer to 10x. $1,200 for the traditional flight from NYC to LHR, $12,000 for the Concorde. That sort of difference made it hard to justify.

That assumes a tail chase scenario. If the Fighter launches from a base in front of the jet then the top speed doesn't matter as much, and it is definitely slower than a AMRAAM.

When you say it would be "worth the money" that is certainly true of some people, but the honest truth about the Concorde is that seats on it were out of most people's price range. IIRC ticket prices ran from $7500 to $15000 depending on the vagaries of airline ticket pricing. Compare that to a traditional flight at $1,500 and you really have to ask yourself if 5 hours of your time is worth $10,000 or not.

I wonder how much those tickets would cost? That would be one hell of an expensive tunnel, just judging from the construction costs of the far more modest Chunnel.

From what I understand the problem wasn't Sonic Booms over the ocean at FL600, it's the Sonic Booms when you're flying over NYC or Boston at FL100 during takeoff/landing.

Those are all contributing factors, but a city council that seems openly hostile to automobiles can't be discounted. Policies like the 4 way red significantly slow down traffic and contribute to the gridlock problem.

You're joking, but the Greeks have to give away a ton of assets for this deal. It's hard to see where they're going to get the sums necessary without looking at the antiquities.

This is clearly a bad deal and frankly it seems like most of the people at the table know it is a joke. Did you see the deadlines in the article? They're giving themselves basically until the end of the week to completely turn their economy around, for the mere promise that the rest of the EU will consider extending the repayment period of the debts. They aren't even considering debt forgiveness.

IMHO, the correct solution for Greece, painful as it would definitely be, is an exit from the Eurozone and a return to a national currency. The Eurozone has fundamental structural problems that are going to put Greece back in the hotseat in a few years even with this deal. Combined monetary policy with independent fiscal policy is not a sustainable model. It's like giving your irresponsible uncle your credit card on his promise that he will pay you back for everything he charges, even though he has defaulted on every loan he has ever had and is currently tens of thousands of euros in the hole and doesn't have a job.

It also doesn't allow your currency to fluctuate with your economy, which puts a stranglehold on your economy when you have a recession.

Sadly, a unified fiscal policy is politically impossible in the current EU. It would give up way too much sovereignty and be political suicide in most countries. You're talking about the EU itself collecting taxes and spending them on infrastructure. Foreign governments gaining oversight over national governments, an especially worrisome situation when the national government is breathtakingly corrupt. There is no chance you would get even a simple majority of countries to agree, much less the supermajority that would no doubt be required.

Even better: the whole thing appears to be a hack.