There is a concept from marketing known as branding. Brands are not merely a convenient name by which your company or product is known. Consumers respond to brands themselves, either positively or negatively. This is known as brand equity.
A brand with good equity will sell a product simply by having its name attached to it. A Calvin Klein shirt will sell for more than a comparable shirt from a less famous brand. Likewise, a brand with bad equity will inhibit sales of an otherwise good product.
Brands that become toxic are abandoned. The company will change its name, or change the name of the product, or release a new product under a new name. Phillip Morris changed its name to Altria for example. IBM sold off its hard drive business to another firm when their "Deathstar" line of drives became irredeemably associated with poor quality.
Ideas also have brands.
When an idea keeps getting rebranded under new names, it means the people peddling that idea are having a hard time. The more familiar potential consumers (believers) of that idea become with it, the more likely they are to reject it. So the people who want to push that idea repackage it under a new name and try to pretend it is something different.
I'm not surprised that global warming / climate change / climate chaos / etc has been given yet another name. I'm just surprised that it took them so long to think one up.
I think frequency would be slightly more important here...you would want to maintain a suitable blood-alcohal level constantly, but then you could always spike it higher for those pesky 'dealing with the public' occasions.
You obviously are not familiar with Oklahoma.
Oklahoma is a firm Republic state, and past experience tells me this will be legislated.
It is the market that will determine whether Tesla has potential, not its competitors.
If you're working with people who are comfortable with technology, then making such a transition should not cause too much pain. Annoyances yes, especially with file format compatibility issues, but nothing too serious. You'll be answering lots of questions, but the questions themselves will be from a position of needing some details filled in, not failure to understand basic concepts.
On the other hand, if you're working with people for whom computers and technology are PFM (Pure @#%$ing Magic) then ANY CHANGE, no matter how trivial, will lead to nervous breakdowns. For such people, use of a computer involves memorized incantations (if not outright prayers) based on mouse movements, clicks, and magic words typed into the screen. If these change, even slightly, they will be utterly lost and terrified -- and they'll blame YOU.
If this is the case, then you're going to have to create a standardized installation of Linux with a normal desktop interface (Cinnamon, KDE) and then TRAIN your employees on how to use it. Mint is a good choice. I'm using the KDE version of Mint 16 on all my workstations. The cinnamon version is also perfectly usable. There are of course other options. The key is to create an environment that is as close to what they know as possible. Not necessarily in terms of how it looks, but how it BEHAVES.
Even so, there will always be some differences that will trip such users up. You guys might have to hire a temp worker whose sole job will be to train and support your employees until they learn the new incantations.
The good news is that moving from XP/Vista/7 to a normal desktop Linux distro will actually be easier than trying to retrain these employees to use the malware that is Windows 8.
Future victims of this criminal organization should sue Symantec.
Class action lawsuit.
I also think that criminal charges for aiding and abetting would apply as well.
The same reason that space vehicles and meteors burn the atmoshere when they encounter 'air' at high velocities.
The same thing that destroyed the space shuttle "Columbia"with damaged heat tiles on the wing edge when it re-entered.
I have wondered that same thing from the beginning.
I was thinking they would only be used more along 'line of sight' ranges.
"Line of sight' very loosely defined here! It would still have high velocity at ranges that are occluded by the 'over the horizon' ranges.
Maybe more accurate to call it 'follows Earth's Curvature', or something.
It would be useful info to know what the projectile's velocity is at the stated 100 mile range, to enable calculations for remaing energy.
I know from long range target shooting that projectiles slow down fast.
ex:
a
With a 100 yard 'sight in', that same bullet is striking the target about 10 feet below point of aim at around that 1000 yards, and a 10 mile per hour crosswind will deflect it around 2 feet, IIRC.(fuzzy on that memory)
The flames/fireball are similar to the the effects of say, a meteor entering Earth's atmoshere at high velocity...no fuel involved.
No trick here, just super heated air and plasma caused by friction, and maybe some 'fuel' from ablation of sabot and possibly projectile.
Similar principals enable deisel engines to combust fuel without a spark plug...compression causes friction, friction causes heat,
And how often are those fighter pilots confronted by pedestrians stepping out in front of them, or a traffic light turning red, when they are flying in the air?
Having flown and with many hours riding[1] in various planes, I can assure you that when flying, there are usually far less obstacles and distractions while cruising aloft. You can safely spend several(or more) seconds for a touch screen or other controls, unlike driving a ground vehicle.
Take-off and landing, as well as intricate manuevers/formations can be another kettle of fish, but these usuall take up a very small portion of most flights, even fighter jets.
And while they may have touchscreens, there is also a very good reason fighter jets almost universally have HOTAS(Hands On Throttle And Stick) systems in cockpit for actual combat when stress is high and attention is needed on surrounding conditions/threats/targets, and the touchscreens are mostly ignored.
[1] I have spent some hours(40-50?) only piloting a plane, and those hours were in Cessna 150's and 180's.
I have had the good fortune to be a rider in an F-4 Phantom(1974) piloted by my neighbor who was a US Marine fighter pilot with two combat tours in Vietnam(4 kills, 2 assists), and then again in 1989 I got to ride in an F-15C with an air combat vet(no specifcs where given). I observed very little touchscreen interaction, but a lot of attention paid to gauges and controls, once take off happened, it seemed maostle Mark 1 Eyeball looking around at the sourroundings and instruments, and interactions with HOTAS.
WAAHOOOO!!!
I pride myself as being an adrenaline junkie, and salivate at the prospect of riding the most outrageous rides available. I was Airborne in the US Army, and had over 1000 jumps(static line, HALO[my favorite!], HAHO) before an accident left me with Teflon kneecaps, and relearning to walk. My only regret is that I can't jump again.
But, none of that compares to those two fighter jet rides!
In the F-4, I think I creamed my jeans. I certainly fired up a Camel back on the ground, and with a grin the undertaker could not have taken off my face upon death...
With the F-15 ride, my little brother got some payback...sort of.
He was Chief Avionics Tech boss(I forget his actual rank and title, the US Air Force system never made sense to a ground pounder like me), and a Colonel was taking it up for a 'training flight'(he needed 'air hours' to maintain his flight status), and my brother told him that 'My brother bet me you could not scare him.'
Apparently that was 'a challenge issued' that the Col. felt duty bound to take up.
I certainly creamed my jeans, but I'm afraid I also pissed myself, and came close to soiling my drawers, all while clutching the 'barf bag' in a death grip. I did not have to use it, but it was REAL close several times.
And I would love to do it again.(I've also been a passenger in two Huey copters that had engine failure and autorotated down...no sweat)
"Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it," executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote. "We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves. We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better."
The only way this statement would make the least bit of rational sense is as an apology for capitulating to the mob who called for Eich's head.
But sadly, that isn't how this statement was intended.
I'm genuinely disgusted that the Mozilla Foundation would behave this way. How can I trust a group to produce valid products when they have no integrity?
Appliances aren't worth connecting until they're also fully automated.
I question the need to connect if it is truly automated, but I think I understand what you are getting at. (jumping to your third para)
What I see as a goal is a 'master computer' controlling your home, and applicable contents.
You communicate with the Home Computer, and then it controls the individual appliences and equipment. (fully automated)
So you are connected to the home comp and communicating your commands to it, and it takes things from there.
Is this what you had in mind for 'fully automated'?
Hacker's Paradise.
What happens when you are hacked, pwned, 'gamed' 12 ways from Sunday, and have to disconnect to clean up and straighten out the mess?
Is it really worth it at this point in time? Not for me, no way!
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
