Which would be fine, except the DC FRZ (flight restriction zone) is a 30-mile circle around the Capital within which it is illegal to fly ANY remote control device of any kind. Includes "drones" as well as those toy RC helicopters at the mall kiosks, and the sort of RC planes that people have been flying around for many decades. Some tourist flying a quad in DC is in for a very rude awakening, as has already happened.

Wouldn't matter. Do you understand how small the White House grounds are, and how fast even a modest quad can fly when it means business? I've got one that can do over 40mph. That would cover the distance from the sidewalk in front of the White House to the middle of the typical speech-giving area of the Rose Garden in well under 8 seconds. A drone flying waypoints - with no need for a human controller nearby or watching - could be moving that fast well before it gets to the White House fence, and be coming in 200' overhead, be above a high-profile press event in seconds, cut power and drop like a stone spewing a mist of cesium or a nice cloud of serin or laden with a nice little brick of C4, and it would be on the ground in the middle of that speech/ceremony so fast you'd have no ability to do something about it. Except maybe light it up with some sort of automated buckshot gatling gun, right in the middle of a busy urban area.

This is going to result in a lot more events being held indoors.

I figured they'd tackle something more ambitious than that with their drone offerings - a drone that (barring instructions to do otherwise) follows you around whatever you're doing and keeps the camera on you, trying to get the most epic shots. E.g., you bungee jump off a bridge, it races you to the bottom, keeping whatever distance and filming style you told it to.

But maybe it's just another remote control drone.

They are also strip-mining their own country. Its easy to sustain a lot of growth as long as you can mobilize ever larger amounts of resources. This is in fact how the soviet union was able to compete for so long, but eventually it could not keep increasing the amount of resources that it mobilized.

The western world also fuels growth in part through resource mobilization, but a non-trivial amount of that growth is also from pure value creation. Most people don't know that gasoline started as a waste product. It is capitalism that more effectively makes better and better uses of the resources that are available, and its driven by greed.

So you mean get rid of wide-character encodings and only use UTF-8 where unicode characters are needed? I agree. :)

I think you mean DC-8s. :)

But that's the point. If it slams into an immobile object of course. But we're not talking about anything slamming into an immobile object. From the perspective of a molecule in the gas stream, it's going about the same speed as its neighbors. It's quite cool.

As for the boundary region, even at the "pinched" funnel outlet one could be talking dozens of kilometers here. A dozen kilometers between going from zero velocity and 25 kilometers per second is roughly the same as a dozen meters between going from zero velocity and 25 meters per second. Aka, a virtually insignificant gradient.

UTF-8 is an encoding of unicode, so I'm totally not getting your "Actually I think "Unicode strings" should be avoided completely."

No it doesn't. Losses are related to current, not AC vs. DC. A higher current in the same sized conductor equates to higher loss. You can get around this by raising the voltage (traditionally easier with AC), thus transferring the same amount of energy with less current, or you can increase the size of the conductor. DC can actually transfer more energy than AC on a similar sized conductor because it doesn't have to deal with skin effect.

I could link all of these terms to applicable articles for you but I'm feeling lazy and this is all common knowledge stuff anyway.

Edison was the original master of FUD.

TFA is standard pro-Apple hit piece reasoning. First they trumpet that Apple has the biggest market share (for touchscreen smartphones, for tablets, etc). When Apple loses that, they trumpet that Apple has the biggest revenue in that market. When Apple loses that, they fall back on trumpeting that Apple has the biggest share of profit. All the time making it sound like Apple is the one which is winning when by most measures Apple is in fact losing (Google Play store revenue passed iOS App store revenue last year). Q42015 financials were also skewed in Apple's favor because their latest phones were released just before, while no major Android phones were relased

As for profits, Android smartphones had $2.4 billion in profits on 205.6 million phones shipped during 4Q2014 . That's $11.67 profit per device, which if you figure an average Android phone costs $300 is just under 4% margin. The PC industry operates on pretty much a 3%-5% margin (aside from Apple - theirs is usually close to 25%). HP's margin was 5%. Lenovo's margin was 1.8%. Dell was usually around 5% before it went private.

Basically, Android's profits are completely normal for a consumer electronic device made of commodity parts. The only thing that's noteworthy is Apple's weirdly distorted finances, where their marketing and cachet allows them to sell the same commodity parts at huge markups. Another way to look at this is that Apple made $18.8 billion profit on 74.5 million phones in 4Q2014. If you bought an iPhone last quarter, your Apple Tax was $252.

There just isn't enough lithium in the world to supply Tesla batteries to every US household, let alone the world.

Worrying about low-voltage appliances is delusional.

What it really forbids is the transfer of information or objects through space at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum.

What was the point of all this? Did anyone ever express an interest in FTL that did not include information or objects?

I want the last 5 minutes back please.

Oracle must have contributed to the right Administration official.

"When actual observations contradict all predictions made based on computer models you have to say that scientifically the models are flawed. If you believe a computer model over actual observed reality then you are a member of a cult, not a scientist.

What the Anonymous Coward said that all the cultists are trying to mod down.