All you need is a solar powered project to convert sea water into potable water. I'm pretty sure $30B will go a long way to set up several projects all along it's coast. Also, converting current pipes from metals to plastic so your sewage systems etc can handle a little bit of salt water, then you don't need to flush with clean water and it's a lot healthier (salt water is inhospitable to a lot of bacteria)
We do alter the genetic material in 'traditional' artificial selection and given the current genetic sequencing methods, we could definitely demonstrate the pathway we'd have taken if we were doing it 'slowly'. But if a crop takes ~6m to become mature enough to reproduce, we'd easily take decades for a simple mutation. Doing it in a lab allows us to skip some steps but you get the same end result.
I don't agree with the patents but AFAIK none of our food is patented nor could it be. I think gene patenting has been completely struck down recently. Yes, there has been research in a terminator gene and it made big headlines a decade ago but further research proved that nature has a way of overcoming these artificial limitations. There is currently no crop outside of a lab that cannot reproduce itself (besides dessert banana's, but that limitation has been around for about a hundred years).
I listen to Internet radio in my car. Generally not a problem since the apps use a large buffer, entire songs are streamed in advance so I only notice when skipping a song in a low coverage area. Music is only 196kbps and could be as low as 64/96k. Even 2G can withstand that.
Care to add any facts to that statement? So-called "organic" produce requires a shit-ton more chemicals than the 'regular' or GMO plants. GMO plants require the least amount of chemicals by simply altering their genes. The plants are not producing any synthetic pesticides. We've been GMO-ing our crops for the last 10,000 years, lately we're doing it on a bit more advanced level than your average farmer to understand and suddenly it's "witchcraft"?
that spent $1.3B on 12,000 iPads and couldn't get them to work.
False accusations of rape is present in ~80% of disputed divorce cases. It's so bad, some lawyers are having the clauses in form paperwork. Demonstrably false accusations are around 10-20% of all investigated rape cases. If females wouldn't use rape accusations as a tool, real victims would have a much better chance.
Could be usable in wearables where power is at a premium.
Next time say that you're not comfortable with a male patting you down because even though you're biologically male, you're really a female.
The thing is the 'government' knew about 9/11 well before the attack as well. They might have gotten a little trigger-happy afterwards but actually acting upon their information has never been the strong point. There have been terrorist attacks since 9/11, in every case the people executing the plans were on some type of watch list or intelligence had advance warning of an impending attack. TSA/NSA/... has not been very effective regardless of the measures they've taken.
The thing is that males are expected to 'take it', even 'like it' or expected to respond positively to it. Sexual harassment against males happens more often than you think, males simply don't perceive it as such or given their biological proclivities, like the attention.
I move within circles that have heightened my sensitivity towards the subject so I recognize it and I often get comments from females such as cashiers, servers and other complete strangers that when their male counterparts would say something similar, they would've gotten dirty looks, reprimanded or fired before they even finished their comment. Most males these days (unless drunk) will reign themselves in or won't say anything (although comments amongst males are still common).
He's got the winning lottery ticket, there was a malfunction with the camera's. So far I haven't seen any 'evidence' that that person actually did it. He might have been in cahoots with his co-workers. Splitting the ticket 2-5-ways is still pretty lucrative.
If he did it, he was pretty dumb to think he could get away with it. He should've
1. Remained anonymous (if possible, some lotteries allow it, some don't), let his lawyer pick up the money
2. Gone for a lot lower number (winning low enough so you can get a cash payout at the shop (~$600/week is still a nice bonus))
3. Allowed enough time for the evidence to be destroyed (video camera's probably overwrite old stuff every n months) then played and collected. If you implement your own RNG, you could easily predict numbers in advance.
A good backup strategy involves reading the tapes back on a fairly frequent basis to make sure your tapes are still readable. Regardless of it's reliability, tapes do drop bits at a similar rate to hard drives at rest. You're very lucky that you have read 100% of the DAT tape without any issue (or maybe you didn't notice it, bit errors are hard to notice until you need that particular bit). Also, most companies really don't care about their data from 10 years ago (and if they do it's because they want it GONE in case of discovery).
Back then, tape WAS the cheaper option. Today, hard drive storage is on par as far as investment cost. Most tape strategies involve a large(r) tape robot and multiple heads which is where the expense comes in (also energy costs). With hard drives that is less of an issue and hard drives can also be spun down. Hard drives are also better at random access which is generally what you'll need when restoring day-to-day backups. Massive failures are usually not the problem, backup restoration usually boils down to that user wanting to get a version of that Word document from a year ago but they forgot what it was called back then. Reading through a tape for that kind of stuff is SLOW to the point of being infeasible.
Tape backup is still a good solution but it's being outgrown because hard drives are faster and for most people what it can provide is 'good enough'. Tape is great if you have so much data that you need it because of the density (a rack can hold 100's of PB worth of tape but only ~5PB worth of hard drives).
You can also ship tape a lot easier than a hard drive. No need for shock sensors. Latency may be bad but a box of tapes can give you more bandwidth/s than even the fastest Internet connection.
They are actually cheaper per TB if you need to consume at least a 4U tape robot worth of tape (20-30k, several PB). Otherwise disk storage is the way to go. Most enterprises don't need tape though, they have it grandfathered in from 'mainframe' systems and 90's Sun systems and a 'we don't know any better' mentality.
With your bare hands?!?
