It was forever ago when I went through the calculations, but it is indeed an interesting property of lasers that their beam initially shrinks in diameter with distance and then grows. So it could defocus instead of focus, depending on distance.
One advantage to being big. On the other hand, I don't know how nimble Apple can be at its current size. With a dictator (Steve Jobs) at the helm, and a small product line, size wasn't too much of a problem. Not sure how things will be now.
Donald Sadoway, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on Musk's claims:
"I would have used the same words, I'm glad someone with such a big reputation put it on the line."
Since neutrinos can pass through the earth with little attenuation (about 1 in 10 billion are detected), possible uses include communicating from any two points on earth without satellites."
Link to Original Source
I don't think, therefore I'm not. - Rene a la Carte.
Whether or not this is a true story, or whether or not it's a government project, there is as much budget-reserving in private industry like what you described as there is in government. Probably more, since government is more transparent than private business, and so more people have access to exposing that little game, which tends to inhibit it some.
Really? I haven't seen it at any of the private companies I worked at. I admit some were big companies and I saw only a few subgroups; I also admit my sample isn't big, but I wonder if you have any better data than I have to make your claim.
According to my read, he was remorseful for actual damage done. Just curious, what remorse do you have for your wrongs against others? If you have any, one would think you would be a bit more forgiving toward someone who has remorse and who has changed his ways.
To err is human
I'm sympathetic to those teachers who have to teach kids whose parents have no interest in their own children.
That said, I'm not convinced that the vast majority of teachers are underpaid and underappreciated (they may be overworked). From what I see, retirement for teachers is ridiculously generous. If you are a teacher, I'd be curious about your take on the total package teachers are given.
Apple is fine to make left handed people, people with big noses, people who wear red shirts, and people with crooked teeth pay more for their products. All of these groups have alternatives they can and should give their business to. Many in Australia are apparently willing to pay what Apple is asking. If Australians stopped buying Apple products, it would force Apple to reduce their prices. I say, "Go for it." Vote with your pocket books and Apple will lower their prices.
There are many more destitute people on the streets of Calcutta than in London and we don't hear of them looting and burning buildings. I have heard various accounts of the rioter's socio-economic makeup and don't know which of them are based on facts, but the way any disadvantaged group has made any real and permanent gains has been to prove their detractors wrong by facing the odds and succeeding, which also serves as an example and incentive to their fellows.
Why people justify destroying innocent people's property and wrecking their people's lives is beyond me. But to answer your question to the GP, if I could afford a Blackberry, I'm guessing I wouldn't feel justified burning buildings, beating people, and stealing their possessions. If I was starving and without food or shelter, it is conceivable I would descend so low as to steal, but if I did indulge I would probably feel pretty guilty. If my conscience bothered me as I expect, I would even try to make amends.
I grant you that a certain percentage of that is because I have not been surrounded by lots of peers who think it's OK to beat little old ladies, smash cars, and take things other people have earned. When everyone around you says some bad thing is OK, the element of shame and disapproval from others is eliminated. Conscience should still remain, though. And I hardly think the problem is to eliminate cultural and societal strictures.
What about the people these yobs can harm next? Don't they have a right to be protected? A law has to be reasonable, not stupidly rigid. Let the courts decide if RIM violates privacy of honest citizens or helps put thugs in jail.
"Yes, and if we spent the military budget on educating the world and promoting equality (as opposed to pushing economic interests, which is what practically every military conflict ever fought has been about) we could probably achieve world peace."
World peace? Changing human nature? It would require more than the military budget to do that. Well, unless you can buy a magic lantern for a few billion.
Now over time, I think evolutionary change is possible. But that is more a function of human experience than money or some educational agenda.
Look it up.