Based on what you're saying, it seems very possible to me that there are ranges at which the transponder signal can be receive but the skin paint has not.

Signals in both directions will attenuate according to the normal square-of-distance law. Suppose that the aircraft is at a distance from the radar such that the signal is attenuated to just below the detection threshold. That is the radar can not get a skin paint -- but barely. However, the strength of the radar signal that strikes the aircraft at that range is 4X (in an ideal world; in reality its probably even higher) the strength of the signal that arrives back at the radar receiver. This is because doubling the distance (which assumes perfect reflection; in reality it's not quite that good) will quarter the power.

Therefore, the transponder can very likely detect the incoming radar signal -- and respond to it -- at ranges beyond which the radar can get a skin paint, since it receives 4X as much power.

The question, then, is whether the transponder replies with greater energy than the reflection at those long ranges. If so, then there is a zone in which the transponder signal can be detected but the skin paint cannot. Turning off the transponder in that zone would make the plane instantly and completely disappear from radar.

We have a six cell embryo on ice from last year's IVF cycles. It divided a bit slowly and just missed the cutoff to be included in the fresh transfer, but beat the cutoff to be non-viable and discarded so was eligible to freeze for later.

Given how expensive IVF is and that my company dropped insurance coverage for IVF this year, that embryo is probably my only chance to have a second kid (with the first one on the way). The odds aren't good though, especially for a single-embryo transfer.

Oh, really, mass psychosis? How about this: USA is trying desperately to maintain perceived value of its dollar, while it's destroying the current value of it every day with more and more money printing, and now that it can't even hold the dollar price of gold up it's trying to ensure that there is yet another 'crisis' somewhere outside of the US. Worked last time with Europe being in crisis due to Greek bankruptcy and later Cyprus disaster, at that time people rushed into the US dollar.

Now even with the Russian / Ukrainian situation people are not flocking into the dollar. However who in fact started this particular movement in Ukraine? It was a combination of European and American political interests.

You think that the rest of the world is oblivious to these machinations, what you are observing is that while people may not have the information, on a visceral level they get it - there is a strategy behind what is happening in the Eastern European block, what happened in Georgia and now in Ukraine.

You think this is 'mass psychosis', I think it is mass rejection of American intervention. Maybe the USA should stop trying to meddle with everything in the world and then people wouldn't be put into this position.

- oppression.

The word is oppression. How about this: you have your government regulated banks and I have my banks that are not regulated by anybody, that's the way I prefer it.

That might be your reason to prefer LPs, but that's not at all the reason that I prefer LPs. I have a record player sitting next to me at my desk here at work, and I listen to records because they remind me of music as it sounded in my youth.

And I readily argue that hipsters will continue to prefer LPs over even high-dynamic-range CDs because they will have trained themselves to prefer the distortion.

I didn't say I work that many hours, but that's what I see from peers at larger companies. I have to ask for citations for startups being okay with 40 hour work weeks for salaried employees though, because that is counter to the limited evidence I've seen, and frankly I don't believe you.

No, you are not correct. This was ONLY an issue because Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly on their OS. If they did not, then they would have been free to force resellers of their products to remove advertisements for competing products. That's an A-OK business practice, except for monopolies.

Did you take the time to note that I said "it looked much better than it did a few months ago" before you copied and pasted your self-hate into a reply?

We are not the sort of country that will ever let a photogenic minority lay dying in the streets. If the law were changed to allow this - in the way you suggest, or for example by eliminating the bare minimum safety net of social security - then there would be enough of an outcry that folks like you would be swept from office, and the law would swing way back towards socialism.

But it's in the interest of both the insurance company and those they cover that the need for such catastrophic care is minimized, by catching the problems early. This costs the insurance company less money overall, and of course means some people avoid health catastrophes. Thus, it's in the best interest of both groups that routine checks and other preventative care be covered. It's only the short-sighted nature of most insurance companies that such care wasn't free already.

You should find a company that has "architect" roles, where you can be a designer of the big picture, and oversee the technical work of less-experienced programmers, and do the tricky parts of the code that interest you while delegating the rest, without having to do the management crap you hate.

In theory, the big company would expect you to work 45 or so hours a week on average, and understand when you have to use your health plan and take time off when you're kids are sick. The startup, on the other hand, is giving you stock options and expects you to work 60 hours a week and oh, they can't afford for you to have (or use) health care, and you certainly can't have that much time off when the launch deadline is looming, but oooh, options, shiny!

All those other things cost the big company money, so the total compensation might be higher. The young don't care about those other things, and take a gamble for a big win with a startup. The natural cycle of life means older people can't do that sort of thing, so they gravitate towards other types of companies, those that know they can pay less in exchange for other benefits.

You can call it ageism or think it's fine but the fact is that ageless startups & corporations and their "big picture" masters regularly exploit the life cycle of their employees to maximize their work vs pay. That's how the business world works.

The Netscape case was because they were bundling their competing product with their OS. It was only because they had an OS monopoly that the IE vs Netscape thing mattered.

If Microsoft were still a monopoly, and made it difficult to use facebook over their own social network (by making every user create a MS Social account, auto logging out Facebook users via IE on every reboot, or whatever else I can make up) they would certainly have been sued. But their monopoly is pretty much broken, and at this point they'll only lose suits in consumer space based on legacy holdover resentment.