There's NO reason to put anything in the UK. It is the worst country in the western world.
It's not much to brag about but Greece is probably worse
New Zealand, which has been used in the past by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, is considered a prime location because rockets launched from that deep in the Southern hemisphere can reach a wide range of Earth orbits
Equitorial orbits are certainly best attained from launching near the equator. I'm not sure but I think that even non-equatorial orbits are best attained from a near equator launch to take advantage of the earth's rotational velocity then change the orbital plane. Even if some orbits are easier to attain when launched away from the equator, don't non-equitorial orbits swing as far North and as far South, meaning that New Zealand has no advantage over the USA?
Altogether it loooks like New Zealand is a particularly bad place to launch from, easily bettered by the southern USA or Northern Australia
I think we're looking for racism where there is none. Observing physical characteristics is not racism, and the fact of the matter is that some black people tend to have a more protruding jawline and fuller lips than one would see in a specific group of people who are caucasian. If you compare those two, very specific, physical characteristics with the great ape family, you see similarities.
Now, before anyone starts screaming about how I'm racist (too late), having one or two physical characteristics with another species, out of hundreds of physical characteristics, doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to humans easily identifying people as not belonging to the same subgroup that shares those characteristics. It's the same reason why we don't think that someone with a striped mohawk is a zebra. We're able to take contextual clues and infer that that person is not, in fact, a zebra.
However, it DOES mean that an algorithm that has been largely trained on either insufficient or faulty data sets can make incorrect inferences based on the characteristics that it has been trained to recognize. If anybody is at fault here, it isn't the algorithm, but whatever engineer fed their image recognition an algorithm so woefully insufficient that it would confuse a human with an ape just based off of a physical characteristic or two out of any number of data points that would indicate, "Hey, this is obviously a human being".
Having done some random searches I agree this is just a mistake - and comparable to others. A few examples that I have found are
- a search for "dolphins" including a picture of my daughter swimming.
- a search for "squirrel" including meekcats
- a search for "cat" including some dogs
- a search for "ghost" including a slightly blurred picture of my wife
- a search for "man" showing some women and "woman" showing some men
How is the US "crazy" compared to the Muslim extremists running around Iraq etc and assisting with their group diet plan by removing parts of people's bodies?
To the Muzzy mind the US is crazy for supporting ungodly things like equality, rights for women, freedom of religion, LGBT rights, freedom of speech, etc.
Google Images fails to replicate the image that came to my mind with that name.
Think Mad Max.
I can't help thinking that if he had registered the website under his first name he might have had more issues than just being taken to court if he didn't hand it over. Cough
Sounds like the war cry of the butt hurt to me.
Well GP was reviewing a colonic irrigation service
Reminds me of this
Tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 forbidding homosexuality: £200.
Not knowing that Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos: Priceless