There's some sensible rule that you can get into trouble with a coincidence, but getting out of trouble with a coincidence is lazy.
It will be interesting to see what effect this has on customer service generally. Is it possible to have sensible, non-theatrical security procedures that are preliminary and don't interfere with an essentially friendly relationship? Or will the attitude of security consciousness turn into a strange form of paranoid bureaucracy that colors everything?
This shouldn't be surprising - an organization's purpose is to do what it does, to quote somebody or other. TJX is making money off transactions; security is only incidental, and responding to unusual events runs counter to the grain of an optimized organization. The 911 call center, on the other hand, is helping people as a matter of course. (Just see how well they do when they start trying to make money off the transactions! j/k)
That doesn't sound quite right - because of the inverse-squared falloff of gravity, once you're a certain distance away, black holes and stars aren't much different in how material orbits around them.
One difference is that that black holes often spew high-energy x-rays as infalling matter is crushed, whereas dark matter is - well - dark.
A survey of Fox News viewers shows that correlation equals causation.
Sometimes I think this whole notion of extraordinary has more to do with our imagination and cultural background than anything scientific. I mean, wouldn't it be absolutely mind-boggling if we kept encountering massive energy-rich zones (e.g. geologically/chemically active planets) that were completely devoid of microbial life? If/when we find life elsewhere, of course it's going to be extremely significant, but does that make it unlikely?
Given recent articles about snap decisions (apparently deciding if you think a gal's hot, or your emotional reaction to a web site both take a fraction of a second), perhaps all this woman was doing was revealing an uncomfortable truth about the justice system. Could it be that jurors reach their decision in the first few minutes (or less) and everything that follows just loads them up with ammunition to form their rationalizations?
I think this is a great idea. I hope he wins, and internet search and ecommerce are shut down en masse by injunction. Whee! Then we could have a nice look at this business of patents and how we feel about them.
I wonder, is there such a thing as an inverse class action - by which I mean, could a whole raft of internet companies join the defending side as a show of solidarity, claiming that if the current defendants are violating, then they are too?
Flying Humvee, $1,800,000.00 IED, $3.50.
On the surface, it seems strange that nudity and sex are more taboo than violence and gore, despite the fact that we generally don't really mind if people are nude and having sex (in private), but we don't especially want people violently hurt anywhere (even in private). But I think this is the cause.
If a child sees nudity/sex on TV, it can bring up shameful mixed feelings for the parents, because we keep this side of ourselves hidden from children. Yep, mommy and daddy do that, but god forbid we talk about it. So we're all harboring this shameful secret. We're drawn to it, but we don't like the uncomfortable conversations it invites. "Yes, for God's sake we admit it, we're having sex.. but please don't tell our kids."
Violence, on the other hand, is something that most people have no trouble feeling unadulterated (hah!) condemnation for - so if our kids see it, we can point at it and go "That's bad!" without the confusing, mixed feelings.
Secondly, I think there are people frightened about losing the idea of a common definition of 'obscenity'. It takes courage to accept that someone's nasty fetish is actually perfectly harmless, and the revulsion has to do with your preferences. I mean, what's next? Are my kids going to start doing this? It'll be everywhere! Soon we'll be walking past rows of Poo Weekly in the 7/11. It's a lot easier to stand in a herd and point at the scapegoat. To those who are comfortable with their positions in the herd, this is an important tool. Witness how often politicians are discredited by sexual indiscretions.
Is this just a ham-fisted attempt to control those who they can, or is there specific content they don't want the soldiers (in particular) to see?
I'm savoring the irony in using physical reality to simulate a simulation.
A police car does this in Patlabor 2 - it zooms over the traffic on long wheels, blaring (rather hopefully) "Please keep your doors closed".
This doesn't look nearly as dangerous, since it appears to be built into the rail guards, rather than relying on the happy circumstance of all the cars being aligned.
Bullets and lasers deliver this energy differently - the bullet's energy is transferred to the target in a much shorter time (milliseconds, I assume) which produces more chaotic results than the laser (for the same energy), which is waiting until the target ignites or a hole forms, wrecking the aerodynamics. Even so, I was curious how the energy payloads stack up.
A 32 kilowatt laser delivers (not surprisingly) 32kJ during a one-second pulse. I'm not sure how long this laser pulses, but from the video, it appears to be several seconds.
By way of comparison, a
The Phalanx gun which this the laser purports to replace, on the other hand, shoots 20mm rounds - these could weigh 100g each, for a muzzle energy of 30.25kJ, comparable to the one-second pulse. Of course, the Phalanx shoots 50-75 rounds a second, for a total muzzle energy/second of firing of a whopping 2269kJ.
By coincidence, this is the same as the food energy in two Big Macs.
This sounds weird, but it's not that surprising - the pinnacle of the service economy is selling specialized conversation, isn't it?
What I'm really curious is what sort of policies and worker-support practices will emerge in this industry. Without something, it's going to get messy, and quickly.
A therapist who is just listening to you vent is providing a bare minimum sort of service; the real goods happen when they start to challenge you (however subtly) to be more aware of the patterns you're enacting over and over again. Equally importantly are the boundaries that are set - therapists (AAMFT therapists, at any rate) are required to get regular supervision, a sort of meta-therapy.. which is intended as a safeguard in case the therapist gets triggered by the client in some way (e.g. idealizing them, becoming overly invested in their 'progress', irritated by the way the client reminds them of themselves ten years ago or their alcoholic aunt, etc.)
Painful as it is, one of the ways friends help one another is by not putting up with certain behavior - he talks shit all the time, he's always stoned, or whatever it is. Will rent-a-friends have the option of ditching a client? If not, will they just become anxious witnesses, providing support to people who would otherwise realize how intolerable they've become?