A stall is not "plummet to the ground." Any pilot competent with his plane should in most cases be able to recover from a stall with minimal loss of altitude. This varies by the aircraft, but it's not an automatic lethal event. The primary risk that a U-2 carries in stalling while at maximum altitude is dipping down into radar or SAM range and/or losing what little maneuverability the plane does have, plus possibly additional airframe wear.
Actually I've heard the PTSD can be even worse - the human brain is apparently not that well suited to killing people 8-to-5 and then going home to the wife and kids who can't relate at all.
The wife and kids probably couldn't even try to relate if they wanted to. In general, the spouse doesn't hold the same security clearance, and the kids definitely don't get clearance. That means a lot of details get left out beyond just having a bad day at work.
That site appears to have it backwards. Davy settled on "aluminum" by the time he published Elements of Chemical Philosophy in 1812 (the year your link claims was when he settled on an ending of -ium. Wikipedia includes a quote from the book.
"This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."
The quote is visible from a scanned copy at this link
Roddy Piper found a pair of glasses that took all the ads away. It got him into all kinds of trouble.
Define "a long time." Because the phone I carry is powerful enough to do it, or will be very soon, and Glass is currently using a CPU from 2011.
muggers can be anywhere, especially with the economy still in such a bad state.
They can be anywhere when the economy is not in such a bad state. But the funny thing is that violent crime has generally been down almost every year since peaking in 1992. There were little bumps up in 2001 (about 1%, not including 9/11), 2005 (about 2%), 2006 (about 3%), and 2012 (less than 1%); you might remember the middle two as times when the economy was considered to be in a pretty good state. The final numbers for 2013 won't be available until much later in the year, but there seems to have been a relatively sharp drop in crime for at least the first half.
There's a lot of debate about why. Improved education, more resources available for the downtrodden, more career criminals in prison, the removal of lead from gasoline showing unanticipated effects... Pick your favorite. Whatever it is, we have 37% fewer overall crimes being committed despite 23% more population. That's basically half the crime rate we had in 1992.
If you're going to try to get someone not to use Glass, scaring them with warnings of random crime isn't really that effective.
There are lots of applications for Google Glass technology that have nothing to do with voyeurism.
And yet you fail to even list a single one.
--GPS without having to take your eyes off the road. (Or GPS while you're walking in a crowded area where using a phone means you bump into people, like much of NYC.)
--Finding out when the buses run by looking at a bus stop sign and having Glass cross-reference the appropriate schedules.
--Referencing a manual when you're in a position that makes it difficult to read printed material (like under a car, or even just twisted under a dashboard to pull a component)
--Taking notes when you're in that awkward position
--Pilots pulling up a checklist without having to fish around for the actual checklist (especially useful in emergency situations)
--Conferring with colleagues on the best course of action during the job without having to bring them on-site (already happening during surgeries)
--Walking people through first-aid procedures while help is still on the way
--Emergency alert notifications such as for tornadoes, floods, or evacuation that might only trip a notification on your phone.
Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty of others that would never occur to me if someone else didn't come up with them first.
A lot of us think that, at least in it's current iteration, Glass is pointless, creepy, distracting, and unacceptably invasive to both the surrounding populace and the user themself.
The same thing was said when smartphones (especially those with cameras) started showing up on the market. People could suddenly take pictures and sometimes video of anyone, anywhere, and it would be hard to know. They could even surreptitiously take downshirt and upskirt photos without holding something that looked like a camera and then post them online. And they could look up people they had just met, maybe even during the conversation. And they were always paying attention to the phone, and not looking around at the world.
Roughly the same complaints come up about Glass, although I would argue it has the potential to be less distracting as the world is still there for you to see even while you're using it. It's still in very early stages, and competition seems to be coming around, so the uses for it will increase. I've had at least one opportunity to order, but I'm waiting for a hardware iteration. The current CPU is a TI OMAP 4430, which is no longer in production or really supported by TI as TI dropped out of the mobile processor market in 2012. Once they replace it with something that has a better chance of future Android support, I'll probably dive in. I will, however, keep an extra set of plain glasses with me most of the time (in the car or in a bag) in case I run into a situation where I can't wear Glass.
Firmware updates can also be installed via USB.
In the US, a finding of not guilty almost always immediately ends the trial process due to the prohibition of double jeopardy (trying someone for the same crime more than once). A person who is convicted can appeal to higher courts who generally rule only on the law and not on the facts. Should the appeals court find in favor of the defendant, the case will be handed back down for either retrial (if going to the trial court) or rehearing (if going to an appellate court). If in the latter case, it can be appealed up again or sent back down to the trial court. Retrial can be for either determination of guilt or for sentencing, depending on what is being appealed.
Getting a not-guilty verdict set aside is almost impossible and hinges on the prosecutor proving malfeasance on the part of the judge or jury, a rare event. Even then, reinstatement of charges is not guaranteed.
In certain cases, a not-guilty verdict under state charges has resulted in federal charges being brought, perhaps most famously in the Rodney King case. There has long been a great deal of controversy over this. Some claim that it falls under double jeopardy because the defendant is facing trial twice for the same act, but others (including the Supreme Court) believe that it's not as the federal charges are generally of violating civil rights and not for the action itself (i.e., murder or assault).
Anyway, based on this, I would expect the US to oppose an extradition request based on US law. While Knox might have been extradited had she made her way to the US before the trial began in Italy, since she was found not guilty once, she would be considered untriable in the US and therefore extradition could be blocked.
 This sequence is generally to an appeals court of three judges, occasionally an en banc appeal to a hearing of as many as 11 judges, and then the Supreme Court. The process is effectively the same with both state and federal trials, except that those appealing a state conviction may also try to appeal through federal appeals courts. This rarely works, though.
He's in the UK, in the Ecuadoran embassy. Embassies are not extraterritorial soil, but are protected under the Vienna Convention. Under the Convention, the UK can't enter without approval from Ecuador, which makes it similar in practical effect, but it's not the same as being on Ecuadorian soil.
What part of "trends that some say have been accelerated by increasingly strict federal regulations" don't you understand? Big government strikes again . .
Actually, there's work underway in the form of the rewrite of FAR Part 23 (Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter Airplanes). Passed with strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, it directs the FAA to accept the findings of the Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee by the end of 2015. These are intended to reduce the certification cost by half while doubling safety by reducing the amount of prescriptive regulation and not requiring that small airplanes and add-ons be tested to extremes so unlikely to occur in general aviation flight that by the time they do occur, something much worse probably will have failed, or the pilot's judgment to begin with will have gotten everyone aboard killed. Standards would probably be developed by industry consensus (subject to FAA approval), which could cut the cost of small airplanes dramatically while allowing more rapid improvements.
There's also a move to allow private pilots to self-certify their health, though the FAA seems to be resisting that with significantly more force. Basically, if pilots can get a driver's license, they would be able to self-certify their medical state for a Class III certificate with some restrictions. I'm not entirely comfortable with this, but I can understand the drive for it. Some medical examiners mark up the most minor things, and getting the FAA to write up an exception can be such a costly and lengthy endeavor that many simply give up flying. But I've also seen a number of pilots who, at least outside of the cockpit, don't follow anything remotely like suggested healthy living, and I wonder how many of them are heart attacks waiting to happen. Maybe an age limit on self-certification would be appropriate as a middle ground.
I participated in Technocrat, and it had a number of problems including editors who were accused of deleting or editing posts that disagreed with them. It started a hard downhill slide when Bruce made a post about the 2006 election that essentially said that if you didn't vote Democrat, you were stupid, evil, or both. This resulted in some very strong words from Libertarians, whom he suggested were just wasting their votes. Most of us had no problem with him supporting his chosen candidates. It was when his tone turned abusive toward those of us who didn't support them that things went south. He folded it in January 2009 when it didn't turn into what he wanted it to be, which seemed to be largely a group that agreed with him. Slashdot has many faults, but editing and deleting posts that don't agree with the editors doesn't seem to be one of them.
That said, if you pop over to technocrat.net, he's posted both his e-mail address and a phone number. You're welcome to contact him either way to see if he'll bring it back.