Newly-commissioned Junior Officer: "I have a CS degree! You should put me in a research lab!"
Monitor: "Whatever. I have a quota to meet for Logistics Officers. Go drive convoys in Afghanistan."
^That's closer to the reality of it.
I'm former Army enlisted --> Marine Corps officer, so I've seen this first-hand.
Any major cost/feasibility issues I'm overlooking?
Most authors pick their class names because they sound cool, not because they feel it accurately describes the tactical/operational role of the ship design in question. Which they probably wouldn't get correct anyway. It's not like these authors commonly employ professional military consultants to harden up the details of their in-universe militaries. And in most cases scrutinizing how a ship should be employed would also lead to scrutinizing the weapons complement/layout/fire arcs/etc.....leading to most "sexy" space warships needing a complete redesign to make any sense. And the creative types don't want fictional space engineering (naval architecture?) intruding on their storytelling.
Kanzius died, Steven Curley set up the aforementioned parallel company that bought all the rights and patents to the technology before shuttering the John Kanzius Foundation. So far, so very uncool.
Last year, just as the company started aproaching the FDA about clinical trials, Dr Curley got blasted with lawsuits accusing him of loading his shortly-to-be ex-wife's computer with spyware.
Two weeks ago, there was to be a major announcement "within two weeks". Shortly after, the company dropped off the Internet and Dr Curley dropped off the face of the planet.
Robert Zavala is the only name mentioned that could be a fit for the company's DNS record owner. The company does not appear to have any employees other than Dr Curley, making it very unlikely he could have ever run a complex engineering project well enough to get to trial stage. His wife doubtless has a few scores to settle. Donors, some providing several millions, were getting frustrated — and as we know from McAfee, not all in IT are terribly sane. There are many people who might want the money and have no confidence any results were forthcoming.
So, what precisely was the device? Simple enough. Every molecule has an absorption line. It can absorb energy on any other frequency. A technique widely exploited in physics, chemistry and astronomy. People have looked into various ways of using it in medicine for a long time.
The idea was to inject patients with nanoparticles on an absorption line well clear of anything the human body cares about. These particles would be preferentially picked up by cancer cells because they're greedy. Once that's done, you blast the body at the specified frequency. The cancer cells are charbroiled and healthy cells remain intact.
It's an idea that's so obvious I was posting about it here and elsewhere in 1998. The difference is, they had a prototype that seemed to work.
But now there is nothing but the sound of Silence, a suspect list of thousands and a list of things they could be suspected of stretching off to infinity. Most likely, there's a doctor sipping champaign on some island with no extradition treaty. Or a future next-door neighbour to Hans Reiser. Regardless, this will set back cancer research. Money is limited and so is trust. It was, in effect, crowdsource funded and that, too, will feel a blow if theft was involved.
Or it could just be the usual absent-minded scientist discovering he hasn't the skills or awesomeness needed, but has got too much pride to admit it, as has happened in so many science fraud cases.
Link to Original Source
Not more likely than a bird doing the same. In fact less likely, as the bird has no clue what is going on, but the drone operator wants the vehicle back and hence will try to avoid the collision. This is really a non-issue.
Unless the drone operator is trying to fly kamikaze drones into a landing aircraft's engines....
-work less overtime
-work fewer weekends
-drop out of the labor force due to pregnancy (diminishing the ROI of education/corporate training investments)
Let's assume that all those points are backed up by statistics.
Then in your next line you seem to criticize managers for displaying a preference towards young single male employees.
But isn't that an entirely rational decision on management's part, to maximize the expected utility it derives from its employees? Assuming all other credentials between a male and female are equal, if the stats backup the assertion that the female employee, say over a timeframe of 5 or 10 years, will deliver fewer hours of productivity compared to the young single male, how can you expect management to take such a risk?
The constant agenda we see is "management styles need to change to accommodate women". Are there any studies or stats demonstrating a net productivity gain from doing so, and what kind of metrics did they use?
I think you make a good point about how women don't respond to the sorts of management techniques that maybe work well on men. But men who find an institution's practices unsatisfactory (whatever that institution is, a workplace, a religion, etc.) often tend to break out on their own, and craft a new organization in their image. Women seem more inclined to complain about the existing institution until it is changed to accommodate them.
So why is it wrong to tell women "Your entire approach to social problem-solving is neither valued nor tolerated in this environment. If you have a issue with that....feel free to go forge your own destiny elsewhere" ? If I said that to a male employee no one would bat an eye. But if I say it to a female employee I'm "poorly emotionally developed"?