That list omits a few more or less independent automarkers. For US market examples, where are Mazda, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Suzuki and Chrysler?
Except, obviously, not everyone survived. Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death and injury in the developed world. These features (e.g. ABS, ESC) have been studied many times, and almost universally demonstrated to significantly improve driver safety. As safety features like these have been adopted by automakers, by choice or by regulation, overall automotive fatalities rates have indeed decreased. There is virtually no actual evidence to the contrary--just anecdotes from drivers who believe, in the face of the evidence, that they are too good for driver aids.
I'm all for giving the driver the choice to turn these features off for some fun at the track, but I'm fine with them being universally installed in new roadgoing vehicles.
Many people make this mistake. The "morning after pill," e.g. Plan-B, is simply an extra-large dose of hormonal birth-control, and is indeed emergency contraception and not an abortifacient. RU-486 is an "abortion pill," but it's typically taken after several weeks to induce an abortion after the fertilized egg has been implanted and begins to develop, not within 24 hours (before implantation). According to wikipedia, RU-486 could be used in a much smaller dose as emergency contraception, but in practice is only used for such in China and Russia. Confusion between the two pills is often used in the US to rally opposition to OTC availability of Plan B, which is safer than OTC painkillers.
While bird strikes can happen at 10,000ft+, they occur with much much higher frequency near takeoff and landing where airspeeds are lower. Plus bird strikes can lead to disastrous consequences when the occur on other parts of the aircraft, such as engines or control surfaces, not just the canopy. Is there any evidence to suggest the track record of the T-38 is significantly worse than the rest of the Air Force fleet? There are finite resources to marshal and a great many things that could be improved in across the range of USAF aircraft--without any context, it's impossible to know whether fixing this one vulnerability is worthwhile.
RDRAND may or may not be compromised--without seeing the implementation, it's completely impossible to know. It's very much possible to create a stream that looks like perfect random "noise," but is actually deterministic; that's the whole idea behind encryption, after all. That said, Linus is also right that even if it is compromised, it doesn't hurt the entropy of the random number pool to include it. It would still strengthen the apparent entropy of the pool against anyone who did not possess the "secret" behind RDRAND, and would not weaken the entropy pool against those who did. People are right to be paranoid these days, but there's nothing to be gained by keeping the hardware random number generator out of the entropy pool.
Dead is dead. Who care about "gun" deaths? The question should be whether or not increased firearms ownership causes more deaths in general.
After having done a fair bit of academic reading on the subject, my overall impression of the research is that gun ownership is not correlated with homicide to a statistically significant degree, positive or negative. Other factors strongly correlate with homicide rate, like income inequality, and entirely explain why the US has crime rates closer to countries like Brazil than to countries like Finland. However, gun ownership does have a significant positive correlation to suicide. I'll leave the policy implications to another time, except to say that it's clear that in our history with gun control policy we have consistently attempted to address the wrong problem.
A) The action of WP is much different than that of napalm, even though both are components of incendiary weapons. Both are designed to ignite fires, but napalm is intended to "stick" and provide a persistent fuel source over a wide area. Regardless, in modern practice WP is used primarily for smokescreening and target marking.
B) In any case, neither napalm nor WP are considered "chemical weapons" by any treaties--there are treaties that regular incendiary weapons (e.g. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Geneva Conventions), and these may or may not cover WP weapons, but WP is not used for toxic effect (like sarin or VX) and is not covered by the same restrictions (e.g. the Chemical Weapons Convention). Consequently, no state considers WP to be WMD but most would consider sarin as such. This seems reasonable given the effects and use of these weapons. All modern weapons contain "chemicals," like TNT, but that doesn't make them "chemical weapons."
Orbital Sciences is running the mission--for whatever reason, they've set up shop just outside Wallops and have been spending quite a bit of time and money getting one of the pads at Wallops set up for Minotaur and Antares launches. It could be because it's closer to their manufacturing facilities, because they've been launch at WFF with smaller rockets many years, because the costs of using the pad and facilities at WFF are cheaper than the big pads at KSC, or whatever; but the point is that Orbital is running the mission and almost certainly chose to use WFF themselves. While it's true they might get better performance launching from KSC, it would shock me if WFF wasn't much cheaper to run out of. But even if it weren't, Orbital has invested in their operations at Wallops and is very unlikely move everything down to Florida now. I don't know what the deal is here, but in this case I suspect it's just a business decision by Orbital and nothing more sinister.
It's interesting that Fortran allows and can support GOTO from a variable line number; do you have a *good* example of why one might want to do this?
You can add binary repos to Macports, if you wish. Macports is trying to provide something like BSD ports on OSX, though, so compiling from source is the default behavior. I will say that for my purposes, Macports has been less hassle than either Fink or Brew. It has the the best variety in software and works fairly reliably. All three, unfortunately, suffer from the fact that they don't control the system so OS and Xcode updates can and do break packages.
This is simply false. Selective Availability is turned off, meaning the accuracy is no longer intentionally degraded on the unencrypted L1 channel, but the encrypted L2 signal is still broadcast and it is still restricted to military equipment precisely to prevent spoofing. GPS Block III will add an encrypted L2C signal so that civilian airliners and other safety-critical applications can have access to a spoof-resistant GPS signal.
Seems to me a lot of what you want doesn't fit into the vision of KA. You want to be able to control what content the students see and when they see it, so that you can keep the entire class working on the same stuff at the same time and at the same pace. That's in opposition to what I understand to be Khan's goal of encouraging self-directed learning, where students learn at their own pace, ability, and interest. So, the long and short of it is that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for KA to implement these features given their limited resources and goals.
This is true, but from my experience anything involving "signatures" is much more difficult to share with foreigners, including our closest allies. I've had trouble sharing signature data between allies operating exactly the same equipment, let alone something one party has but the other does not. I doubt F-22 emissions data is shared at all, at any level.
I always thought Opera's selling points had more to do with the customizable UI, and not so much to do with it's rendering engine. For your typical end-user, the impact of Opera having a unique rendering engine is that some pages look funny in Opera because few websites test against Presto. Webkit can't be ignored these days, so by adopting it Opera has less to worry about and gets an engine that keeps up-to-date at a much lower cost than rolling their own. Moreover, should Opera wish to add features to the rendering engine (such as new proposals for the HTML spec) it's a hell of a lot easier to get other to adopt them when you've implemented it in Webkit than a closed source implementation in Presto. It's a win for everyone; the only surprise to me is that they didn't adopt an open renderer sooner.
This is exactly right. I myself earned a PhD in Aerospace Engineering at a top research university--I'm fortunate to have an American-born mother and have been able to continue to work on my research in the US after earning my degree, but more of my classmates were foreign students. Not only do they have a difficult time getting green cards after graduating, but they're unable to find jobs in the US because most Aerospace jobs are defense or government related and the US government has made it very difficult for foreign nationals to work in US research centers or for defense contractors. So after being trained to do research in militarily useful areas, and after they try and fail to find jobs in the US, these students are forced to go back home and end up contributing to foreign defense industries.
Now, you might say that US graduate programs should hire on more US graduate students--but the reality is, there just aren't that many qualified students applying to engineering graduate programs and bringing in students from abroad massively increases the selection pool and therefore quality of grad students available to faculty. That students the world over want to, and are allowed to, enter US graduate programs is a big part of why US academic research is still the envy of the world, even though the US has declined from the top spot in many other areas. Grad students, who are really just "research apprentices" do most of the research work coming out of universities, with faculty supervising, directing, and selling research programs. Limiting foreign admission would be an enormous blow to US STEM academia and our overall research output. The best option is to figure out how we can retain the best foreign students in the US. One solution might be for the US government to expand it's national labs greatly, admit foreign nationals on the path the citizenship, and directly support basic research outside of the academic system. More US jobs in basic research might also stimulate more US students to apply to graduate programs in STEM, and overall, would help the US to maintain it's gradually decaying edge in the high tech sector.