lol. A bit more seriously the 9x more likely than social scientists thing tells you nothing, because social science is an ideologically homogenous wasteland in which literally everyone is left wing, according to social scientists themselves!
If they are publicly traded and their principal business is not risk, then they are required to be by law.
I'm fairly certain there is no such law. What publicly-traded businesses are required to do is to do what they say they'll do in their articles of incorporation and their prospectus. For most, these documents state that their focus is to generate a responsible return on investment (language varies, but that's what it boils down to). However, it is perfectly acceptable for them to include other goals, and even to prioritize those goals over making money.
Were SpaceX to go public, they could specify that their primary goal is to get to Mars, for example, rather than to make money. That would probably lower their valuation, but there would be nothing at all illegal about it.
Well, I'm an engineer and I work with engineers all day. I find the majority to be fairly liberal and not very religious.
Did you obtain a similar sample of people with other degrees to compare against?
The real question is not are engineers 9 times more likely to be terrorists. The real question is are they 9 times more likely to hold extremist beliefs, or just 9 times more likely to act on them because to engineers the point is to solve problems.
I suspect it's some of both. It seems to me that engineers do tend to be more passionate about their interests (whatever those may be) than the average person. And they think in terms of how to solve problems.
So I'm confused about this idea that engineers are more likely to be religious than the public at large. That just doesn't make sense to me.
The summary didn't say that. It said engineers are more likely to be religious than people with social science degrees.
Does your smart TV have a microphone or camera? Some do, some don't? Who is the manufacturer if you don't mind me asking? Samsung seems to be the most gregarious about seizing "rights" in their TOS.
No camera or microphone. It's made by Sharp.
And in the meantime it is sending bog-knows-what to who-knows-what. I think I'll pass....
I didn't pass, I checked. I had my router log the packets from my TV for a couple of weeks, then fired up Wireshark to look at who it was talking to and what it was sending. Result? On a daily basis it sends a tiny request to the manufacturer, which I suspect is checking for firmware updates. Other than that, it appears to connect to Netflix when I watch Netflix, my DLNA server when I watch stuff from it, YouTube when I watch that, etc. That's it.
It also occurs to me... if you're worried about a information being sent who knows where, why are you not worried about your Roku, etc.? How do you know what it's sending? Why is a Smart TV riskier than any of the other network-connected media-playing devices you might hook to it?
SpaceShip One touched space and all elements were recovered and flew to space again.
BO's demonstration is more publicity than practical rocketry. It doesn't look like the aerodynamic elements of BO's current rocket are suitable for recovery after orbital injection, just after a straight up-down space tourism flight with no potential for orbit, just like SpaceShip One (and Two). They can't put an object in space and have it stay in orbit. They can just take dudes up for a short and expensive view and a little time in zero gee.
It's going to be real history when SpaceX recovers the first stage after an orbital injection, in that it will completely change the economics of getting to space and staying there.
Shotguns is also my initial answer but discharging firearms is often prohibited.
Except when justified. There was a recent case in which a judge ruled that a man's decision to discharge his shotgun within city limits to shoot down a drone flying over his property was justified.
Hunting and fishing licenses are also to ensure the proper level/age/gender of animals, or at least close to it, is hunted, for conservation, etc. purposes
No, no they are not. Licenses don't do that. The only thing licenses do is make sure that someone has spent money. Only enforcement does that. Enforcement already happens; they have wardens out all year making sure that people aren't poaching. I live in major hunting country, so there's lots of them here.
For most big game, there's also a tag attached to the license, which much be attached to the game animal when taken. Tags do serve (with enforcement) to ensure that the right number, age and gender of animals are taken. Other game species have daily limits, but those could be enforced without any sort of specific licensing. Of course, the license fees generally pay for the enforcement, so licenses do help manage hunting for conservation. License fees generally pay for lots of other conservation measures as well.
You're aware that the Soviets themselves regarded their own propaganda as full of lies and considered anyone who listened to them as idiots. You are aware of this fact, right? I love your infantile comment on Ronald Reagan's attitude towards the Soviet Union. Let's compare and contrast it to Obama's modern attitude.
"Here's my strategy for the Cold War: We win. They lose."
-- Ronald Reagan
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
-- Barack Obama
Note: Hirohito was not present when the surrender was signed aboard the Battleship Missouri.
It makes me sick to see the phrase, "Western-backed rebel forces". These are Islamists. When Russia says they're only going after the terrorists, they aren't lying. See, there aren't two sides in Syria's civil war, there are three (major ones). There is Assad's government, who represent a minority that would get massacred if they ever lose power (Russia is backing them), the Islamist rebels (we're backing them *puke*), and ISIS (against everyone). There aren't any good guys. The Syrians who want Western democracy? Laughable.
It continues to amaze me, year after year, all the journalists who simply do not comprehend that there are three (major) sides in the battle. When Russia bombs the Islamists, this is nothing more than a proxy war. Putin thinks Obama is finished, weak, and America is ready to be swept aside. This is all Obama's own fault, of course, for his miserable failure during the Syrian nerve gas crisis of 2013. His "red line" was shown to be nothing that anyone need be afraid of. Russia saw weakness and swooped in. According to Putin, this was America's "Suez Moment" and without it Russia would today not be in the civil war and NATO wouldn't have just shot down one of their aircraft.
W agree. My opinion is that IE4 is where IE crushed Netscape the transition happened then. Certainly sites had problems working with both browsers then. But the shift started happening quickly and the push for web standards would only start after Microsoft was dominant. Both of them were proprietary at at that point. Microsoft outspent Netscape, was more creative than Netscape and moved much faster than Netscape anticipated they could. The browser wars were over quickly. It was after Netscape lost that Mozilla, along with other players like Sun, the Linux community... became advocates of standards.
Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!