Jet engine makers have made and tested (successfully) titanium turbine blades using additive manufacturing.
Which jet engine maker? 0.0001"? Really? No, seriously, really?? Show me anyone who's *printing* parts of higher quality than a skilled CNC machinist. I'd love to see it!
Link to Original Source
The Rav4 was an otherwise decent vehicle, but they managed to make even controlling the radio a huge pain in the ass. The touchscreen was not easy to use, couldn't be used without looking (I rent a lot of cars, and have yet to meet a real-button radio that I couldn't control by feel). Some of this was made up for by having steering wheel controls, but they weren't sufficient and for anything besides volume/preset controls, I still had to look at the screen to see what I was about to click on.
There was otherwise some cool technology in there. The connection to my phone with bluetooth was the best implementation I have seen yet and the back-up camera was nifty for parallel parking an unfamiliar car (although I always wonder about those cameras...they let you see stuff you wouldn't normally see, but you lose the field of view and situational awareness that comes from actually turning your head like you are supposed to while reversing. Why not put the screen behind you so you can see it while looking backwards?). I'd say we are probably in a transitional phase. They can do all of this cool stuff, but they haven't figured out how to make it easy and intuitive. Better voice controls are probably part of it (and steering wheel radio controls are great once you've got your radio presets), but the current touchscreen guis are terrible.
Those aren't practical limits.
There are practical limits on home production of alcohol. You can make a limited quantity of wine and beer for personal consumption. You can't distill or sell it legally without a license.
Perhaps some practical limits on firearm ownership is needed?
We can't stop people from drinking and driving, so let's not regulate that either.
Yes. There would have been a lot more stars blowing up right in your vicinity, but more importantly, the newly-formed heavy elements would have been naturally accompanied by their usual radioactive isotopes, but why bother a physicist with the laws of biology, eh?
It is commonly thought that life evolved when it did because it's the time it took for radioactive elements to decay.
Of course, ratios of radioactive to stable isotopes vary from place to place, depending on which star blew up to create them and how old it was. But you can't really say the whole universe was a goldilocks zone. It would have taken a special place with more than just water - and the oldest galaxy we know of is 380 million years old. And let's not forget that 15 million old Earth was just a giant ball of magma... constantly being hit by giant asteroids. The Hadean period (Hades = the ancient greek version of Hell) is thought to have lasted about 600 million years.
I doubt a 15 million year old universe would have been little more than atomic soup. Water may have existed, but not as we know it. It takes more than 15 million years for a star to form and blow up, where would you have gotten enough heavy elements for a planet to arise?
The first stars are thought to have formed 100 million years after the Big Bang, not 15. Dude's on crack.
Well, no, at least, not the last bit.
My understanding is that the NSA is a pretty large organization and that it's involved in rather a lot of signals intelligence type operations. It's doubtful, in the majority of cases, that $RANDOM_NSA_EMPLOYEE is likely to be involved in the particular scandal of the day you want addressed.
I appreciate this view isn't going to be popular here, where most commenters seem to think that $RANDOM_NSA_EMPLOYEE is guaranteed to be directly involved in reading their emails, which they're obviously doing because they want to root out subversives and blackmail them, rather than because the NSA might, I dunno, be going overboard and doing illegitimate things for a legitimate cause (like tackling terrorism or even spying on rival governments.)
Nexus devices don't have them because somebody at Google doesn't seem to like them.
Unfortunately I get the impression sometimes that there are influential people at Google who think that the iPhone is popular because you can't insert an SD card, can't change the battery, and because the battery life is crap, rather than because it's user friendly.
Yes, that WAS my point. One of them, anyway. In order to override ANY U.S. law, it first has to be ratified by the Senate.
Technically true, but remember that a treaty is usually a combination of clauses, not just one, all of which need to be agreed to. If the Senate agrees that the good clauses are something they want then they have to decide whether the bad ones are something that can be tolerated or not.
Now, based upon this, and based upon the fact the Senate can't just pass amendments or similar in the usual way, and given the fact that SOPA is pretty much what the political establishment wants in this country, do you think we stand much of a chance of seeing this treaty go unratified?
And from what you're saying, it sounds like you really liked working there. That operations manager must have been a great guy. Great working environment. Mutual respect all around! So let's make the whole world work that way.
Actually hated it.. It had over 120% employee turnover one year. The Operations Manager was actually a woman who got the position because of looks. She would get someone from our department to do her powerpoint and excel spreadsheets for her for her bosses.
But I worked for several other software companies here in Florida that had the same rule. I actually left the software industry for retail sales for less pay but MUCH less stress and hassle.
Well perhaps, but to play Devil's advocate: this isn't a game.
There are two parts to DRM when combined with an anti-circumvention law. The first is the one that exists anyway: to attempt to make it as difficult as practically possible for someone to gain unrestricted access to the raw content. The other - which the DMCA (and its apparent German equivalent) adds - is to add legal liabilities for creating, possessing and/or using the tools, however easy, that break that encryption, should they ever come into being.
Us nerds have a tendency to misread laws and assume that rather than it being a reflection of the intent of the authors, that the language used is arbitrary and written by dolts to be interpreted in the widest possible context. Specifically we look at words like "effective" and rather than interpreting it in the context of the rest of the law, we go off on tangents and ask whether something is effective using other definitions within different contexts.
Is, for example, CSS effective? Well, I'd argue it is in context. It requires you use a specialized tool, designed specifically to break CSS, in order to access the content. It meets the definition in context. It doesn't meet the definition if you change the subject and say "Well, in 1998 it protected content, but does it now? Is it easy to find the tools needed to circumvent it?", but that's not the definition of effective that's implied by the context of the legislation - which is why better lawyers than us are not making that claim when protecting, say, Real Networks.
As for ROT-13.... well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My guess is it wouldn't, because ROT-13 doesn't require knowledge of any secrets beyond the fact it's being used to begin with, and the "tool" used to decrypt it is already built-in to a billion email, USENET, and so on clients. At the very least, if SuperdooperRayVD 4K discs in 2020 are encrypted using ROT-13, they'd have great difficulty persuading judges that millions of pre-existing USENET clients from the 1990s are illegal.
...and report the bullets as stolen.
... just remember that you have to empty a at least one 10 round pistol clip into the guy before you've hosed off five dollars worth of ammo.
Hollowpoints and rifle ammo may add up to more than $5 before you empty the magazine.