Wait, YouTube has ads? I didn't even know.
Shows what you know about satellite payload insurance and how it applies to the vehicles made by Orbital Science.
It isn't half of the launches that have failed either... that was a statistic made up out of the GP's hind end and not based upon facts.
Shows how little you know about insurance. The smaller the risk pool and higher the standard deviation and smaller the confidence rate, the larger margin is needed, and the higher the premium is going to be. A guess at ~50% was based on a much lower failure rate.
In reality, it would surprise me if most of the cargo was insured. For the government owned parts of the payload, no, as the government is its own insurer.
Which is why you buy launch insurance in the first place.
Given the track record, the insurance premium must be in the vicinity of 50% of the payload cost.
But even if you have insurance, you can't get the missed window back. And in the case of manned launches, the humans.
It's even worse when you notice that their tagline is "Innovation You Can Count On."
One two boom four boom boom seven eight nine boom...
Read the conclusion on the link you posted;
The array design based on the computational model was evaluated with measurements which showed excellent conformity. The results revealed that compared to the standard free-field array, the headset array yielded better low-frequency performance. This is because of the near-field (proximity) effect. At higher frequencies, the headset arrayâ(TM)s performance level was below that of the free-field array.
Oh, and they also assume that your head is a solid sphere. Yours might be; mine is not.
When you have a beard, it gets even worse. Little or no sound goes through both your cheek and beard, except the bass that gets cut by the high-pass filter. To get heard, I have to hold my other hand in front of my mouth so the sound can reflect back to the mic. No matter what modern cell phone I use, people tell me to speak up. Something that never happens with headsets or receivers.
I disagree. Old analog phones had amazing call quality.
I can't be the only one old enough to remember numbers that were playing music non-stop, and telephones with a line out that you plugged into your stereo rack's preamplifier. Worked great for a party if you wanted other songs than those you had records for.
You appear to be in error about the etymology of "money laundering".
That Al Capone operated laundromats appear to be coincidental, and not the basis for using the term money laundering to make dirty money appear clean.
More like this, but preferably slider (like the Nokia 8110) or flip, so it can easily fit in a shirt or jacket pocket.
If I could get a bluetooth handset that worked great as a one-handed receiver, with no more than an on/off-hook button, and big enough to reach both my ear and my mouth, I would keep my smartphone in my pocket and use the handset.
Thing is, no such device exists. There are headsets and bluetooth earsets, but both require excessive fiddling, and the earsets don't even work if you have a bushy beard and a deep voice. I *miss* being able to just pick up the receiver and talk, without having to yell because people can't hear me.
And yes, I mostly use the smartphone as a PDA. Because, quite frankly, it sucks at being a phone. So much so that I'll get up and walk to the landline when I need to make a call. My cell phone phone usage has averaged around 2 minutes per month.
2. You can get a bazillion different kinds of headsets... why on earth would you hold your phone to your ear like a caveman? (unless maybe very temporary circumstances)
Because when you receive an urgent call is not the time to fiddle with a headset.
Cavemen were lucky - their women and other bosses did not call them.
The problem isn't the size as much as the shape.
The best phone I have ever owned was the Nokia 8110, because it wasn't too wide to be held, but was long enough that the mic was in front of my lips, and not resting against my side beard.
If I could get a smartphone with that design, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, at twice the price.
Today's phones are good for everything - except phone calls.
Yes, that the recipient of the attention is the sole judge on what is unwelcome and bothersome is a problem.
But thankfully there's another qualifier too - "sexual", which is interpreted by the law, not the recipient.
You've made two incorrect assumptions here:
1: That the translation to "troublesome" is correct.
2: That words mean the same in different languages.
1: The word translates better to "bothersome".
2: There is no implication of causing actual trouble in the Norwegian word no matter which English word you translate it to. Discomfort qualifies. So does repeat of an unsolicited action or statement, even if all it does is wasting a fraction of a second of someone's time.
Google Translate should not be used for translations. It's a good tool to bypass IP/country restrictions, though...
"By sexual harassment, [the law] means unwanted sexual attention which is bothersome for the recipient of the attention"
The problem with this definition, as earlier said, is that it hits way outside its intended target - flirting ends up as collateral damage. Any attempt to establish whether such attention would be welcome or not will risk being classified as sexual harassment.
Which might help explain why ethnic Norwegians have one of the lowest procreation rates in the world.