The truth is that we are all utterly dependent on each other to survive - every part of our life is dependent on a product or service that is the result of the combined effort of many people. If everyone got out of your life, your would literally have nothing. Whether we like it or not, what one person does to their body does effect other people, and it places a cost on others regardless of any intentional interest in their business. Should we update are laws to acknowledge that, or just ignore it?

One could also argue that companies marketing soda in excessively large containers is a nudge, considering psychological factors that we are all subject to, to consume more sugar than people otherwise would be interested in - this law is simply trying to reduce that nudge. People are already used to constant intervention from corporations everyday (I'm walking down the street, I'm thristy, let's see, what are my options to drink - what does that giant billboard suggest?), so an effort trying to reduce public health problems arising from that intervention isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not sure that legally restricting container size is necessarily the right approach, but there are two sides to the argument.

That would leave zero people remaining to vote.

DGPS is all about using the fact that error in a normal satellite GPS signal is relatively constant in one location on Earth - the ground based transmitters just tell the DGPS receiver what that error is in your specific location. This sounds like they are using actual ground-based GPS transmitters, thereby removing the calculation of where the satellite is in the first place, to improve accuracy.

I agree with your point that the carbon offsets don't truly offset the damage, but having punched the child doesn't change the positive effect of donating to NSPCC - i.e. punching a child and donating to NSPCC is still slightly better than only punching a child, and having punched the child doesn't mean that then donating to the NSPCC is stupid. The carbon offsets presumably do some good, even if it isn't enough.

Using energy stored as momentum would only allow for a temporary hop off the ground, until that momentum is used up - if the pilot can't sustain the power required for flight, the rotor would quickly slow down.. It sounds like the requirement that it fly for at least 60 seconds means that the human pilot has to be able to maintain the momentum of the rotor by pedaling with the power required for actually flying.

I wonder if you could flip that around to say something like:

"When a young inexperienced scientist states that something far-fetched is possible, he is probably wrong. When he states that something is impossible, he is almost certainly right."

I admittedly have only tried it in rental cars - satellite radio is great for talk radio, so you can listen to the same program while driving cross country, but the music quality is pretty bad, the "sizzle" and reduction in dynamic range of the overly compressed audio is kind of grating.

A better way to word it would be to say people have the right to not have the internet taken away from them. Provided a person lives somewhere where a company can provide them access, they can pay for it, etc, then no government or other organization should be able to prevent someone from accessing it freely.

It probably uses a frequency splitting response, like a high pass filter on the shock response to block out "steady state" response, so that it only responds to changes in the road - in the driving over a curb example, the shock would probably respond quickly (at high frequency) to the immediate bump, but wash out with some time constant to the normal position. If you hit the beginning of a steep slope, the shocks only would respond immediately to soften the transition.

So, right, big enough bumps (below some cutoff frequency) would be felt so as to not saturate the actuator, but most ride discomfort probably comes from higher-frequency bumps.

Modern Ti graphing calc vs. Osborne 1...oh wait...