so, any idea how long your brain just went off?
I saw one of the early night launches(around 1990) from Savannah Georgia, but obviously only the latter part of the climb.
We walked to the south end of the island I lived on then so there was no trees obstructing the horizon.
In some ways it was cooler than the ones I saw from the space center.
I did some google searching, and all I can find is "He was exposed to the highest dose of radiation from the chemical element americium ever recorded — 500 times the occupational standard".
When I don't see actual numbers, I get suspicious. Plus, it had the qualifier "from the chemical element americium". Some articles were otherwise copy-n-paste but left out th Americium qualifier. As we all know, there have been some boo-boos with plutonium and things like Chernobyl that resulted in immediate death.
All the articles extant seem to have been be copy and pasted from each other back in the 1970-80's, so that 500 times number would be related to the safety standards of 1976.
For one thing there are two different numbers to consider: the instantaneous dose or level of radiation, and the cumulative dose. There's a big difference between getting 10 Sieverts in an hour and getting it over 50 years.
I have to wonder if what we're talking about with Mckluskey is a cumulative dose because he had it inside him for years.
Has anyone seen an actual number in Sieverts or equivalent?
wrong for USA, violation of law for pedestrian to walk against light, look it up. In fact, proof of pedestrain walking against light can get aquittal for manslaughter charges by driver. We can't have pedestrians clogging big city traffic if they think they can loiter out in intersection at any time with impunity. move it or lose it!
That's true about drivers being aquitted when hitting pedestrians crossing against light. We've even seen parents charged with manslaughter if they have children with them who get hit while "jaywalking"
However, in the USA we have many crosswalks where there is no light and some even where there is no intersection. Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way in my state for those crosswalks. This is the case in the videos linked to above.
In fact, if a car is stopped at such a crosswalk it is illegal to pass that car.
Also, if the pedestrian entered the crosswalk while they had the light, they still have ROW even if the light changes against them while crossing.
The hospital I worked painted the walls of the conference rooms with whiteboard paint and put out baskets of dry-erase markers.
There's a drop-down screen with a projector for showing a computer screen.
There are many advantages.
You don't have to have your computer support person standing by all the time for when contractors/ sales people get in there and screw everything up.
You can have multiple people/teams in the same room working on different approaches (different walls) simultaneously while being able to see everyone else's ideas.
We snap photos of what we want to go with and then edit the work in a document later (if we want to preserve the results).
I suppose people off-site could watch through webcam/skype etc.
Apply anti-glare polarization to car windshields (blocks horizontally polarized light) and then use horizontal polarization on the pedestrian crosswalk timers.
step two: require habitual jaywalkers to wear clothing that reflects only horizontally polarized light.
One could argue that in most cases, a pedestrian paying attention could have avoided getting ran over if they'd pulled their heads out of their phones long enough to look around them.
SFPD claims to be keeping better stats these days but I could not find them online.
However here is what I did find:
All three victims this year entered the crosswalk only after pushing a button to activate several flashing beacons to alert drivers to stop. There are six lanes of traffic across Sunset with an island in the middle.
Thursday's crash occurred when several drivers stopped, but a Honda CRV kept going. The driver noticed the woman too late and skidded into her, clipping her with the front bumper and spinning her to the pavement.
"She said she didn't see her, " San Franicsco Police Officer Gian Tozzini told KTVU. "I don't know how she didn't see the flashers. Maybe they're just looking forward and not paying attention."
That is three victims, one fatally injured, at a single crosswalk with flashing lights in the Sunset. The description matches what I see in my little New England town where I'll slow because I see a deer stepping into the road and the car behind me thinks they need to pass me on a two lane road so as not to slow down at all - not sure how bad I'd feel other than for the deer. A pedestrian was hit in our crosswalk same way - one car stopped, person started walking, car behind did not even slow down and passed in the next lane hitting the person in the crosswalk - actually tossing them into the front window of another car that had also stopped on the other side for the pedestrian - that car was full of kids coming home from little league.
In some states passing using the oncoming lane through an intersection is against the law. Probably true everywhere, but I'm too lazy to check. In Georgia it's illegal to pass a car stopped at a pedestrian crosswalk, but how many people do you suppose knows that?
You've obviously never been to Atlanta where the mayor is black as well as almost the entire city government is black.
The police department is 57% black.
As for gay being a second strike, well it does turn out that Atlanta is no longer considered the gayest city in the USA.
I read the article, and I don't see any mention of how many drones were shot down or hit by gunfire. I don't know for sure, but I bet the drones in Afghanistan get shot at a lot, and I admit that will continue to be a problem in the United States.
The article says the US military has about 10,000 drones and 400 from 2001 through 2013 means about 40 or less a year are lost. And that's while being shot at. What would be the failure rate of a Lexus if they were shot at every day while driving around?
It said about a quarter of these are lost in the USA, but it doesn't mention if these are lost in product testing or training - situations known to cause high losses.
It may have more to do with IKEA's tax-avoidance corporate structure.
As near as I can tell, what you think of as the Swedish IKEA stores are owned by the non-profit corporations Ingka Holding and the Ingka Foundation.
They lease the IKEA trademarked name from a Dutch firm "Inter IKEA Systems". That's its only product: the IKEA trademarked name.
The Dutch firm is how the money is taken out, and the full corporate structure is kind of shadowy. I don't believe anyone outside the family knows how it's all put together.
My guess is that any threat to the trademarked name "IKEA" is a threat to their tax avoidance structure, so it's a big deal.
Here's a demo of the new robot. Surely it would be easy to downside and re-purpose these for mosquito heads.
Perhaps a decade from now, when the vaccine is available, the poor folks living in these areas can stop cursing at the western do-gooders who got DDT banned.
DDT is not banned in regions where malaria is prevalent.
I think it is OK if someone drives down the street and identifies houses that leave the front door open and report on what they see.
That is, so long as they do not go through the door. That would be a crime.
People who leave the door open are enabling and encouraging criminal activity. Oddly enough, I was in a museum just this morning reading some translated Sumerian cuneiform. It was some laws that addressed just this problem. If someone leaves a property unmaintained and it attracts criminals, then that property owner becomes responsible for any thefts occurring next door.
People who have vulnerable systems on the Internet similarly are responsible in some degree to the huge botnets that are often such a plague.
People who identify vulnerable systems are doing us all a favor, and as far as I can tell, they are not committing a crime. The law has a concept called "mens rea", which I do not fully understand, but the concept seems to be that if you do not intend harm and do no harm, then there is no crime.
No. Again, it is this completely idiotic and narrow interpretation of the cloud that is precluding you from understanding its advantages.
The problem is the use of the word "the" when speaking of "the cloud".
The article "the" is and English word that has a meaning and proper use. "The" is used to have the effect to singularize or make specific an object begin referred to. This is opposed to the article "a" which is used when objects are generalized.
Almost everyone in the world is going to hear "the cloud" as services hosted on the Internet. The article "the" means specification, so it can only refer to either the well known case of services hosted on the Internet, or a specific instance of cloud computing. In this case, there was no specific instance mentioned in the context, so everyone is reasonable in assuming you are talking about the Internet.
Yes, I know that "the cloud" is used commonly in IT circles to refer to cloud computing in general. It is a bad usage of the language, a kind of marketing infra-dig that leaves more educated people shaking their heads.