A huge standard library that has been stable for 20 years (backward compatible as much as humanly possible) has a lot to do with it as well.
In other languages, I feel like I have to re-learn basic elements every decade to "how it's done now"...
No kidding - especially the socket libraries that let me write network code in the later 90s that would work on Sun, Mac, Windows, and Linux. Getting cross platform network code to work in C at that time was quite painful. And I don't recall any C++ libraries that I found pleasant to use before boost, and now Qt. And even now, while I consider boost essential, it's really only pleasant in the same way as no longer having to get your braces tightened qualifies as pleasant.
If I were to peer-review a paper on this, I would insist on a plausible physical explanation for the claimed measurement. The burden of proof is on them: they are making a truly extraordinary claim, one that, if true, would entail revising all of physics from its very foundation.
When somebody sounds like a total fucking crackpot, they almost always are.
You might have missed high temp super conductivity entirely then. The phenomenon was measured and replicated in many labs - but it was at least a few years before any plausible theory came out - and 20 years on we do not have firm agreement on the cause.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
The juror is there to determine the facts of the case. The prosecution and defense are both giving their sides. The jury may decide that there's reasonable doubt, doubt but it's not reasonable, or no doubt one way or another. It's their call. They really don't care about the agent's theories, because they are not FACTS.
I assume that the agent's theories were developed to support some set of facts that he had at hand and that those facts can still be pointed to in support of the previous theory. I've not studied this case in any detail, but I know that the goal of any prosecutor is to get a conviction, sometimes more so than being sure they have the right guilty party on trial. While in the ideal world, justice and truth might converge, in our world justice is on a clock and the truth is not.
"wave-particle duality is simply the quantum uncertainty principle" gets a "no shit" straight away from me, though I guess a rigorous proof of it is kind of news.
That's how science work.
That more about how math works. Physicists did not care that the calculus of infinitesimal was not rigorous; see especially the Dirac-Delta function. It gave them answers that agreed with experiment which for a Physicist is the best proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
And I don't mean the speed of light kind.
At 14 stories tall and traveling upwards of 1300 m/s (nearly 1 mi/s), stabilizing the Falcon 9 first stage for reentry is like trying to balance a rubber broomstick on your hand in the middle of a wind storm.
EXACTLY the same as takeoff. NO difference.
Same amount of fuel? No, so not the same moments of inertia. During launch the engine is pushing in the direction of travel, during re-entry no. During launch, the aerodynamics include that nice fairing on the nose, which should be a bit less chaotic than coming engine first down. The period of 1300 m/s travel that you quote and compare to launch is not during launch (0 m/s) - it is probably closer to the period of maximum dynamic load and clearly during super sonic travel. The reverse part of that travel, the period of maximal dynamic load during re-entry in a non-aerodynamic configuration is rather more difficult than getting off the pad.
Porsche: there simply is no substitute. -- Risky Business