the amount of light that is cast on an object is exponential with regard to distance, that means that the sun is shining a ridiculous amount of light onto Pluto compared with any other star. I would even bet that the sun illuminates the surface of Pluto significantly more than every other star combined.
nitpicking: the amount of light is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Yes, probably most/almost all of the light reflected in the surface of Pluto into the camera comes from Sol.
You want cures? Commit to the hard work they take to find.
Capital won't commit to that if it means that it will profit less curing than managing an ailment.
Who gives a fuck about the Java plugin?
Every single adult who has a bank account?
(At least in my country, every single bank uses the java plugin in the internet banking site.)
Because at work I have to install all kinds of Adobe crap and Java, and other software that uses proprietary files and each piece of crap "requires" something running in the background. They don't actually require it, but Windows allows it anyway. And let's not mention the fact that you really can't do anything about it, because the developers of those software packages are so used to it, that you will probably break them if you try to do things the Right Way(tm).
Here, at work, we image the PCs (we have 3000+) before sending them to the final users. One thing we do in our images is to disable autoupdates (Java, Adobe, Chrome, Firefox &c), and that makes the computers much snappier. We also filter the Windows Updates, pointing WU to an internal server. That makes the machines snappier in general. (Obviously, we keep one eye for security updates and push those to the users on the logon script, as needed).
MySQL is free and quick and dirty. Use Oracle, MSSQL and I've heard great things about Postgres. I have experience with the first two, and you can do some amazing things if you know what you are doing. They cost that much for a reason.
But probably not the reason you think.
Yes, if there's one thing professional programmers (and their PHBs) love, it's code that's almost certain to work.
It's actually the best kind; there are two types of code, code that's almost certain to work and code that's almost certain not to work...
The spinnerette on a spider puts the blocks together correctly as it extrudes the filament. A fermentation vat can't / won't.
Apparently, the article has a photo of a synthetic spinneret-like thingy that does that now.
There's nothing wrong with "infotainment" as long as it's audio. People have been listening to car radios without problems for many decades.
Well, actually, EVERYTHING increases the risk of accidents. And "without problems" is really an euphemism for "cars already kill thousands of people per year, so we really don't want to think real hard about what causes those >"... http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/...
Maybe it's the way you speak.
Yeah, you are speaking WRONG!
Computers are still too stupid.
One of the analogies I've seen at a speech on the subject went something like, "A computer can detect an object in the roadway, but it can't yet tell if it's a paper bag that can be safely run over or a rock that's apt to damage the car."
This was a few years ago, so I don't know if it's still true or not, but it does demonstrate the programming challenge in processing something exceedingly simple that even the most inexperienced human driver would be able.
But the computer will do the sensible thing and reduce speed, try to avoid the obstacle, be it a paper bag or a rock. One novel modality of violent-neighborhoods robberies has been "fill oranges or other fruit with nails and let them on the road; unaware drivers don't make any effort to avoid fruits on the road, get stuck with one or more flat tires, profit".
Another thing to think about is: the computer was not on in three of the four cases; yes, computers can be pretty stupid when they are not working.