Unless by "stealing musing" you mean actually stealing physical media, it isn't theft. That's like taking a person's picture being called kidnapping.
Who pays who and how much is based on supply and demand, not anybody's ideology of what should be free. It's why sometimes I have to pay to rent a room for special events, and other times people pay me to show up to do effectively the same event.
It's like me getting a taxi from the airport to my hotel. The fare will be the same to me either way, but the driver will take me directly to my hotel if the hotel has an agreement with him, otherwise the driver will drive around aimlessly for two hours. There's nothing I can do about it even though I'm the one paying for the taxi ride because the government gave that taxi company a near monopoly in that city. Now all the taxis start taking people to the hotels that pay them on the back end and when I want to get a ride to my family's house there isn't a taxi available for an hour. When a new hotel opens with a great business model that can deliver lower prices and a great experience, they can't compete because the ride to and from there is so slow that they will get bad reviews and nobody will want to come.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that places you go on the internet already pay for their own hosting and internet access. I supposedly pay my local ISP for access to any destination I want to go to on the internet, and I shouldn't be slowed down because I want to go to certain sites. ISPs should be in the business of passing packets around in the most efficient way for their customers. Giving them two sets of customers (one on the front end and one on the back) is clearly a conflict of interest.
The article makes it sound like it doesn't matter what size or mass.
Parameters: Radius 650m, Circumference 4084m, Period 7560s, Speed 0.5157m/s, Mass 2.1e12kg
The numbers are so small that if you take the speed they are moving of 0.5157m/s tangental to the surface and point it straight upwards and accelerate it with the gravity of 0.0003315m/s/s then it would come to a stand-still in somewhere over 1600seconds at a height somewhere over 800m and fall back towards the asteroid.
I don't know the maths to figure out the exact values since they vary so greatly with distance, but the difference in centrifugal and gravitational force is only 0.00007765m/s/s. That means that something weighing 100 TONS on earth would have a net upward force of about 1.6 pounds. Of course you can't treat the asteroid as discrete frictionless atoms. What holds a dirt clod together overcoming the full force of earth's gravity to maintain it's shape?
So if you were attached to the surface and dropped a rock it seems to me that it should continue upwards and orbit the asteroid at some altitude. It doesn't surprise me though that since dust can stick to my ceiling and ceiling fan blades even when they're whirring around that this asteroid can stick together.
Please read the "skeptical" article with a skeptical eye. The poor guy goes through all the work to get the specs and highlights the minimum wind speed rate of 4m/s for the turbines to work. He also links to an excellent page showing wind patters and letting you see wind speed across the country.
But then, he goes off the rails. He can "tell from his own experience" that the wind doesn't always blow that fast and "look at all the blue, which means low wind speed". The big problem is that he didn't go one extra step and actually click on the map to check wind speeds. Almost all of the blue is above the required 4m/s for the turbines. The green is actually too fast. The maximum wind speeds for the turbines are 25m/s and the green areas are over 30.
Poor guy, how embarassing for him. That could have been avoided with a few clicks.
To do this, it makes an extra request to the server before requesting the appropriate image size.
This seems completely wrong, how did it get rated 5-Informative? One of the primary purposes is to use less bandwidth. Responsive images just tells the browser to load a different image based on screen size or pixel density, there's no extra request to the server.
Supporting a traditional definition of marriage is not the same as treating people with disrespect
Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Oppressing people is fine as long as they're the ones you think should be oppressed or because oppressing them is traditional?
All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. If 90% of the country was gay and forbade you from marrying a person of the opposite gender because marriage had always been for same-sex couples, would you feel oppressed? If a gay person's spouse could visit them in the hospital, could claim tax write-offs and could inherit easily from their spouse and make medical decisions for them, but you were denied those things because your marriage was considered nontraditional, would you feel oppressed?
A new 27"@2560*1440 costs about US$500 and up.
I got my 27" 2560x1440 monitor on ebay for under $280 (shipped) a few months ago, prices seem to be a little higher now but not that bad. The ~109dpi gives a slightly smoother image also (24" 1080p is ~92 and 30" 2560x1600 is ~100). I hadn't noticed pixelation on my other monitors before but side-by-side it's easy. 4k@28" is overkill dpi-wise unless you're putting your face 6" from the monitor to get that surround feel
Yes it's the closest approach, but it's still going to be 3.2 million km away. If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the asteroid would be 560 feet away and only 1/5 the size of a pixel in an iPhone retina display. The 0.017 arcsecond angular resolution requires a 6.6 meter telescope to see more than just a point of light.. And as for "hurtling past Earth" as some reports say, if it were heading straight for earth at 27,000 miles per hour it would take 73.5 hours or more than 3 days to get here. In our scaled example it would be travelling at a whopping 0.00255 km/h, under 1/10th the speed of a garden snail. The asteroid should have close to the same visibility for many hours around the time of closest approach. Right now (5 hours before) it could at most be 2% smaller through a telescope..
I think it's cool, I just wish the articles wouldn't hype so much and would include more context.
Of course the real loss there is Nickelodeon.
Of all these channels, the only one I really care about is Comedy Central, but I might watch something on Spike every once in a while. Do you think Viacom would be doing this if we could buy individual channels? They make money from ads which they bombard us with more and more every year. I think Viacom would be happy that their ads are getting to more households. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for BET Gospel and CMT Pure Country when all I want to watch is South Park.