Why? We switch units all the time, even when doing this "science" thing that so many seem to think only uses SI: eV, barn, torr, atm, etc. Suck it up, and learn to do conversions....
I've always found it interesting that "modem" and "modern" are so easy to confuse in most fonts....
In undergrad, I typically did 3 hours of DiffyQ homework *per night*
That's what I noticed first
Check your math
Of course, potatoes can't be produced from material free of radioisotopes..... http://www.livestrong.com/article/303878-a-list-of-the-most-radioactive-foods/
Potatoes contain gobs of potassium, which has a naturally occurring radioactive isotope (K40). Bananas have the same issue. Unlike C14, K40 is primordial, so everywhere you have potassium, you have essentially the same concentration of K40.
Well, we might be idiots, but that's not the problem. It's a set of three very large superconducting coils, custom wound on-site in the 1990s, built into cryostats that can't be disassembled, and being moved as a set of monolithic units. They were never designed or intended to be moved, and significant engineering work has gone into determining the mechanical loads they can be safely subjected to.
Both routes were considered, but I'm not sure why one was chosen over the other. Presumably input from the companies bidding on the contract had something to do with it.
As I mentioned up above, it turns out to be loads cheaper to move the experiment to Fermilab than to upgrade the accelerator complex at Brookhaven to do the experiment there.
We usually prefer airplanes to buses (lots cheaper, given the time value of money.....)
The cost of running the experiment again at Brookhaven (which had been our initial idea) would be significantly higher than moving it to Fermilab, because of the cost of required accelerator upgrades at Brookhaven. Fermilab has protons to spare, and the experiment fits into the larger muon program at the Lab. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/experiments/intensity/
The Steubenville convictees are legally juveniles. Society has decided that we don't throw the book at them. Had they been adults, they would not be getting sent to a juvenile facility, and they would not be getting out in so short a time. It's hardly an apt comparison.
Computer languages are meant to be read and written by people, yes. Your complaint, however, that "C++ really falls down", coming from someone who admittedly doesn't know the language and library, is a bit like me complaining that "French really falls down" when I haven't bothered to learn French. Or that idiomatic English constructs like "I couldn't care less" (which means exactly the opposite of its literal meaning) imply that "English really falls down". I can't read Lisp well
Most of the projects I'm involved in use C++ because it excels at helping us to control the complexity of the massive applications we write and use every day. If we tried to write that code in C, we'd be rending our garments and gnashing our teeth. Use the right tool for the job. C++ isn't the right tool for every job, but neither is C or Python or any other computer language.
The jury is the "finder of fact": does the evidence show that the defendant did A, B, or none of the above? If the jury finds that the facts support a particular conclusion, then the penalty provided by "law" is applied. If the jury finds "A", then penalty A' gets applied, etc. Neither juries nor judges have unfettered power in this process: judges are typically not permitted to rule on matters of "fact", and juries are typically not permitted to rule on matters of "law". Checks and balances....
Shutting down the Tevatron with the turn-on of the LHC was the right move, from my perspective in the field. The Tevatron would NEVER have reached the magic 5sigma threshold for discovery confirmation, something the LHC will do easily if the Higgs is really near 125GeV. And running the Tevatron isn't free: it's tens of millions of dollars a year, and many hundreds of man-years of effort. This funding would have been essentially "lost", but more importantly, the lost man-years would have decimated many other projects that Fermilab and the high energy physics community considered much more valuable than an additional year or two of Tevatron running. It would also have delayed for years the development of new accelerator projects at Fermilab that are considered extremely high priority within the field. These issues are why the shutdown decision was taken in the first place. Tevatron was a great machine for thirty plus years. But time marches on, and we don't keep high cost infrastructure running based just on nostalgia....
We've been cooking bread for at least ten thousand years before thermostatic control came along, so I can understand that not being part of the design requirements.