Well, a large part of my job is to develop software (although usually not the pointy-clicky/touchy if-this-then-that type), so your comment is both wrong and very useless.
> the critical question for a programming language is less whether it is itself open source and more whether it's feasible to make open source software with it.
I have to disagree - a language which only has one single implementation which is closed source means that the developers using it is locked in and completely at the mercy of the owners of this implementation. Just like with VB6.
I would never consider a closed language for anything else than small, short-lifetime hacks which I do not intend to maintain.
Considering its real purpose is to carry multi-megaton nuclear warheads into Pakistan, recovery is really not high on the priority list.
Yes, that occurred to me too - the stuff they are testing sounds closer to the US hypersonic flight stuff than a "space shuttle":
The mission, which will attract global interest, will evaluate technologies such as hypersonic flight, autonomous landing, powered cruise flight and hypersonic flight using air-breathing propulsion.
They seem to get laid once, after which the woman runs away. Or she smells the dork long before something happens. And hearing the stuff that comes out of MRA's mouths, I can't blame her...
> Instead I think the role of the truck driver will change, with less emphasis on managing the controls and more on the strategies involved.
Sure. That job can be done from behind a desk tough, managing not just one single truck but dozens of them, at the same time. With the added benefit of being home for dinner (or breakfast, if you get the night shift).
Trucks have the advantage to planes, that in case of a malfunction, it is much easier to pull over and stop. A service car could then be dispatched, i.e. a technician who comes out and fixes the problem, or a tow / replacement tractor if it can't be fixed.
But overall, much fewer people are needed.
Checkin, on a train? If it is like any long-distance train I've ever taken, you buy the ticket on-line or at the station, then board the train. Once aboard, you stuff your luggage into a rack a few meters from your seat, which is usually pretty big and comfy, at least compared to air travel. Time spent at station is more like 15 minutes, including buffer time (there is usually another train in 1 hour anyway, so you don't need 2 hours of buffer time).
2-3 hours vs. 5-6 means it is easily doable over a weekend, or for a day of meetings, vs. mostly for longer visits / needing a hotel for a meeting.
In my experience, you spend way less time at endpoints (terminals and terminal->center transportation) with trains than planes.
That of course depends a lot of how much you actually drive. Personally, I probably use less than that pr. year* - but then I hardly use it during the summer (biking to work is quicker, more comfortable, and more flexible), and diesel fuel is very cheap, especially pr. km. If you need to use it more, or use more/more expensive fuel, then of course the costs rise. Especially if you also have a new and expensive car (depreciation)...
* Uh, no - I forgot to add highway charges. Which just for this weekend (600 km return trip to somewhere in Italy, passing through the Mt. Blanc tunnel) was probably close to 200 euro; fuel was less than 50...
Also, I was kind of surprised about chemistry being mentioned by the poster, as this is a very female-dominated field here in Norway (almost as much as biology/biochem etc., which I would not be surprised if they soon start using quotas to get more men).
While I agree with your point, I would like to point out that dental care is not public in Norway after you are 18 (unless your teeth are falling out from a medical condition / cancer treatment etc.).
That would be HID, not LED...
On the other hand, they should brake much less often than bulbs.
No, not really - integrated DAB is something which is usually an optional extra. Of course, this change is not really news, so you can probably say that those who bought a new car in the last 5 years without DAB or the possibility to easily install it, brought it upon themselves.
So it's the 10 year old cars which are the real problem. I have one of those myself - the radio is also the trip computer etc., and the climate controls use the same display. It works very nicely, but I have no idea how to install DAB without using one of those FM transmitters (= crappy quality, I do that to use Spottify). It's made by GM's German division, so I guess most of the electronics is the same as you would find in their US cars of similar date.
PS: DAB is not the same as XM/sirius! It works with terrestrial transmitters, just like FM.
I don't think they use the same frequency...
Rather the opposite - nice cars (or anything newer than 10-15 years) has integrated headunits, which is basically what kimvette says. On old/simple cars, the radio was just a radio, sitting in a DIN socket.
However, there are aftermarket solutions, some nicer than other. And of course, the nice solutions are krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkr...