In Ontario, Canada, there's a toll highway, the 407, that works by having cameras at every entrance/exit to the highway. Using these, they log where you enter and exit the highway and send you a bill in the mail based on how far you went on the highway.
So, they could put something on every road that leads in and out of the state that could simply communicate with a device in the car that adds up only the miles that were driven in-state. It would stop counting the miles once you drive through an exit, then start again once you drive back into Oregon.
Then they wouldn't need GPS to track each person's actual whereabouts. And the people who love to circumvent the law would have a device to hack.
1) Gravitation strong enough to pull it into a nearly round shape, but not strong enough to start fusion
2) Does not orbit another planet
This would include Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake. But it would also include Rouge Panets, which aren't planets according to the official planet definition.
But how is this any less fair than Rogers (and I'm sure Bell) who is currently offering discounts for customers who sign-up for multiple services including internet, home phone, and cable?
or the rain
This wouldn't work for me. I'd constantly be back and forth on whether I should use "or" or "nor".
Fact 2: The NASA team experienced a similar thrust
From the NASA article:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust.
Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.
I don't read this as a "similar thrust" but rather as a non-zero but different thrust. So, yes, there's an error in the experiment causing the non-zero thrust, but there was still enough of a difference between the two experiments to lead them to the conclusion that something is going on.
Honestly, if someone could explain this one, I'm really interested to know. Even if it's some logical fallacy of mine
(I'm not a physicist, so sorry if this sounds stupid)
In the past, I've tried to merely restrict calories and eat what the food pyramid recommends... plenty of "healthy whole grains" and limiting fats. I lost a tiny bit of weight and was miserable and hungry
I don't know why people seem surprised that when they restrict calories (more specifically, eating less than they use), they're miserable and hungry. It seems obvious to me that your body would resist a lower calorie diet by sending out the hunger feelings/pains. And being hungry usually makes people irritable, so of course you could be miserable.
I went to the gym every day but was tired and listless mosf of the time.
So there's already a low calorie diet, and you're using up extra calories on top of that (and a lot of extra calories if you're going to the gym every day). Of course you'd feel tired, you're body has to get into a lower energetic state to live off of the seemingly low calorie input/output ratio.
I have a lot of assumptions here that I could be way off on, but it seems to me that you were just over doing the amount of calorie reduction or else you were exercising too much. That or you have an untreated thyroid problem.
I also don't get why people (not you, necessarily) think that you can lose the weight super fast, when it might have taken 10/20 years to gradually put it on. We should expect it to take just as long to take off the weight. Sure, you can speed up the weight loss through various methods, but people should keep things in the perspective of how long it took to put on the weight in the first place.
Oh wait, that's earth... Kill the aliens!
If only 1% of the students that are hired by Google are female but Google ends up with a 50% female work force, I think there's discrimination.
Sorry, that came out poorly. What I meant was, if only 1% of the students in the educational programs that Google hires from are female but Google ends up with a 50% female workforce.
What they should be doing is comparing these diversity statistics against how diverse their labour pool is. If only 1% of the students that are hired by Google are female but Google ends up with a 50% female work force, I think there's discrimination.
But really, I think society needs to do something about removing any barriers that exist that are preventing interested minorities from entering certain fields of study.
I imagine that at least some humans would survive an extinction event, but I doubt a planet with a severely damaged ecosystem from such an event would be able to sustain the lives of 7 billion of us.
If it is generally accepted that a car can pass a bike without changing lanes because there is enough space to do so, then that means that there is also enough space for me to pass on the right without changing lanes. If cars can't pass on the left unless they change lanes, then I can't and don't pass on the right without changing lanes.
Is this technically illegal to pass within the same lane? Sure, but seeing as the status quo allows it, it must not be that big of a deal. Is this unsafe? No. Because as I mentioned, there's clearly enough room to do so. Stop getting worked up about your need to go first through an intersection when you're going to pass the cyclist like 30 seconds later anyways. And if you're really just that upset by seeing other people break traffic laws, look at yourself first. Do you ever pass a bike in the same lane? Do you always come to a COMPLETE STOP at a stop sign ? (I don't mean a rolling stop) Do you ever go above the posted speed LIMIT?