Source or it didn't happen?
Source or it didn't happen?
The other day, I watched the new Bond. What has the world come to, if the plot of such a movie actually starts to sound realistic? Especially the bit about the own guys not being the good ones anymore?
Implying that membership of the EU is something that would matter to certain parts of the political establishment in Turkey in the long run. For some, re-establishment of the Sultanate seems to come way higher on the list of priorities.
Mind you, if you are Greece, and have the current Turkey of Mr. Erdogan as neighbour, you might also be inclined to find some way to buy arms. Lots of arms, actually.
Except that the emissions that VW has been cheating about are actually not that harmless. These particles are actually on the level of "why bother to force everyone to stop smoking, if cars go on emitting this other crap anyway?"
I didn't say anything about there not being a trade-off. All I said that these claims surfacing right now (of all possible times) is a pure tit-for-tat in a nice little trade war that has been going on for quite some time. With regard to the technical merit of the whole thing, you are spot in, IMHO.
Retaliation for the whole emissions standard thing.
Not that either is ok: neither should VW have cheated, nor the U.S. automakers ever have been so lax w/r to crash safety.
Do you mean the original performers? (Assuming they had the "right" to publicly perform the work to begin with.)
Sure, if you had a camera around when Bach first played his works, you'd by now be welcome to upload the file to youtube.
(ironic that anti-Americanism sells cars in the US.)
The U.S. car industry worked long and hard to achieve this elusive goal.
Not quite. There is also the added problem with Monsanto et al. that due to their technological prowess, they might be capable of introducing entirely artificial genetic modifications that prove to be disastrous in the wild, but would not really have been possible via natural means like the one observed with the wasps and caterpillars.
A good analogy would be that nuclear fission is fairly harmless under normal circumstances: there are plenty of radioactive isotopes around in nature in trace amounts, and in some select locations the background radiation actually turns out to be quite high, due to entirely natural causes. But none of this is really an issue in practice. Add human intervention to assemble enough of the stuff to get to critical mass, though, and you can easily ruin everyone's day with some artificial sunshine.
And besides, do you know how much POWER it would take in Standby to send that voice data CONTINUOUSLY over WiFi? You'd go through the battery in less than a day.
Think about it.
Good point. But then, if you read my posting carefully, I never said that I actually believed the new phone would be continuously listening. All I said was that in this day and age of boundless NSA spying and tracking, Apple should have gone out of their way to state exactly what you just said, in bold capitals, when they announced the feature in the first place. Because it does sound mighty creepy - and not everyone is a techie, and has a solid understanding that the creepy reading of the new feature would involve impractical device usage.
Amen to that. It is amazing that in this day and age, no one at Apple seems to have noticed just how bloody creepy this "feature" sounds.
While what you say is technically correct, you should also put this into perspective by adding that since Vietnam, the USAF has never had to fight a sustained air war against an even marginally organised adversary. So there were no real chances of getting gun kills in the first place, because all air wars fought since then were against opponents whose air defence capabilities got all but vaporised in the first 24h of conflict.
But the kicker is that there are other kinds of adversaries out there as well. Think Iran: if the U.S. had gone to war with those guys, it would most definitely not have been over in 24h (which is arguably why neither they nor the Israelis have bothered recently). In such a conflict, it is all but certain that dogfighting situations would have developed: situations in which fighters without guns on board would have looked just a silly as they did back in Vietnam.
Care to explain what is odd about it? If I wanted to say "more UV light reaches the ground", this is a reasonable term to use, no?
KAUST might be world famous, but for what exactly? For the most money spent on what amounts to, given the resources available to them, at best mediocre science output?
I can tell you that in my discipline (computer graphics), KAUST only has a reputation of an elephant graveyard for greedy elderly not-really-at-the-top-of-the-A-list academics who want to roll in some hard petrodollars before retirement. Science? Yeah, some is bound to happen if you lock up lots of people with long publication lists in a luxury ghetto in the desert. But a role model university? Hardly. More an elaborate joke of sorts.
Locals are forbidden to attend, or to enter the campus. Undergrads (all foreigners, of course) have to be paid hefty salaries to even show up.
Sound like Harvard? Sure does, right? Just vacuum up all that sand which tends to accumulate everywhere, and you will hardly be able to tell the difference...
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval