How about buses, trains, boats, and airplanes?
What part of "affordable, on-demand, point to point, weather-resistant transportation" did you not understand?
The smart thing would be to drop the instrument package and then burn the envelope
The envelope is made of polyethylene, I wonder if it's chlorinated. in that case, dioxin. also, it's not particularly biodegradable, so you need complete combustion even if it were safe to burn
Oh, a "glitch"? Really? That's the explanation, right? That's all we need to know?
It's probably all that is publicly known at this time. But the urge to be first with a story leads to a tendency to fill in the details later.
There's no good reason to do that, you can run old linux on an SBC and get it in a teensy package.
About fifteen years ago I had a Macintosh Centris 660AV running Linux, just as an experiment.
I had netbsd on a IIci with a cache card. Oh, the novelty! Then I binned it. Because it was just uselessly slow. Hilarity: My first Sun machine was a 3/260, which had a slower CPU and graphics than the IIci. Had more RAM though (24MB instead of 8)
IIRC the hottest 68k in a DIP package was the '020
I do my DTP on a Pentium IV with a 4:3 screen
If you do any notable amount of DTP, you should be investing in a big pivot display, anyway. I got mine used, it's 1920x1200 and it's pretty to look at all day. But I seldom pivot it, because I usually work with facing pages, and widescreen is awesome for that. But I could
The move from 4x3 to 16x9 was already a big loss - more scrolling for no advantage except using the PC as a TV. Don't know about 1x1 but the old 5x4 worked just fine for me.
I don't know about you, but every time I want to do something big and complicated it involves sidebars and/or apps side-by-side. Also, my 16:10 25.5" IPS has a pivot, you insensitive clod! I don't use it.
When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given.
No, you won't — at least not from the FDA or USDA. That's because the "food pyramid" was designed on a specious basis, the idea that eating fat makes you fat. But humans have known for centuries that eating carbs make you fat. And on the basis of one NIH study which showed that taking drugs to reduce your cholesterol levels also reduced your risk of heart disease, we were told that eating cholesterol raised cholesterol levels though there was no evidence for that, and that eating carbs was the way forward though there was no evidence for that.
So no, your central point is nonsense. Scientists actually knew that the ideas put forth were bullshit. Now, doctors didn't know. That's because they're not half as clever as people think they are, but they like to sound clever, so they simply repeated what the government told them.
I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.
Well enough for what purpose?
The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations.
The reality is that the people pushing those recommendations knew they were bullshit 30 years ago. How can you say they were a failure? They accomplished their given goal of pushing money towards Big Pharma and the processed foods industry at the expense of the health of the American public. We don't need a smoking gun to understand that there could have been no benevolent goal because the science did not support the recommendations. Since we live under capitalism, we simply follow the money. Who got rich, and at whose expense?
We still let cereal manufacturers pitch their wares as "heart-healthy" - what a joke.
Yes, and meanwhile the milk that goes on the cereal still carries a note about how the FDA has stated that milk from cows given rBGH is just as good as the real thing and you can't tell the difference, even though it's been shown in court since that it isn't and that you can tell the difference, for fear of a lawsuit from Monsanto. It's crony capitalism all the way down.
"Calories in, calories out" is given as a good first order approximation of reality for the purposes of weight loss (at least whenever I've seen it).
No, no it is not. It is completely relevant where those calories come from. Eating 2500 kcal of carbohydrates and eating 2500 kcal of fats and proteins will have dramatically different effects on the body, especially as pertains to weight loss.
The caloric rating of food is based on setting it on fire and measuring the heat produced. Why would anyone believe that this has anything to do with what it will do inside of your body?
At work I've got two 2560x1440 displays (27" dells). I run one horizontal, and one vertical. It works out pretty well.
a billions dollars on simple solar panels.
I think it was entirely appropriate to work out how much power they needed, then provide a power supply capable of achieving that, using materials that were acceptable to the people paying the bills (NB : not America, in the largest part). And they did it using some of the most sophisticated solar panels to go into space.
If they had used a Pu-238 RTG (which for political reasons may have been sourced from our neighbours - the Russians), and some 60-90kilos of instrument weight had been rejected from the orbiter to allow for the increased mass of the lander+RTG, and the lander had then landed, bounced, landed upside down, and achieved only 10% of the science package, would you have like to defend the RTG decision to the court of public opinion?
Ah, hindsight - the only 100% perfect telescope!