"UP TO two times tougher than competitive glass" "survives drops UP TO 80 percent of the time"
Just meaningless weasel words.
It's not meaningless at all. It means exactly what it says: The glass is somewhere between negative infinity times and 2 times tougher than competitive glass. And it survives drops somewhere between 0 percent and 80 percent of the time.
So be sure and take those figures into consideration when considering buying the product.
Back in the 90s our company first got 17" desktop monitors. The size and resolution allowed us to work efficiently and without need of more screen real estate even in a single monitor system. Now, we have dual monitors, one of which is usually 24" or larger, and there is not enough screen real estate. This is due to application real estate bloat and waste.
Oh, God, I said something positive about Apple.
I doubt the Arab nations are as freaked out about depleting their oil as we are about depleting our helium.
This kind of reminds me about a time at work where we had 20 terabytes on a SAN, most of which was unused. One of my projects was using about 300 GB on the SAN and IT was freaking out about it. "The storage costs $10,000 per terabyte!". My thinking is that it costs $10,000 per terabyte to leave it sitting there unused as well. What did we buy the system for if we are not going to let people use it?
Exactly. In English, "Swap Foo for Bar" means you start with Foo and replace it with Bar.
Which English? When I see "Swap Foo for Bar" that means wherever I see Bar, I replace it with Foo.
When I see "Swap Foo with Bar" that means wherever I see Foo, I replace it with Bar.
Employees are also individuals. You can't just say a Software Engineer is worth $75k, take it or leave it. No two Software Engineers are alike, and they should be paid according to their contribution to the company, not according to a standard wage. If there is no benefit to outperforming, then the trend will lead to performing just enough to not get fired, if I may borrow from "Office Space".
The solar panels are "green" technology.
I heard through the grapevine that the solar panels narrowly beat out using wind power but they were worried about the wind encountered at such high velocities and the possibility of killing birds.
And the landing didn't work because the regenerative braking failed.
Er you mean logical and obviously superior?
It would be superior, but not logical. Using a nuke would have doubled the cost of the mission, due to handling costs and higher payload mass. Since the ESA has a fixed budget, doubling the cost means half as many missions. Rather than a few expensive "superior" probes, it is better to launch more missions, and live with the fact that some of them will fail.
Ah, so it is like an IT project, where you need X amount of computing power, and request it, management gives you half of X and you go ahead and try to make the project work anyway, and it will fail and the company will be out the money and have no project. And you get fired and everybody on the internet says "why didn't he use X instead. Everybody knows it takes X to make that work."