Don't we have windows for passengers? I am sure autonomous cars will have passengers, right? Many magazines have filler articles to fill the space for publication and this seems like one. Even airplanes have windows where there is only thin air outside.
The criticism of website is unfair. Some people in some photos indeed look younger. Instead of criticizing AI algorithms, I would suggest take a test by using a random photo where you don't the true ages beforehand but have a way to find it out. Compare you guess with the website and see who does better. I tested several photos from my collection by asking my colleagues to guess the ages of my extended family members and the website. On an average the website was actually better than my colleagues.
This is absolutely useless metric. How about taking your clothes to dry cleaner or doing grocery using a plane? Cars are efficient compared to planes for the purposes where cars are used. Sometimes I go from SF to LA and I rarely see another car with a single passenger. This is the case where a plane can replace cars but even in this case planes would be inefficient once you take into account 3 passengers per car, 90% plane occupancy and take off, landing and airport infrastructure energy usage (even with the most modern energy efficient aircraft). So on case by case basis, planes will almost always lose if they try to replace the cars. Vice versa, cars may lose if they try to replace planes in many cases.
What about millions of people believing that a woman's cancer was cured by locket with Mother Teresa's photo. This is the lie being propagated by Vatican and no one bothered to do fact check. There are far more people on this earth who are "believers" and much fewer people who rely on logical reasoning.
TMobile provides free streaming to websites such as Pandora without counting that data as part of your data plan (see. This is being done for almost a year and no one is protesting.
The guy has been sold out. Climate skeptics are mostly sold out people or illiterate people. There argument is as illogical as the argument of any religious fanatic.
-- "Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years"
The warming data clearly indicates that rate of temperature of last 50 years is far higher than any other period in history
-- Increase in CO2 in atmosphere directly correlates net fossil fuel burned
-- All computer models including from climate skeptics show that earth will warm with increased CO2
-- "...we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years..."
It is not the emission, but the net emission. Today we generate more electricity from non-fossil fuel than all of electricity we used to generate just 40 years ago. So it is not going back 10000 years. With proper conservation and focus on renewable, it is possible to get rid of fossil fuel based energy altogether without going back or reducing population.
-- He claims that without such doomsday predictions, there want be a need for IPCC. However, IPCC was formed because scientific study prior to it pointed towards doomsday scenario.
-- "The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today."
This may be optimum (I don't know) level of CO2 if other variables are kept constant, such as temperature. However, at this level of CO2, there is not a single climate model in the world which predicts temperature increase less than 10C. At this level of increase, 70% of the land will be unhabitable without AC. Also, 70% of the land won't be able to sustain any plants which are in existence today.
-- "There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted."
Except for one single outlier year 1998, the temperature has steadily increased by 0.2C a decade.
I am not a theoretical physicist, but a neutron state could exist coupled with a neutron state outside the shielded detector (but within our universe). How do you distinguish that?
Semantics of kill or murder don't matter, the whole logic is flawed. Let us say "student cannot copy in exam". If a student copies in exam, he or she does not cease to be a student. Same way just because Christianity forbids murder does not mean that if a Christian murders then he of she ceases to be a Christian. Same for any other religion.
There is no such thing as completely mathematical proof. All mathematical proof require some axioms (fundamental assumptions) and all proofs depend on those axioms. You can't prove something mathematically to someone who refuse to accept your axioms (and there is nothing wrong with it). For example, if I don't accept Euclid's 5th postulate, you can't prove me that sum of triangle is 180 degrees. The same goes for this proof. There are set of axioms and what the author is saying is that "if you accept my axioms, then" "i have a complete mathematical proof...". The title of this story eliminates the first part to sensationalize the second part.
You don't need to charge your landline phone (except wireless) but you pretty much need to charge your cell phone daily or at least weekly. How many people would like to go back to landline? Apple watch has similar physical dimensions as regular watch and they both show times. Similarities end there. The apple watch can do many more things that regular watch cannot and it needs battery for those functions. If you are happy with what your watch does, ignore apple watch (I am going to do that), but many folks may like to have one.
If they're willing to pass the 3.5% savings on to me, that would at least give me some incentive to want to use it.
You didn't read my last line. You won't get any discount, it will only increase retailers profit. They are not going to charge you less for using CurrentC.
Microsoft charges for upgrades which Apple does not. Over long run, this adds up to the cost of machine for customers. For MS, this is costly too as it has to maintain multiple versions of Windows. I think, microsoft should have option of unlimited upgrade either as a single charge or a reasonable subscription service. That will keep most customers (at least premium customers) up to date all the time.
There are several reasons I use CC despite the fact that they charge about 3.5% to retailers.
-- I get 1-2% cash back
-- Extra safety: Last year, I booked my hotel rooms through one of the travel websites. I got the confirmation email which said non-smoking but when I reached to the hotel, the room was smoking and non-smoking vacancy were all suites at extra charge which I had to pay. The travel website refused to accept the fault initially denying that I had requested non-smoking and finally saying that non-smoking is just a request. I talked to my CC company and they refunded me the extra charge and reduced that from the original payment to the travel website. Will your bank do this?
-- Extra warranty: Once I had a $2000 laptop which broke 11 months later when traveling to India. The manufacturer told me to ship to USA location and told me that it can only be returned back to India and it will take 7-10 weeks. I decided to send them for repair when I came back to USA. Unfortunately, that was 12 months later and they refused to fix it under warranty. Fortunately, I had paid with CC which extends warranty by another year. Will your bank do this?
-- My CC limit is like my overdraft protection. Banks charge monthly service fee for this.
-- When my CC was hacked and someone tried to use it, I got a call from my CC company. They immediately canceled fake txn and issued me new card. Good luck if similar things happens with your bank money
I never carry forward balances, so never pay finance charges or interest. I still think CC fees are high, but the alternate solution of using ACH is good enough. Besides it will only increase retailers profit as they are not going to give you discount for using ACH.
I sincerely feel that microsoft stock is very high and is unsustainable over a long period. I cannot sell my stock while still on microsoft board. By leaving the board, I will be able to sell the stock before it crashes. Why do you think, I made you CEO in the first place?
Your former boss.
Plus the amount of money to be made will be less as you already have Panama canal. The average price will fall which will reduce Panama canal's profit but for them there is not much cost involved and hence the impact will be minimal. However, the lower rate can bankrupt Nicaragua canal. I wonder if they are self financing or are they able to get debt for such a risky project.