I mean even just in terms of pragmatic emotionless corporation logic.
They introduced a series of cars that were WAY ahead of anything the competition could produce in terms of price/power/efficiency and seriously did not expect that somebody would want to analyze that magical engine to see how it works? (and find out it's cheating and drop the bomb in a couple of years to maximize the damage). Even if none of the competitors have anything to do with the reveal (which I find unlikely), that should have been the first thing VW execs should have expected!
I sympathize with your sentiment about human to human interaction, but it misses the point. If you've been doxxed it means people are trying to hurt you. The more details they have on you, the more they can hurt you. You can get death threats including things like getting a grenade mailed to you. You can get trouble with the police - like getting swatted or accused of sexual offences etc. People can call your employer/bank/spouse to bad mouth you or call your utility provider to have them disconnect you (cause you are leaving the country for 6 months etc.).
There are a lot of ways you can fuck somebody's life up just with the real life information you have on them. I'm happy for you that you don't have these kind problems and hope you never will, but don't assume nothing bad can happen just because it never happened to you.
The strongest lasers at the moment are approaching 10^18 Watt - but concentrated in one direction, I assume this would be distinctly detectable at a distance of 50 light years by our current technology (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). But this means a civilization would have to specifically aim a massive communication device at us. You cannot expect radiation of this scale as a waste product of omnidirectional broadcasting system.
I remember reading that digital communication is virtually undetectable at galactic distances
I think it we should not expect to detect it even on interstellar distances.
Take for instance the 51 Pegasi - it's the nearest Sun-like star you can see from the northern hemisphere. It's some 50 light years away and you can barely see it with a naked eye (you'll have to go outside of a populated area in order to see it due to light pollution). That dim spot of light is what is left of the 4*10^26 Watts of power that was generated by that star. The problem is that even atomic bombs pale in comparison to that output - even if there was a civilisation on Pegasi 51 communicating using Fat Man bombs, we would be lucky to detect single fotons out of each pulse...
As long as you drop it "gently"...
From Xperia blog:
Sony devices that are tested for their waterproof abilities are placed gently inside a container filled with tap water and lowered to a depth of 1.5 metres.After 30 minutes in the container, the device is gently taken out and its functions and features are tested.
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb.
I think you are confusing vegans with frutarians, who are just a small subset of vegans. Vegan diet can range from "mostly protein" (vegan athletes) to "just carbs until my children die horribly" extreme frutarians.
I've never worked for a company that had a significant manufacturing component, but I kind of wonder how the blue/white collar split works there for the people who setup, maintain and manage seriously complicated factory systems.
Manufacturing does not have many traditional blue collar workers anymore. Nowdays manufacturing means one of two things - either you are controlling automated systems that are assembling mass produced products (like cars or toasters) or you are assembling really complicated and expensive pieces of technology by hand (like MR scanners). Both of those require high amount of expertise and are well payed.
The few simple manial jobs that are left are disappearing - if your work does not require empathy, creativity or good analytical thinking, you will be replaced by a machine sooner or later
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well.
That still remains to be seen. Of course, it cannot turn as well as the best fighters and it can't truck as much tonnage as the best bombers - but that much was clear from the get go. The big selling point of the F-35 is that it can see and destroy the enemy/target before the enemy can see it. If that really turns out to be the case then it will outperform all of the other aircraft. Even the A-10.
The reason A-10 is built so robustly is that it needs to be really close to its targets for direct visual identification. The JSF people say the F-35 does not need to be in visual range as it can detect even well concealed targets electronically and destroy them from far away. It will not be exposed to small arms fire and it will not need to loiter too much (the enemy will not see it whether it's there or not).
Well, that's the theory at least. Remains to be seen whether it will stand the test of real deployment. Until then it's too soon to declare it inferior.
The astronomical cost of the F-35 means that 1) we won't make that many of them and 2) we won't deploy that many of them.
Depends on how you are calculating the costs. If you consider just the production costs, it's not that expensive. If you take all the development and testing costs from day 1 and divide them by the amount of planes produced, the costs are indeed astronomical - at the moment. The more you produce though, the less expensive each unit becomes. And if it really turns out to be THE multirole fighter for the next 40 years, the costs per piece will be extremely manageable.
Not making many of them does not make sense.
The fact that you don't even read what you post here is quite indicative. None of the studies on basal metabolic rate shows anything contrary to my previous statement that any time people in controlled environment reduced their calorie intake, they lost weight or to the general notion that nutrition is governed by laws of thermo dynamics on the macro level.
As I don't expect you to progress beyond ad hominems at this point, I am not going to waste any more time with your posts. But if you want to be taken seriously next time, please learn at least the basics. I highly recommend this series of lectures which are a great introduction in nutrition science for laymen like you.
I don't even really want to argue with you, because I'm sensing that you're going to be one of *those* people who get irrationally butthurt when science is against you.
Well, I will be happy to see some "science", but right now there is one of us citing a rigorous study by a reputable scientific institution and another one an unverifiable personal account of something that had supposedly happened years (decades?) ago.
Brain off-line, please wait.