For an urgent crisis, I would propose food aid from other regions which is laced with birth control.

There would be no need for killing. It would severely limit the population in crisis from getting worse and over time. The region will have its population reduced to the point where aid is no longer needed.

With no aid needed, a sustainable population level will have been reached.

Opening the borders is absolutely the quick patch to the issue, but the long-term compounding of the issue to the point of catastrophic failure. While "wealth" may not be a zero-sum concept, planetary resources are absolutely zero-sum. It is possible to use these resources more efficiently, but there is a limit.

If a region's population has outstripped it's resources, it is up to that population to reduce it's own population. I do not advocate killing people, but I do advocate population controls.

Limiting the number of children to 2 per person can almost guarantee the population will reduce itself to a sustainable level.
It requires:
1. No new people are allowed in (closing borders)
2. Once a man or woman has had 2 children, they are medically prevented from having any more.
3. No fertility treatments are permitted (prevents attempts at having triplets and more at once)
*If triplets or more are expected, there should be no penalty. I do not advocate forcing someone to terminate a fetus because it would put them over the limit.

While I believe in the above statements, in my country it would never come to pass because a person's individual freedom outstrips long-term planning. (there is also a large number of people that would argue that it violates their religious freedom)

If the watch could:
-directly enhance my physical health - not just a health monitor
or
-fully replace my phone+wallet+keys - tethering to another device is not acceptable

*And:
should be capable of recharging in a matter of seconds, not minutes/hours
should be durable so the device does not fail after a bump into a table corner

As it stands today, *smart* watches are only a gimmick that will struggle to gain any traction. Smart watches will most likely never be able to compete vs smart phones. The physical dimensions required for the watch vs the phone will work to the phone's advantage every time.

My apologies for showing my ignorance. I watched some videos from a few days before the Slashdot story was posted - they were in a different language than English. I did not know how much analysis had been done (or how long they had been considering the evidence). I only stated possibilities that seem to have already been disproved. I'm glad you are here for all of us "internet detectives". I don't know what we would do without you doing your own internet detective work.

The timing of the object falling past him is not long after the chute fully deploys. I could easily see the object being popped of of the top of his chute and then falling past him.

Another possible explanation is that the object fell from either the plane or another skydiver (as he was first out of the plane). I would deem this unlikely, but far more likely than a meteorite.

There really isn't a great way to answer your question without a detailed analysis of your code.

There are more factors to the number of gates required for a given task than just the complexity of code. Clock speed can be a major factor in determining the number of gates required for a given algorithm. Another major factor is the part you are targeting. The number of design elements in FPGAs used can change just by targeting a different device family.

Even if your algorithm was small enough to fit into a part, there are other issues that could arise (such as not enough bandwidth or pins for your memory device(s)).

It sounds like the electronics manufacturer doesn't have the resources to determine the number of gates for you. It looks like your only avenue is to ask a third party to review your code (under NDA) to help you determine the approximate gate requirements. This won't be cheap.

I think you misunderstand, the ACA is the law - passed by congress and approved by the President. It does not conflict with the first amendment. Please re-read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The problem is that they merely oppose the use of birth control - it does not prevent them from their beliefs (unless you can cite the line in your religious text containing the words "birth control", then we'll talk). IF birth control were to be offered under the plan but never used by anyone, would it be any different than a plan that didn't offer birth control? The cost would be the same since the offer was never ever used.

What if an employer has a religion which believes in "faith healing" only. By requiring them to provide any health insurance would be wrong in your view. At this juncture, you have forced your employees to be without health insurance. This forces the employees into the same "faith healing" - effectively forcing your employees into that religious belief.

Meat consumption is not the problem, overpopulation is. If we had fewer mouths to feed, we would have fewer starving people. It is unfortunate that the planet is overpopulated and no one has the stomach to tackle this problem. Africa has a food problem (and probably always will). The US has begun consuming water far above the replacement rate. It won't be long until we can't drill wells deep enough since we have taken all of the water out.

What is the problem with a smaller population? The only argument I have ever heard was the lack of freedom to choose to have more children. If anyone can enlighten me why a reduced population is bad, please do.