We have had C64 emulators for a while.
The Raspberry PI is more than enough to do the work of a 30 year old personal
computer.
It isn't really that interesting the fact that it has been done.
But for the person who did it, I would say it was pretty cool that they tried.
And people try their best to ignore the two most probable extinction scenarios, a nuclear exchange or an escaped/launched bioweapon.
They don't need a Saturn 5 equivalent for a moon base, and in fact it would probably be counterproductive to build one for that mission. Multiple smaller launches should be staged and assembled in LEO, then boosted onto the Lunar trajectory. That was actually one of the configurations contemplated for the Apollo missions, but was rejected early on because the docking techniques had not yet been developed. If the "end of the decade" deadline had not been looming NASA would probably have gone that route and ended up with a much better mission profile.
Actually they're sold the cheap stuff by contractors, since by and large they don't have the real-world experience to know the difference.
Of course you could always go the "large company CEO's office" route, which frequently is a steel-cored door weighing several hundred pounds, coupled with Kevlar between the drywall and the wall studs.
The star system's population sending "Heelllppp!" is a good sign.
Depending on how deep in the Earth's shadow the effect can be more or less pronounced. I saw one eclipse where the moon was pretty close to black several years ago, apparently this one will be deeper in the Earth's shadow so will be lit up better.
I suspect the reason that this one is getting so much publicity (it's not an uncommon event) is because there are several moderately popular books out about supposed biblical prophecies with that title. There's also a detective novel, a vampire novel and a werewolf novel with that name, and some others. Something about the name drew a lot of attention on Farcebook too.
So does Michigan.
Actually she has mentioned some vaccine method that were safe.
There is NO vaccine that is 100% safe. There is no drug that is 100% safe. Does not exist and probably never will.
Poeple against her have come out and said those vaccine distribution methods were safer however they cost most and would make distribution harder.
When you make distribution harder (whether due to cost or technical complications) you make it less likely to be administered and thus you get worse results overall. The best vaccine is the one that prevents the greatest number of infections, not the one that has the fewest side effects.
I'd put a random distribution of holes in his worthless head!
I believe you mean psuedorandom. (*bang*)
Would they get the same distribution with the same initial conditions? No, of course the wouldn't because quantum uncertainty underlays the interactions between component particles of the experiment. So it's a nondeterministic random distribution, not a pseudorandom distribution.
Minor pedantic quibble: some vaccines are unsafe for a very small subset of the population, mainly people with compromised immune systems or severe allergies to components of the vaccines
Minor pedantic quibble: ALL vaccines are unsafe for some subset of the population. No drug is 100% safe for all people.
When I rode the train in to work this morning, the app failed miserably when I tried to find the best place to park it in the rail yard. Also, the conductor's goons stopped me from getting to the locomotive.
They knocked over a single pin and said that that was representative of any potential link with autism. They then went on to throw balls to represent all the different diseases that vaccines protect against. But the "cost" of all vaccines was only counted once. The "benefit" of vaccine protection was counted dozens of times.
It's an imperfect analogy but they are generally right. They are talking about two things. One is herd immunity. When you are vaccinated you not only cannot get the disease but you cannot transmit it to others either. This means you aren't just protecting yourself once, you are protecting others repeatedly. The other thing they are talking about is the fact that you probably aren't exposed to each virus just once. Odds are good you'll come in contact with a widely spread virus from multiple sources. So by immunizing once you are protected repeatedly. The cost of each vaccine (collectively) is a one time expense but the benefit of it is incurred repeatedly down the line.
It is FAR more economically efficient to vaccinate and prevent infection altogether than to treat infection after they occur. Not only do you save on medical expenses and reduce suffering but you also recoup a lot of opportunity cost from productivity that otherwise would have been lost.
The article makes it clear that it's PDT, but even without reading the article, the fact that the link is to the LA Times and the summary is talking about the "West Coast" should have been a good indication of the time zone in question.
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn
