What these companies do is serially violate Wikipedia policies while padding with fluff or outright lies. I'm not against paid editing itself, and a few people do it without problems, but the more known companies have methods they use are purely deceptive and they cause a great deal of expense and problems because of the thousands of sockpuppets they create, and the hit and run methods. They are not doing this in an open and honest way, whatsoever.

Trust me. If I know anything, this I know, and I know it first hand from actually working the SPI cases.

Something the summary fails to point out is this will not work with existing LCD monitors. The monitors will have to have special hardware that supports G-Sync.

Standard LCD monitors and TVs update the pixels the same way old CRTs do. They start from the top and update line by line until they reach the bottom.

It is actually a little surprising they haven't done something like this for phone and laptop screens yet. The only thing that stopped them from doing it with the first LCDs was compatibility with existing video signals.

They are including the "base salary" of Senior Engineer and lead positions.

The distance between seats isn't changing, just the thickness of the seats.

It depend on the commercial companies goals. If their goal is to persuade the consumer of politician to buy their product (ie drugs or environmental products) then their motivation is to lie about results.

BUT....

If the research is going to be incorporated into a product in which the results are easily verified they will seek the truth. For example semi-conductors. I don't know much about how semi-conductors or display screens are made. But the company that figures out the chemistry and physics and make a faster or better screen will be rewarded based on how good their product is. They can try to lie and say their technology is superior but if anyone can easily compare the results in the form of a product it won't matter.

If people just go to their favorite travel website and sort flights by cost this will continue to happen. Consumers are giving the signal they care about nothing other than cost. If it becomes uncomfortable enough that people select airlines based on comfort over price the airlines will respond. They just want the money. If they could get away with charging more for bean bag seats they would respond.

Milk doesn't go "bad" if it was collected and handled in a native way. The natural microbiology in it would start consuming the sugars and turn it "sour" in a tasty way.

Only with modern mechanical pasteurized and homogenized milk do you have this problem.
The milk is completely sterilized so is open to any microbiology taking over.

It's a tort. Civil, not criminal.

(Though the **AA is trying to change that and I'm not up-to-data on how much they've succeeded.)

If we'd have left [the terrorists in Afghanistan] there and did absolutely not one damn thing to try and stop/kill them, well, how much did 9/11 cost the economy?

Quite a bit, actually. Took out a lot of infrastructure (including a major telecommunications hub and a number of business headquarters with all their personnel).

Then there was the cost of the reaction. For starters it stopped air traffic for days, and led to the creation of Homeland Security and all its costs - both direct and indirect (such as the large number of people who now drive rather than submit to the airport security theater.)

But I agree it was far less than the cost of the war that followed.

If someone walks in and shoots the party planning committee, how much does the next party cost the company? Trick question, there isn't one. Same with terrorists.

Actually, not the same with terrorists. Look up the term "blowback". Terrorists are hydras: Killing them tends to make martyrs, leading to the recruiting of more new terrorists than were killed

  It also leads to diversification: The longer the tit-for-tat goes on, the less centralized and connected, the more independent and self-sufficient, the factions of the opposition become.

9/11 itself (along with his previous shot at the Twin Towers) was, according to Bin Laden, retaliation for the US bombing of a similar tower on his side of the world.

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

Way less than the last few wars.

Of course the cost of the civil war, when it collapses the economy, will be even greater.

Do you count that as also "way more" than the cost of Obamacare, or part of that cost?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

You forgot the "Seig Heil!"

Wouldn't this work well with some kind of solar panel technology that charges the panels. You would never have to plug it in.

Only if you drive it no more than an hour a month.

A horsepower is almost exactly 3/4 kilowatt. A square yard gets about a kilowatt of raw sunshine at high noon. Factor in the efficiency of the solar panel, battery storage, and motor control and you're lucky to get a fifth of that. Call it a quarter-horse for each square yard of cross-secton as seen by the sun, if you're parked in the open on a clear day. A good, sunny, location might get five "solar hours" - equivalent of five hours of noontime sun - per day. So call it a tad over a horsepower hour per day.

Crusing at highway speed takes maybe 18 horsepower. (Acceleration much more, but only for a short time - but then you lose much of it with breaking - even regenerative breaking that scavenges some of it. So stop-and-go driving is substantially lower mileage than highway.)

Remember the intro to "The Jetsons", where George hits the button on his flying commuter car and it folds up into a briefcase? You need a car that does the opposite: Spread out over a half-acre when you park it. But your company probably won't want you to use that many parking spaces...

So you plug in your electric car, move to the planet Mercury, or wait for Mr Fusion to get cheap.

If an impact creates a short through the surface, the energy of the battery will be dumped through the short, appearing as heat in the resistance of the (non-superconducting) short and the conductors leading to it.

If something isn't done to interrupt this discharge, the energy will be dumped as heat (and perhaps actinic light and vaporized material) at the short, the region around it, or the whole panel.

The trick will be to build the panel so that, in a crash, the breakage and/or the current from the short(s) itself will interrupt the circuit before a dangerous amount of the battery's stored energy is converted - rather than creating a cascading failure that releases the whole charge, surrounding the car's occupants with red-hot walls, white-hot walls, or clouds of incandescent vapor.

If there's one car company with a track record of focusing their engineering on keeping the car's occupants safe, it's Volvo.

It is always helpful to know how what you do affects the companies profits. When I worked in the private sector that was the question I would ask my boss at review time. It is a good check to see if your boss knows what they are doing. It's simple to ask "how does my performance affect our bottom line?" What can I do in the next performance review period to help this company make more money?" "How do we measure this?" "Can I get a reward based on these measurements?"

I have never worked for a boss that could answer these questions. I assume someone somewhere could have. But at least I knew then it was a dead end job with this guy in charge.

... if the NSA is wiretapping a Somali terrorist in Somalia, and notices that he keeps talking to people in San Diego, it doesn't seem like the descending boot of tyranny for them to call the FBI and say "Check out these guys." As long as the FBI then gets all the warrants it's supposed to, I think I'm OK with it.

But that's not what's at issue.

What's at issue is whether the defendant can force the prosecution to prove the agencies followed the law and the constitution.

The government claims he can't.

I say that's bogus. The prosecution has to put up or shut up.