Finding out what there is about cancer that limits it to one individual could be the key we have been looking for.
It's the same thing that requires you to take immunosuppressants when you receive an organ transplant. Your cancer is you, and someone else's cancer is not. Your body has a much easier time recognizing that transmitted cancer is a foreign infection that needs to be fought off.
The alternative is to try to call them "dual module" processors, and then go through a big long explanation to customers who really don't care what "module" actually is.
Can it execute two separate threads simultaneously? Yes. At full performance? Mostly, although with a shared frontend, when both units are running at full load, instruction disp---- Is someone trying to make a practical judgement of a chip's performance based solely on its core count going to have a clue what any of that means? No. Then it's a four-core processor.
The US went chip & signature instead of chip & PIN, so the entire change is basically meaningless.
How so? With chip and PIN, if your card is stolen, the attacker either has to accurately guess the PIN before the chip self destructs (unlikely, but not impossible), or disassemble the chip to extract the data. It buys you a small amount of time to contact your card issuer, and have your card key deactivated. With just chip, your card is stolen, and can be used immediately, so you potentially have a couple additional transactions that you would not have had were it protected with a PIN.
In either case, the card must be stolen. That's the real purpose. A stolen card with a PIN is only going to buy you a few extra hours. The real protection is that the private key stored on the card cannot be non-destructively accessed. It cannot be skimmed without the owner's knowledge. It cannot be stored by a retailer and compromised. The owner is expected to notice the loss of the card and report it to their issuer, deactivating the key.
Not "commercial flights as we know them", just "commercial flights, period". Commercial aviation only exists because it exists as it does. You mandate solar power, and now you've mandated aircraft that are no faster than wheeled vehicles. Transportation would shift back to those vastly cheaper wheeled vehicles, and commercial aviation would all but go away.
This isn't a particle accelerator. You're accelerating your launch vehicle with the very same magnets which are levitating it around that curved track. If they can bend it around a 1km radius, they can accelerate it linearly in a shorter distance than that.
There's also the minor issue with all launch rails, linear or circular, that your orbital inclination is basically fixed by the installation. You're not going to have the energy to perform any significant plane change at 8km/s, especially with a kick motor that's supposed to survive a 2000g launch.
A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.