"Your goals should be to effect positive change in the world."
Should it? Why? What makes positive change a more valid goal than making more mans? (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2481) And in turn, what's so morally bankrupt about the pursuit of fun? With a focus on the individual, it would seem to value human life more than simply measuring the size of the shadow you cast.
The type of moral code that I have described is more constructive both for civilization and for the individual.
As far as Darwin or simple propagation, our science and technology have taken us beyond natural human evolution.
The pursuit of fun without regards to positive social change or individual growth does not create medium or long term benefit for the individual or society.
Generally moral codes which explicitly take into account social responsibility are more beneficial for society. The current state of affairs in our consumerist capitalist society disproves the common belief that individual interest magically translates into common interest.
On the other hand, you've disregarded the possibility of continuing to browse after doing three things (or stopping prior to three things). If browsing is an endless stream, then facebook has to be followed by one of the other two, which is the angle he was working from. Depends how you frame the question and what assumptions you make; it's ill-defined right now.
Edit: On another note, in his place I would have sanitized my own history; a screenshot showing redtube and tube8 in the "visited" style is tacky, to say the least.
It's a bit misleading to flatly cite the 100km Karman line as if there was no room to debate "where does space begin?" The boundary could be lower: NASA gives out astronaut wings at 50 miles (264000 feet). Or maybe it should be higher: Orbits decay pretty quickly under atmospheric drag at that altitude, and drag is a factor even at ISS altitude, requiring a bit of fuel now and again to replace energy lost to drag. The point at which reasonable flying speed equals orbital speed (~100 km) is just one demarcation, chosen by convention from many possibilities.
>In tracking the sensors on each of the phones, we observed that the GPS in Nexus S could function up to altitudes of about 60,000 ft. and would actually start working again on the balloon’s descent. ... Maximum Speed: 139 mph
The unit shut itself off passing 600 at low speed, which is more restrictive than required. The rule is receivers that work above 60,000ft and 1000kt require export licenses as munitions (http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/mtcr), but there's no reason a phone's civilian-grade (unrestricted) receiver shouldn't work up high at that low forward speed. I suppose the most conservative possible interpretation keeps companies safe.
I don't think that will work the way you intend. Direct sunlight is (on average) unpolarized. Polarized lenses only block glare off, for example, the surface of a body of water, because reflection affects polarization. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection). If the design blocks direct sunlight via polarization, it must necessarily block ambient light to a similar degree.
layer 1 polarizes all light in the '+' direction or the '-' direction. layer 2 does the same, but is the inverse of layer 1.
Notice that ambient light can pass through at an angle because the light didn't pass through both polarization directions. I think jws is saying 25% of ambient light passes through because the polarization step takes 50%, but half the ambient directions are blocked off completely (say by the moire patterns) so that makes 25% of ambient light.
That still won't work the way I think you intend. This will block light that enters perpendicularly, while passing some of the light that enters at an angle. The problem is that light entering at an angle is not aimed at your pupils. Allowing ambient light to pass at an angle only lights up your eye socket, while blocking everything (sun and ambient) that was bound to fall anywhere you could detect it.
"an angle" refers to any angle other than the angle directly from the sun.
when you look outside the window, any sunlight that enters your eyes from the angle of the sun is the sun because the sun is so far away. this is why we have well defined shadows.
any light that comes at an angle is all the light that did not come directly from the sun. light coming at an angle is directly aimed at your pupils if you're looking at the source.
what you said, the only way it's true, is if you're always looking directly at the sun.
>"an angle" refers to any angle other than the angle directly from the sun.
So do these conceptual glasses have a way to find the direction of the sun, and adjust the moire patterns in real time? Based on the description, it sounded like it would always block rays normal to the plane of the lens, while allowing rays to pass through at any other angle. Rays from the sun will only rarely be normal to the lens, and so they will only rarely be blocked, without an active adjustment to change the "rejection angle." Short of that, I don't follow how the glasses can "tell" sunlight from ambient light, and I don't think it can be done without active logic.
I wasn't talking about the glasses but rather a new window system for homes. But yeah, the windows in my idea would require adjustment based on the time.
Depends on how you look at it. Yeah, they're "worth" $100 apiece because they can be exchanged for goods and services "worth" $100. (Let the chicken and egg lie.) So it's $110 billion worth of cash that can't circulate. Good or bad thing? That's over my head.
On the other hand, they don't cost that much to print, only 12 cents. But there's 1.1 billion of them. So that's $132 million of work that's not doing any good right now. Still a good-sized problem, without considering the time and expense of sorting and replacing bad notes.
Well, 94% mortality and 6% for which there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. We'll have to wait a while to be sure if any of them are immortal.
>The B-1 and B-52 also have low observability characteristics
I'd challenge the B-52 bit. The airframe had pretty well reached its final form by 1950. Radar was still in its infancy, let alone radar countermeasures. The plane is all radar-inviting angles (like the giant vertical stab), and there wasn't even an attempt to shield the engine exhausts from IR sensors, as IR homing weapons didn't exist at the time. I'd go so far as to say the B-52 is about as high-observable as an airplane gets.
Declassified info from 1945 :) page 21 shows some jamming equipment for a B-17. Page 24 even has some spoof equipment for when you want to pretend you brought some friends along.
Being predictable isn't easy to avoid. We put so much hardware in the sky, and quickly neutralize so many of the surface-to-air threats, that aircraft are far more likely to have a close call with another friendly aircraft than to be deliberately targeted. (Not true for rotary wing aircraft.) So they're predictable, because that's the easiest way to keep two airplanes from occupying the same piece of sky, because midair collision is the greater threat. There are other ways to deconflict traffic, since so little use is made of the real capabilities of modern electronics, but being predictable also allows military air traffic to fit into the civilian air traffic control system. It's a tradeoff, and following predictable procedures resolves it while simultaneously covering a lot of asses.
Of course, as soon as one sortie aborts for a SAM threat, a concerted effort should be put into finding the source (and redoubled if it isn't found but reports keep coming in). You can be as predictable as you like if you really do own the sky.
Should it? Why? What makes positive change a more valid goal than making more mans? (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2481) And in turn, what's so morally bankrupt about the pursuit of fun? With a focus on the individual, it would seem to value human life more than simply measuring the size of the shadow you cast.