I am curious if the demo app was built using some pre-existing libraries/frameworks or even UI widgets. Because, based on the info available on the demo site, even if the author knew exactly what he was going to develop and the tech behind it, the sheer amount of coding required to build such an app from scratch would take way more than 3 days.
That is a completely different issue. I am not saying that F-35 is the greatest fighter plane in history. If it were there would not be so much controversy around it.
For them to surround the target they have to catch up with it first. Not gonna happen if the drones cannot exceed the speed and altitude of the airplane they want to intercept.
So my understanding is that you are proposing to build a swarm of cheap interceptors. But why would an F-35 even engage your swarm? It would fly around or over it and strike its target. If your cheap interceptors are incapable to impose a fight on opposing planes the net effect is that as if they don't even exist.
Just a clarification for people reading this who might be unfamiliar with legal details. What you meant was probably AR15 lowers, not M16. I doubt you could buy M16 anywhere in the US sans the black market. You could make one out of an AR15 lower but that would be illegal.
I think armchair quarterbacking is reckless and inexcusable. These people has been working on airplanes and space crafts for some time now and I would trust their judgment. Especially given that they put their own lives on the line.
Centuries or a single century (20th)? I have no access to the book and I would be interested to see the numbers. It's hard to outdo the 20th century with the jump in the military technologies (starting with the machine gun, the first weapon of mass destruction), and two massive world wars. How, for example, do we compare to the 19th century?
I never log in in such circumstances, I just hit the 'spam' button and that's that. I trust the email service to categorize the further emails accordingly and that's what usually happens.
What does making the society part of the conversation mean exactly? If a private company develops a technology for immortality and then chooses to charge $1million/year for it thus excluding 99.999% people what does the society has to say about that? Should it force the company to lower the price? Should it bar the technology?
Are you suggesting that I'd be better if the technology is not available to anyone lest some people live longer than others? I am pretty sure that in the beginning the new technologies will be accessible only to the people who can spare some cash, but I am also pretty sure that the cost will go down, as it has for any other technology.
Seems like Marissa is following the cargo cult of old Google. She wants to replicate Google's practices verbatim and I am not sure that is going to work. Google grew and developed some practices organically and some of them could not be scaled and had to be reworked, bringing them to a big company with its own culture and insisting on following them to the letter smells of disaster.
Yep, people who are rooting for gun ban fail to realize that M1911 was designed and developed 100 years ago and it basically remains as modern as the rest of the modern handguns are. Sure there have been some improvements in manufacturing technology and material science since then that make it possible to manufacture a gun like that in any decent machine shop.
Healthcare is a bitch. Especially if somebody in the family has any pre-existing conditions. In the US it might make sense in some situations to hold a job not for the wages or the salary but for the group insurance that they provide.