iOS 7 is REALLY yucky. Why Isn't Anyone Saying So?
Have you considered maybe it's because most people don't agree with you? I think you point out some real UI issues, but to me, they are more annoyances than "really yucky."
The peregrine falcon videos linked to in the article used a "808 #16 HD Key Chain Camera" attached to the bird's back with a little harness. While they are much larger birds, I suspect something similar was used for the golden eagle video.
Instead of buying civet coffee, roast your own beans. I have never tasted coffee as good as the stuff I have roasted myself. All you need is an old popcorn maker. Buy green beans from Sweet Maria's or somewhere else online. It's cheap, easy to do, and the results are amazing.
I wish! My wifi password at work is useful over a much larger area. It is also the login password for my email, the course management system I use when teaching, and pretty much everything else job related. I work at a university "powering silicon valley." You would think they might be a little more careful about things like that...
apple pie, apple fritters, apple juice, apple cider, apple jacks, apple crisp, apple cake, apple butter, apple muffins, apple brown betty, apple turnovers, apple strudel, apple tart, baked apples, apple sauce, caramel apples, apple dumplings, apple chutney, apple crumble, ...
also with KitKat, thanks to fragmentation if you aren't careful you can be stuck with a real mess on your hands.
From the article:
The line between Tokyo and Osaka is expected to cost approximately $90 billion and it won't be completed until 2045
I think California's high speed rail project should be cancelled, but big infrastructure projects do cost a lot of money and take a long time, both in Japan and the US.
It's going to be even more expensive in 30-40 years to build a maglev between LA and SF. Much of the cost is in obtaining the land. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build the first train now then turn it into a 320 mph maglev in 40 years?
The cost is going to be high, maybe $100 billion by the time the project is done. Even with the feds helping, that is a huge sum. Are we really going to get the most "bang" for our bucks? How often do people travel between LA and SF anyways? Improve BART, VTA light rail and CalTrain (in the Bay Area), and I suspect it will have a much larger positive impact on the lives of more people.
There would be a huge benefit from a high speed rail network in California, for sure.
My main issue is the way they are going about it, which is a highly politicized construction process along with some really out-of-order prioritization.
It would be much better to start with the low hanging fruit, like grade separation and electrification of Caltrain. That line would benefit immensely from some major upgrades, such as longer station platforms. To be fair, the most recent round of upgrades (ctc, quadruple track sections, new rolling stock) have been very well done.
* How often do people travel between LA and SF anyways?*
According to the WSJ, 6 million people per year travel between LA & SF via air every year. I can't find highway numbers, but I gotta believe it's about the same order of magnitude, if not higher.
Improve BART, VTA light rail and CalTrain (in the Bay Area), and I suspect it will have a much larger positive impact on the lives of more people.
All of the above need to be done, both will have a positive impact of even more people.
Cal-HSRA predicts that by 2040 the train will reduce highway miles traveled by 10 million miles a day[1]. For comparison, in May 2013, there were 15.3 billion miles of travel just on California highways[2]. A reduction of 10 million miles a day would be about 2%, and assuming people continue to move into the state, the number of highway mile traveled per day will likely be quite a bit higher in 2040 than it is today.
I don't know, it just doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me. The state doesn't have unlimited resources. Spend the money where it will do the most good.
A reduction of 10 million miles a day would be about 2%,
In highway terms, that's a significant reduction. A reduction on the order of 1-3% (it depends on a number of factors including number of lanes, and distance between exits) can get you from LOS F traffic (stop & go) to LOD C/D traffic (heavy, but moving traffic).
The solution is to build new towers without guy-wires.
To operate a communications tower in the US, you need a permit from the FCC. To get a permit or renew a permit from the FCC, you have to file an Environmental Impact Statement. Based on this study, it will likely no longer be possible to claim that a tower with guy-wires has no significant impacts. This means towers without guy-wires will likely be the preferred alternative in an EIS, and what you will have to build if you want a new permit. To renew a permit, you will likely have to have blinking lights, or at least have a very convincing reason for not using them in your EIS.
Also, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with a few exceptions, outlaws all take of migratory birds. That will likely also come into play.
Activism and lawsuits may speed up the process, but assuming this study is replicated by future studies, the wheels have already started turning.
Could you explain your reasoning? How is the US purposefully losing a drone in Iran somehow a signal to the Israelis? Surely Israel already knew that we were capable of / already flying drone over Iran considering their use in two of Iran's neighbors (Iraq and Afghanistan).
1 Put yourself in the shoes of US commanders unhappy about the possibility of one day waking up and seeing little blips heading toward Iran. You would have 2 choices and they are both lousy. Business is good. Oil is flowing. Who wants it all to go up in smoke? Certainly not America.
2 Put yourself in an Israeli analyst's shoes/head and rewind date to day of release of footage. 3 possibilities, 1 obviously unlikely, and other 2 just "shocking". (And I leave that for you to divine).
Now, I assert that US president and commanders are sleeping easier, and that Israelis are no longer so glib about sending aircraft over IRI and taking US involvement for granted. After all, if IRGC can bring down America's drone, Israeli F16s could also fall off the sky near the borders of Iran ... by the "grace of God" ...
Natural gas is great, useful for generating electricity, heating, maybe powering cars, making plastic, etc. So why are we (the US) exporting it? It seems incredibly shortsighted. Once we've exhausted our domestic supply we'll be right back in the same mess we are currently in with oil.
Why not export it? If I have something to sell, I don't care if the guy who gives me the money lives across the street or across the border. Why would you discriminate one human against the other here?
Have you considered maybe it's because most people don't agree with you? I think you point out some real UI issues, but to me, they are more annoyances than "really yucky."