The HDL/LDL ratio of eggs are even, and your body creates cholesterol if you don't eat any, and reduces it's cholesterol production if you do to compensate.
Funnily enough, all users on G+ could be considered 30 day actives and probably most of them 7 day actives by virtue of the fact that the service is so young :)
That’s not only funny, that’s also why said difference is currently meaningless. The ten million users are also active users. The interesting question will be whether they will still be in a month (or, alternatively, whether Google+ gains so many new users that a few million lost active users don’t matter).
They are. Facebook is absolutely telling the truth about this metric. 750 million active users in the last 30 days, 50% of that daily and 80% of 750mil weekly.
I don't mean to nitpick, I'm genuinely curious: how do you know Facebook is telling the truth about the figures?
I always assumed they were telling the truth because they're legally bound to (and because if they're caught lying, it would suck badly for them). I'm just wondering if you have any more info than that, since you seem so emphatic about it.
Okay, I'll spell it out for you in capital letters:
NUMBER OF USER ACCOUNTS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONS. THE NUMBER OF USER ACCOUNTS IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS.
It's pretty hard to be a Google+ user at this point and not be considered "active" - unless you disregard signing up as activity. I suppose you could argue a lot of people are signing up and not using the service at all, but my anecdotal observation is entirely the opposite of that. The people who sign up are embracing it in a big way.
The best approach — with or without upvotes — would be to ask people if you want that information. Upvotes wouldn't reliably provide it — I and many others feel the best use of the voting system is to promote insightful and thought-provoking comments even if I don't believe they're ultimately THE right answer, and we vote accordingly.
It is a lot easier to write an essay critique than it is to sit down and fix the problem by recording your own set of video lectures that teach people what you know.
Yep. You would need a) an iPhone app that you would use to place your order (it would send updated coordinates as you move around, and provide a perimeter within which you would have to stay) b) an army of quadcopters so that a subset of them could be charging while the others were making deliveries c) the quadcopters would have to be equipped with parachutes in case they malfunctioned so they wouldn't kill someone on the way down. d) The quadcopters would have to keep a persistent connection with the central server through wireless networks to keep in sync with your latest position and to send back their coordinates for you to see on your phone. e) there would have to be a mechanism in place to prevent mid-air collisions (buildings you could pre-encode, birds and other quadcopters you couldn`t) for bonus points, you generalize the whole thing and make it like an airbnb where people can exchange arbitrary goods and you just broker the deal and execute the deliveries for a fee that would be dynamically calculated based on distance and weight. DO IT. DO IT NOW.
This could also be an awesome way to disrupt the courier business in cities.
e.g. sender logs a job online (& provides payment details), sender prints a barcode sticker, sender drops off package with the building doorman/concierge and/or walks to designated quadcopter landing zone adjacent building, outgoing package scanned and loaded onto quad-copter, quad-copter delivers package to recipient's landing zone, quad-copter/system sends notification to recipient to advise that package has been delivered, recipient goes to quad-copter landing zone to collect package, recipient scans barcode or provides electronic signature to acknowledge receipt.
Terms & Conditions: Anyone who implements this idea (or minor variation) must give hook and I a $1 royalty each for every job logged ;)
This is an interesting idea and some of the other commenters did a good job of fleshing it out a little, but IIRC it is illegal to operate a UAV in the US unless you can take manual control at any time and so long as the UAV is always within the "operator's" eyesight.
It's actually even more difficult than that. I participated in a UAV project in Idaho, and we had to secure airspace for the UAV, prove that if radio comms went down, the UAV would immediately go into a death spiral (to prevent it continuing on to a populated area), have a fully licensed pilot to guide it when not in automated mode, and who knows how many other requirements.
At this point, the FAA is _very_ serious about UAV safety, IMHO with good reason. Even with our extremely safe controls, we had one UAV crash due to launcher failure, and another get stuck up in the air a long distance away due to a sudden thunderstorm that rolled into our area.
