While I am unfamiliar with jet boats, a directed, high speed flow of fluid into another fluid medium is generally considered a jet (the flow itself, not the device producing the flow). I do not know of the "jet engine" is named for the stream of gases that comes out the business end, or vice versa, nor do I know the origin of the word "jet". However, the water coming out of what I presume a "jet boat" to be is most certainly not an oxidizer.
Now, I suppose that you could build a boat with a real jet (air-burning) engine. Might be interesting.
On the off chance that this is not a troll: The air in a prop engine is not an oxidizer, because nothing is burning in the blades. Air goes into the blades and air goes out, as opposed to a jet engine in which air goes in, but spent gases (with little oxygen) under high pressure go out. However, that prop is likely connected to a combustion engine that _does_ use air as an oxidizer. That still doesn't make the prop on the other end of the flywheel into a jet.
Wow, you think I care about your conversion? You live in a very you-centric world don't you? Only child were ya?
Why don't you just follow my advice, and not post in a public forum things that you can't handle responses to? Cuz if this is you "handling" something... actually, I don't think there's a sarcastic response fitting enough to end that sentence. Oh and "defensive" and "handling" don't mean the same thing.
Wow, you religious fanatics sure like to attack anything. I am glad that I decided to cut your preaching short when I did. To think that I was almost lured into your trolling.
Oh, I'm sorry, science doesn't teach manners, so you don't have to have any. Only us fools who believe in Ten Commandments voodoo have to respect others.
It's nice to wanna hold onto what people have been telling each other is true for thousands of years, but... it's wrong.
Well, nobody's been telling _me_ anything about religion for thousands of years. I came to that conclusion myself.
I don't even see any sense in keeping this thread going because we both know where it's going. Go claim "I win" because I don't feel like having this conversation _again_.
I like the suggestion that people are somehow lax in security because their mail client remembers their password. Who are these guys who type the password in every 3 minutes when they check their mail?
Every three minutes? In my day we were checking our mail every 20 seconds, both ways uphill, and tapping out the password in binary!
Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period. No amount of context will get "seven days" to mean "billions of years" - at least, not without throwing out all meaning altogether.
Not if, as in Genesis, "day" is defined as the time when light is showing. Then the time from the big bang to the creation of the Earth (9 billion years) is one day. Which happens to fit in nicely with the rest of the first day in Genesis.
Doesn't science state that the Earth's rate of rotation had changed over time? For that matter, were things rotating at the big bang? Day One could very well be the big bang up to the creation of the Earth, that's 9 billion years. During that time there was light, but no darkness on the matter that would become the Earth, in fact, the heavier elements were synthesized inside stars (you can't get much brighter than _inside_ a star).
The only problem that I have with Genesis is that the Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day. There may be a scientific explanation for that or it may be an error, I really don't know. Just as science is not infallable, nor do I think the Torah to be. You might want to read Asimov's How it happened.
If you want LCDR Data why don't you just connect to the difragullator port with a ULR interface? The pins pretty much match up, only the eplstien value vary, and that is easy enough to rectify. It is a very cromulent solution.
...and I'll say it a million times more. The primary function of giving someone a name is to allow you to single out one person from a collection of people. If you call someone John or David or some other common name then you are failing in that one simple task.
Names should be unique identifiers. For some strange reason, the one segment of American society that understands this issue are vilified for using "black-sounding names". What's so hard for people to get? Stories like this are the inevitable consequence of selfish parents copying names from people around them. Frankly, I think anyone who calls their kid John should be guilty of child abuse.
The names of children have traditionally been used to honour someone: either a deceased family member, or an important religious figure in most cases. Only Americans think that names have no meaning ("Butch? It doesn't mean anything. I'm American, our names don't have meanings" from Pulp Fiction) and I've never been able to understand why.
Cue bad karma for anti-Americanism on/. (I'm not anti-American, but they are overly sensitive to anti-*isms. Like Jews.)
Cue bad karma for anti-Jewism on/. (I'm Jewish, but I hate that sensitivity and self-victimization.)
The only thing I can suggest is suing your parents.
Right, because that would be more productive than legally changing your name, assuming that the OP for whatever reason thinks there would be a reason to. Maybe we should just give everyone numbers. Oh, wait, that was tired once.
How can you have a literal interpretation if you are reading an inaccurate translation? For that matter, I am aware that there is a division among Christians about literal vs. figurative reading of the Torah. I don't know the details. In my own language (Hebrew, the original language of the Torah) it is quite clear what is written, however, one must remember that some words' definitions may not be as we use them today. For instance, what is a "day"? Even in English you have different meanings: 1) I haven't showered for days. 2) Who uses OS/2 in these days? Is one more literal than the other?
Well, _I_ didn't introduce the word to the conversation, and with many English words I must guess their meaning by their apparent roots (which in this case correctly appeared to be "false" to me, even if the rest of the word's meaning eluded me). And no, I cannot possibly consult a dictionary or wikipedia each time I encounter a new word.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, you are in fact trolling. I'm sorry that I was baited.
While I am unfamiliar with jet boats, a directed, high speed flow of fluid into another fluid medium is generally considered a jet (the flow itself, not the device producing the flow). I do not know of the "jet engine" is named for the stream of gases that comes out the business end, or vice versa, nor do I know the origin of the word "jet". However, the water coming out of what I presume a "jet boat" to be is most certainly not an oxidizer.
Now, I suppose that you could build a boat with a real jet (air-burning) engine. Might be interesting.
Small government == beautiful government == more freedom to enjoy your life without Mommy/Daddy Congress looking over your shoulder.
Small government == No NASA. Just saying.
And what about Tomato? Force them too?
GP probably does not understand the terms. He should read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/engine.htm
Here is the bug to which the attachments are attached:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478721
If you have a Mozilla account then please comment on the bug requesting it to be deleted, as I have done.
Mod parent troll. Scientology bullshit as an attachment to Bugzilla.
That means a prop is a jet engine.
On the off chance that this is not a troll:
The air in a prop engine is not an oxidizer, because nothing is burning in the blades. Air goes into the blades and air goes out, as opposed to a jet engine in which air goes in, but spent gases (with little oxygen) under high pressure go out. However, that prop is likely connected to a combustion engine that _does_ use air as an oxidizer. That still doesn't make the prop on the other end of the flywheel into a jet.
Funny, I thought that you trolls were the result of entanglement and spooky action at a distance. Are you done yet?
Wow, you think I care about your conversion? You live in a very you-centric world don't you? Only child were ya?
Why don't you just follow my advice, and not post in a public forum things that you can't handle responses to? Cuz if this is you "handling" something... actually, I don't think there's a sarcastic response fitting enough to end that sentence. Oh and "defensive" and "handling" don't mean the same thing.
Wow, you religious fanatics sure like to attack anything. I am glad that I decided to cut your preaching short when I did. To think that I was almost lured into your trolling.
Oh, I'm sorry, science doesn't teach manners, so you don't have to have any. Only us fools who believe in Ten Commandments voodoo have to respect others.
Go away you religious freak. Go preach your anti-beliefs to someone that you can convert.
It's nice to wanna hold onto what people have been telling each other is true for thousands of years, but... it's wrong.
Well, nobody's been telling _me_ anything about religion for thousands of years. I came to that conclusion myself.
I don't even see any sense in keeping this thread going because we both know where it's going. Go claim "I win" because I don't feel like having this conversation _again_.
Go for it. You're bored enough to keep this thread alive.
I like the suggestion that people are somehow lax in security because their mail client remembers their password. Who are these guys who type the password in every 3 minutes when they check their mail?
Every three minutes? In my day we were checking our mail every 20 seconds, both ways uphill, and tapping out the password in binary!
Not even for those. I am not so pedantic that I need to do that, and by experience I happen to get by. I am willing to accept a 0.1% failure rate.
Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period. No amount of context will get "seven days" to mean "billions of years" - at least, not without throwing out all meaning altogether.
Not if, as in Genesis, "day" is defined as the time when light is showing. Then the time from the big bang to the creation of the Earth (9 billion years) is one day. Which happens to fit in nicely with the rest of the first day in Genesis.
I once got a +5 Informative for that crap. Since then I like to test the mods with it.
Doesn't science state that the Earth's rate of rotation had changed over time? For that matter, were things rotating at the big bang? Day One could very well be the big bang up to the creation of the Earth, that's 9 billion years. During that time there was light, but no darkness on the matter that would become the Earth, in fact, the heavier elements were synthesized inside stars (you can't get much brighter than _inside_ a star).
The only problem that I have with Genesis is that the Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day. There may be a scientific explanation for that or it may be an error, I really don't know. Just as science is not infallable, nor do I think the Torah to be. You might want to read Asimov's How it happened.
I don't see the web browser being in the first screenshot for each one.
Can't you connect a bluetooth keyboard to an Android device?
No, I've tried you can pair the keyboard but you cannot use it.
Well that fucking sucks balls now, doesn't it?
If you want LCDR Data why don't you just connect to the difragullator port with a ULR interface? The pins pretty much match up, only the eplstien value vary, and that is easy enough to rectify. It is a very cromulent solution.
http://images.google.com/images?q=opera widgets
http://images.google.com/images?q=kde+4
http://images.google.com/images?q=windows 7
http://images.google.com/images?q=windows vista
http://images.google.com/images?q=google android
Count the damn clocks!
...and I'll say it a million times more. The primary function of giving someone a name is to allow you to single out one person from a collection of people. If you call someone John or David or some other common name then you are failing in that one simple task.
Names should be unique identifiers. For some strange reason, the one segment of American society that understands this issue are vilified for using "black-sounding names". What's so hard for people to get? Stories like this are the inevitable consequence of selfish parents copying names from people around them. Frankly, I think anyone who calls their kid John should be guilty of child abuse.
The names of children have traditionally been used to honour someone: either a deceased family member, or an important religious figure in most cases. Only Americans think that names have no meaning ("Butch? It doesn't mean anything. I'm American, our names don't have meanings" from Pulp Fiction) and I've never been able to understand why.
Cue bad karma for anti-Americanism on /. (I'm not anti-American, but they are overly sensitive to anti-*isms. Like Jews.)
Cue bad karma for anti-Jewism on /. (I'm Jewish, but I hate that sensitivity and self-victimization.)
The only thing I can suggest is suing your parents.
Right, because that would be more productive than legally changing your name, assuming that the OP for whatever reason thinks there would be a reason to. Maybe we should just give everyone numbers. Oh, wait, that was tired once.
How can you have a literal interpretation if you are reading an inaccurate translation? For that matter, I am aware that there is a division among Christians about literal vs. figurative reading of the Torah. I don't know the details. In my own language (Hebrew, the original language of the Torah) it is quite clear what is written, however, one must remember that some words' definitions may not be as we use them today. For instance, what is a "day"? Even in English you have different meanings:
1) I haven't showered for days.
2) Who uses OS/2 in these days?
Is one more literal than the other?
Well, _I_ didn't introduce the word to the conversation, and with many English words I must guess their meaning by their apparent roots (which in this case correctly appeared to be "false" to me, even if the rest of the word's meaning eluded me). And no, I cannot possibly consult a dictionary or wikipedia each time I encounter a new word.