As I understand it, when we say "gravity," we really mean General Relativity. And when we say "quantum physics," we really mean the Standard Model. Both are the best established explanations for their respective fields.
That means once you've unified the Standard Model with gravity in a way that gives the same correct results we knew from General Relativity, you've got a theory of everything.
Well stated. Maybe if Valve were to cut down their development time (somehow!) and lower prices (this would follow from the shorter development time). They probably have the best shot at implementing something like this in the nearest future.
We are talking about Half-Life, right? Are you sure you're not talking about some other HL? Half-Life 1, 2, and the episodes are all great pieces of storytelling.
Kozicki says the process is like condensing a crystal from a solution, except that the process is almost infinitely reversible. If the PMC is fed a positive charge, the copper atoms return to their previous free-floating state, and the nanowires disassemble.
From TFA. Wouldn't this imply that they think its mean time to failure is pretty long? Of course, they didn't say anything about speed or durability. But nanoscale changes should happen pretty fast, right?
Kozicki says the process is like condensing a crystal from a solution, except that the process is almost infinitely reversible. If the PMC is fed a positive charge, the copper atoms return to their previous free-floating state, and the nanowires disassemble.
From TFA. Wouldn't this imply that they think its mean time to failure is pretty long? Of course, they didn't say anything about speed or durability. But nanoscale changes should happen pretty fast, right?
If John Locke and Voltaire had been Americans, and if the framers of the United States Constitution had lived in the 20th century, then I would have said you have a point. However...
Are you kidding? Allowed? What is this higher authority that confers on governments the right to do such things? Governments don't have such authority just by virtue of being governments, you know. They derive all their authority from the consent of the governed. Providing freedom from suppression is one of the goals of government, since it exists only to serve the governed.
This means that the right to arbitrarily censor and suppress populations is never possessed by governments, especially when the governed are overwhelmingly rising up against such oppression. (Here I'm equating suppression with oppression. Oppression is "the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority," so it fits quite well.)
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Er, I hate to contradict someone who agrees with me, but this was in England in 1670.
It's relevant because Penn was, in fact, a pretty important figure in shaping American government. (He later established Pennsylvania as a place of religious freedom and due process for precisely the same reason that he was tried here.)
The other effect of jury nullification is also important. William Penn once was brought into court for preaching a Quaker sermon. A jury refused to convict him for his illegal actions.
http://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm
(Actually a fascinating read.)
Were the members of this jury delinquent in their duty? Were they criminals?
I say they weren't (and the law agrees). I say that, more importantly, they were doing precisely their duty when they refused to convict a man unjustly, based on an unjust law.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, when we say "gravity," we really mean General Relativity. And when we say "quantum physics," we really mean the Standard Model. Both are the best established explanations for their respective fields. That means once you've unified the Standard Model with gravity in a way that gives the same correct results we knew from General Relativity, you've got a theory of everything.
How about we call it "The Rwandan Genocide"?
Gravitational force propagates at the speed of light, actually. Unless I missed something?
censorship There, fixed it for you.
Nah. They don't do 'quirky,' and no one has yet found evidence that they know about 'funny.'
Well stated. Maybe if Valve were to cut down their development time (somehow!) and lower prices (this would follow from the shorter development time). They probably have the best shot at implementing something like this in the nearest future.
We are talking about Half-Life, right? Are you sure you're not talking about some other HL? Half-Life 1, 2, and the episodes are all great pieces of storytelling.
When that happens, though, it goes from being something created by awesome researchers to a corporate product and loses some of its allure.
Heh. There's a difference between having the power to do a thing and having the right to do it.
If John Locke and Voltaire had been Americans, and if the framers of the United States Constitution had lived in the 20th century, then I would have said you have a point. However...
Er, if the parent was being sarcastic, then it wasn't successful as sarcasm because there are people out there who actually think like that.
This means that the right to arbitrarily censor and suppress populations is never possessed by governments, especially when the governed are overwhelmingly rising up against such oppression. (Here I'm equating suppression with oppression. Oppression is "the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority," so it fits quite well.)
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
But that doesn't mean it's for ground assaults.
It wasn't really for raining death down on people. It was an antiaircraft cannon, which is presumably used defensively against military aircraft.
That's what TFA says anyway. (Or rather the video embedded in TFA says that.)
No, I'm pretty sure they're saying 1, 2, 3, NT, XP, Vista.
It's relevant because Penn was, in fact, a pretty important figure in shaping American government. (He later established Pennsylvania as a place of religious freedom and due process for precisely the same reason that he was tried here.)
The other effect of jury nullification is also important. William Penn once was brought into court for preaching a Quaker sermon. A jury refused to convict him for his illegal actions. http://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm (Actually a fascinating read.) Were the members of this jury delinquent in their duty? Were they criminals? I say they weren't (and the law agrees). I say that, more importantly, they were doing precisely their duty when they refused to convict a man unjustly, based on an unjust law.
Her name was Jenna. Not Oral. Is there something I'm missing here...?
That's not recovery. That's acceptance.
Yeah, and neither does the US military. Oh, and have you heard that Germany doesn't have Jews? Weird.
Forth Eorlingas!
Crazy and violent? Were we watching the same video?