Wind turbines don't operate at those types of speed. They automatically shut down and lock the blades when wind speed increases past a certain threshold.
When you say that a relatively large scattered field (as compared to the relative momentum of the light beam used) attracts objects - how does a 'scattered field' cause this attraction? I guess I'm trying to determine how a scattered field of light would cause momentum towards the emitter...
Would an electrostatic force be possible in the vacuum of space?
Well, the solution to this would be to have multiple wave generators, would it not? Or, your singular generator could be housed in a reflector that creates the required interactions?
Baby-brain.... how is light always linear? I thought that the slit experiment was evidence of non-linear light? Also, doesn't a photon colliding with an electron potentially release another photon whose trajectory is influenced by the angular momentum of the parent electron?
I have a lot of respect for lean programs. I've been building my own hand-coded assembly kernel for the last few years as I have a fascination with lean, mean programming. However, KDE does offer a lot of very useful functionality that is an honest time-saver. I'm an akonadi+nepomuk convert. I also love KIO and Kate.
IMHO, if I was going for lean, I wouldn't be using a GUI anyway. Definitely not for Linux sysadmin tasks!
It has really come along from the 4.0 days. Very stable for me - use it all day, every day at work. Only problem I have is that if you have a auto-hidden panel and a full-screen Citrix app then there is a 10px portion of the screen that is unusable right over the auto-hide hover area.
Other than that - it's awesome. I can't live without Kontact, Dolphin, Okular and Gwenview.
Isn't this flawed? Sorry if I'm way off track, but surely lack of measurement does not conclude non-existence?
Take two completely disconnected observers monitoring the same system. Given the layered nature of observations, one observer (A) sees X and measures Y, but the other observer (B) sees X and W so measures Z. The current definitions I see flying around would suggest that observer A can correctly conclude that W doesn't exist because they measured Y. However, observer B can correctly conclude that W and X exist because they measured Z.
How can we suggest that time doesn't exist outside entangled entities?
Apologies for the Reddit reference, but if you could explain it like I'm 5, then I'd be grateful.
....huh, the perfect opportunity was sitting there right in front of me and I didn't realize it!
Robbing from the bank is illegal and they'll hunt you down for it. BUT, robbing from their robbing - now if we do that, they can't go and whine to the feds about us. Huh!
Anybody want to join me in setting up an APT against a major bank's shadow transactions? You'll get wealthy, filthy wealthy. Even better - lets do the whole robin hood thing...
You've missed both the words 'newborn' and 'parent' (verb definition). Yes, they can experience more (cry, flap limbs {rarely}, poo, smell, see more, etc), but that does not meaningfully decrease the newborn child's net dependence on a parent to survive. Parent - as in someone who parents the child - without which no newborn would survive.
To bring it back to the point:
It will then need at least 5 but generally 9 months of full life support before it has any chance to survive as a separate individual.
A newborn child still has no chance to survive as a separate individual. You've attempted to distinguish a child in the womb as unable to survive independently and a newborn child as able to survive independently. This is patently untrue.
I assume your reasoning is that this affords those willing to extinguish the life of an unborn child the mentality that it is just a 'parasite' - an attempt to cloud judgement on the core issue.
Desperate isn't the right word - I think 'frustrated' is more accurate. I blame aspergers for this tendancy, but it's no excuse.
Putting that aside, it does not diminish my point at all. A newborn child outside the womb is arguably just as dependent on a parent as inside the womb. Any perceived independence is merely nominal in nature.
Again, you've built a strawman. False premeses again. You remove the natural process, create some extreme situation and then point to it as some form of justification. I do have moral issues with the general IVF process. I also believe that children die due to unatural curcumstances during their growth - just as they do outside the womb. Also, were you really taught that a newborn child could survive as a separate individual? That's idiocy in the extreme.
...does a woman have an obligation to make sure each ovum is fertilized? It is, after all a human cell that will naturally develop if only that minimal support is given to it.
No, that makes no sense. An ovum is one part of the puzzle needed before a life can grow. An ovum by itself will never turn into a growing human. Not difficult to conceptualize, it's not a growing human before fertilization.
And therein lies the point. Once fertilized, there is no denying that the "collection of cells" (which I reiterate, we all are) will become an adult human.
Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but it sounds like you do believe you should impose this upon others (take a stand).
You're use of the word impose seems like an attempt to sully my position on this - especially given your past arguments, but yes - just like we 'force' people against their will to murder others in the street, I believe we should do the same for the innocent, defenceless, unborn child.
Turn the tables a bit. Given your thoughts on the subject, it seems that you would believe that it is fine to kill unborn children?
Slashdot Mirror
An event driven and event sourced system would have prevented this.
Tell that to the Kenyans...
Nice one. I actually appreciated that joke. :)
Wind turbines don't operate at those types of speed. They automatically shut down and lock the blades when wind speed increases past a certain threshold.
When you say that a relatively large scattered field (as compared to the relative momentum of the light beam used) attracts objects - how does a 'scattered field' cause this attraction? I guess I'm trying to determine how a scattered field of light would cause momentum towards the emitter...
Would an electrostatic force be possible in the vacuum of space?
Well, the solution to this would be to have multiple wave generators, would it not? Or, your singular generator could be housed in a reflector that creates the required interactions?
Baby-brain.... how is light always linear? I thought that the slit experiment was evidence of non-linear light? Also, doesn't a photon colliding with an electron potentially release another photon whose trajectory is influenced by the angular momentum of the parent electron?
You just echoed the sentiment of 99% of the population - "Sorry, mate, I can't be bothered...". It saddens me. =/
You may find yourself getting a nice job if you do this, me thinks.
Oh my.....I never realised this....Linux is hipster paradise - it will never get popular with the masses.
Does synchronisation use rsync or is it a from-scratch implementation?
Agreed. I'll be switching to GPG in the next 10 minutes.
I have a lot of respect for lean programs. I've been building my own hand-coded assembly kernel for the last few years as I have a fascination with lean, mean programming. However, KDE does offer a lot of very useful functionality that is an honest time-saver. I'm an akonadi+nepomuk convert. I also love KIO and Kate.
IMHO, if I was going for lean, I wouldn't be using a GUI anyway. Definitely not for Linux sysadmin tasks!
It has really come along from the 4.0 days. Very stable for me - use it all day, every day at work. Only problem I have is that if you have a auto-hidden panel and a full-screen Citrix app then there is a 10px portion of the screen that is unusable right over the auto-hide hover area.
Other than that - it's awesome. I can't live without Kontact, Dolphin, Okular and Gwenview.
The answer to illogically high costs is always the same: government.
Isn't this flawed? Sorry if I'm way off track, but surely lack of measurement does not conclude non-existence?
Take two completely disconnected observers monitoring the same system. Given the layered nature of observations, one observer (A) sees X and measures Y, but the other observer (B) sees X and W so measures Z. The current definitions I see flying around would suggest that observer A can correctly conclude that W doesn't exist because they measured Y. However, observer B can correctly conclude that W and X exist because they measured Z.
How can we suggest that time doesn't exist outside entangled entities?
Apologies for the Reddit reference, but if you could explain it like I'm 5, then I'd be grateful.
...the irony.
advanced persistent threat. Just a buzz-word really. Just means you properly plan and execute a targeted attack.
....huh, the perfect opportunity was sitting there right in front of me and I didn't realize it!
Robbing from the bank is illegal and they'll hunt you down for it. BUT, robbing from their robbing - now if we do that, they can't go and whine to the feds about us. Huh!
Anybody want to join me in setting up an APT against a major bank's shadow transactions? You'll get wealthy, filthy wealthy. Even better - lets do the whole robin hood thing...
To bring it back to the point:
It will then need at least 5 but generally 9 months of full life support before it has any chance to survive as a separate individual.
A newborn child still has no chance to survive as a separate individual . You've attempted to distinguish a child in the womb as unable to survive independently and a newborn child as able to survive independently. This is patently untrue.
I assume your reasoning is that this affords those willing to extinguish the life of an unborn child the mentality that it is just a 'parasite' - an attempt to cloud judgement on the core issue.
Desperate isn't the right word - I think 'frustrated' is more accurate. I blame aspergers for this tendancy, but it's no excuse.
Putting that aside, it does not diminish my point at all. A newborn child outside the womb is arguably just as dependent on a parent as inside the womb. Any perceived independence is merely nominal in nature.
Again, you've built a strawman. False premeses again. You remove the natural process, create some extreme situation and then point to it as some form of justification. I do have moral issues with the general IVF process. I also believe that children die due to unatural curcumstances during their growth - just as they do outside the womb. Also, were you really taught that a newborn child could survive as a separate individual? That's idiocy in the extreme.
...does a woman have an obligation to make sure each ovum is fertilized? It is, after all a human cell that will naturally develop if only that minimal support is given to it.
No, that makes no sense. An ovum is one part of the puzzle needed before a life can grow. An ovum by itself will never turn into a growing human. Not difficult to conceptualize, it's not a growing human before fertilization.
And therein lies the point. Once fertilized, there is no denying that the "collection of cells" (which I reiterate, we all are) will become an adult human.
Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but it sounds like you do believe you should impose this upon others (take a stand).
You're use of the word impose seems like an attempt to sully my position on this - especially given your past arguments, but yes - just like we 'force' people against their will to murder others in the street, I believe we should do the same for the innocent, defenceless, unborn child.
Turn the tables a bit. Given your thoughts on the subject, it seems that you would believe that it is fine to kill unborn children?
Huh, I haven't tried the honey porter. Thanks for the tip. I normally just drink the draught premium