Why stop there? Why not have a machine that you plug into that extracts calories from your body at night? You could effectively just sleep away your weight. Why not trickle this energy you are generating into battery cells that work to power your home in tangent with a solar panel array? hmmm...
Using this logic, couldn't you then concede that both the theory of evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive? Evolution can explain how life forms that already exist are changing overtime into new classifications, and ID can explain how those original life forms came into existence.
Biblical scholars have been debating the actual timeline of the genesis creation as described in the Bible for many years (uncited due to work firewall). Given that the Bible is a collection of stories and teachings that were written and told for the audience of the day, it isn't a far fetch possibility that the actual timeline was masked due to the inability of the target audience to grasp the complexities of the actual creation.
Just some food for thought, can't we all just get along?
Short answer: No, neither of those is correct.
Long and poorly thought out answer: A typical full moon occurs once a month. When the moon is full, it is in a position that places the Earth between itself and the sun. The Earth is not directly between the Moon and Sun during a full moon obviously, because that would cause the Earth Eclipse of the Sun that we see in the video. But instead, it's orbit is offset by a given amount so that light travels past the Earth.
Kinda hard to explain without a diagram, but if you could follow that then you'd see why the Earth's Eclipse of the Moon is not extremely common.
I bet someone got a kick out of having their obviously humorous name approved for the underground line running from Southern France to Northern Algeria.
"I'd like to name the cable...SeaMeWe...*snicker*..."
If you actually knew any history about football, you would know that the "foot" in "football" has absolutely zero to do with kicking. It has to do with the fact that it's played on foot, as opposed to other historical games that were played on horseback. Football's origins go back much further than any other modern sport (possibly as far as the last century BC), hence why the term "football" still applies, even though under the original broad definition, basketball and baseball would also qualify. Neither Soccer nor American Football is close to how "real" football was originally played in most places, that honor goes to Rugby. (Although both Soccer and American Football do have roots going back for enough, it's impossible to say *for sure* that there weren't certain places that played with similar rules. Rugby just most closely resembles the most popular form of the game.) The only significant thing American Football added that wasn't there since the beginning is downs, and a turnover or punt due to not being able to gain a certain amount of yards in a certain amount of downs (first put into place in 1882). Soccer changed the game altogether. Yes, American Football is just as close or closer to how the game was originally played than Soccer is.
How does Australian Rules Football play into this? I've seen a few games and it just looks like a 36-man version of smear-the-queer...
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong about that.
Bigger wheels = more wheel weight = bigger engine needed to rotate = more power. Power is the #1 concern of the rovers while on Mars.
1.21 Jigawatts!
I don't know about you but I'd take some Vermont on my pancakes any day...
mod parent up, I almost pee'd myself.
This Google thing will never catch on...
You call it swine flu. I call it weaponized bacon.
I almost peed myself upon reading this post...
Perfect back story for a Cool Runnings 2...?
Obviously you missed the entire point of the post you replied to...
Use your cat as a surge protector?
Why stop there? Why not have a machine that you plug into that extracts calories from your body at night? You could effectively just sleep away your weight. Why not trickle this energy you are generating into battery cells that work to power your home in tangent with a solar panel array? hmmm...
Using this logic, couldn't you then concede that both the theory of evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive? Evolution can explain how life forms that already exist are changing overtime into new classifications, and ID can explain how those original life forms came into existence. Biblical scholars have been debating the actual timeline of the genesis creation as described in the Bible for many years (uncited due to work firewall). Given that the Bible is a collection of stories and teachings that were written and told for the audience of the day, it isn't a far fetch possibility that the actual timeline was masked due to the inability of the target audience to grasp the complexities of the actual creation. Just some food for thought, can't we all just get along?
exactly
Short answer: No, neither of those is correct. Long and poorly thought out answer: A typical full moon occurs once a month. When the moon is full, it is in a position that places the Earth between itself and the sun. The Earth is not directly between the Moon and Sun during a full moon obviously, because that would cause the Earth Eclipse of the Sun that we see in the video. But instead, it's orbit is offset by a given amount so that light travels past the Earth. Kinda hard to explain without a diagram, but if you could follow that then you'd see why the Earth's Eclipse of the Moon is not extremely common.
It's a space station!
Leave the dog alone for a day, get him all worked up and upset, and come back to a completely different tasting animal.
This sentence tickles me in so many different ways...
my nerd is swelling...
lmao, I actually lmao at this comment. I'm sure my co-workers are now onto my lack of working...
I bet someone got a kick out of having their obviously humorous name approved for the underground line running from Southern France to Northern Algeria. "I'd like to name the cable...SeaMeWe...*snicker*..."
I for one welcome our decayed overlords.
STOP SAYING THAT!
...corny overlords maybe?
If you actually knew any history about football, you would know that the "foot" in "football" has absolutely zero to do with kicking. It has to do with the fact that it's played on foot, as opposed to other historical games that were played on horseback. Football's origins go back much further than any other modern sport (possibly as far as the last century BC), hence why the term "football" still applies, even though under the original broad definition, basketball and baseball would also qualify. Neither Soccer nor American Football is close to how "real" football was originally played in most places, that honor goes to Rugby. (Although both Soccer and American Football do have roots going back for enough, it's impossible to say *for sure* that there weren't certain places that played with similar rules. Rugby just most closely resembles the most popular form of the game.) The only significant thing American Football added that wasn't there since the beginning is downs, and a turnover or punt due to not being able to gain a certain amount of yards in a certain amount of downs (first put into place in 1882). Soccer changed the game altogether. Yes, American Football is just as close or closer to how the game was originally played than Soccer is.
How does Australian Rules Football play into this? I've seen a few games and it just looks like a 36-man version of smear-the-queer...