But mass is less relevant than you may think. The electron-positron pair is held together by the Coulomb force, which is the same force that binds the proton and the electron. The electron-positron system has a net electric charge of 0, making it electrically neutral.
As I said in the title, maybe "atom" is a bad word to describe this system. However, the word "atom" comes from a Greek word meaning "indivisible", and since we've since discovered that what we call atoms are divisible after all, the word isn't even appropriate in its accepted usage.
I remember the whining of the conservative talk show guys in the 90s about Clinton not getting more than 50% of the popular vote and claiming he doesn't represent the wishes of the people because of that.
Did I mention that? Do you infer that I like Bush because I can read my nations charter, a pretty straightforward document? I was merely stating that the electoral college, for better or worse, is part of the game. You can't lose the game and bitch about the rules after the fact.
I suppose I fail to see any evidence of the intention of the administration to do what is being claimed. Don't forget that a similar percentage of Americans cannot locate Iraq on a map.
can't locate Iraq on a map? What percentage can't locate the USA? The answers are in the 60s and the 20s, respectively. What percentage believes in a deity? 95?
Strangely enough, no one I know has believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. This comes from a very diverse group: Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I've never met anyone in the real world that bought into this supposed illusion.
If I talk about bob and in the same breath mention 9/11, if that sentence comes from somebody in a position of knowledge or power, enough times, everything between bob and 9/11 blends, and misforms, and becomes bob caused 9/11
Only if the audience is composed solely of idiots. And here, the idiots don't vote.
I don't associate them at all, and I tend to have various newsfeeds running in the background whenever I am doing work. I was in a position to be completely brainwashed by this supposed technique, and yet I wasn't. Could it be because this is all bullshit?
Re:It's one of those persistent myths
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
Strange how if they never said it, so many people believed it. Of course the whole point was to create the connection in people's minds, but to do it in such a way that they couldn't technically be accused of lying.
So, in other words, they didn't lie? I pay much more attention to current events than the average American, and nowhere in the run up to the war did I get the impression that it was being sold as retribution for September 11th. The public may believe something false to be true, but a surprising number couldn't even find Iraq on a map, so how significant is their misunderstanding?
I was under the impression that Bush wasn't that clever. Regardless, I'd expect politicians such as the Republican you refer to be slimy like that, but it does not change the fact that the justification for the war was not 9/11 and that then entire premise of this article is false.
It's one of those persistent myths
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The justification used in the run-up to the war was quite similar to this: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
Bush's and Clinton's speeches were virtually identical. The only instance of an administration official even relating Iraq and 9/11 happened well after the war had been approved and had begun, I believe it was Rumsfeld.
The truth is, Hussein had an obligation to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. He did possess them before, and by the terms of the ceasefire for Desert Storm, he had to prove to weapons inspectors that they had been neutralized. He failed to do this. For more than a decade. That alone was proper justification for the invasion.
The idea that we attacked Iraq for complicity in 9/11 didn't show up until well after the war had begun, after US troops failed to discover any significant caches of NCB arms. Those that opposed the administration found it to be an effective strawman.
Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this. If anyone can dig up a pre-war speech that accused Hussein of plotting 9/11, I'd love to be corrected.
In the terms of the ceasefire that ended the war with Iraq in the early nineties, Hussein agreed to allow weapons inspectors into his country, and to give them full access to his labs to prove that all WMD (mostly chemical) had been destroyed. He did not follow through on this. Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 for (supposedly) the same reason. See here:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
Bush used the same justification. In his speeches leading up to the war, he never claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11; this is just a myth promoted by various factions that want to see the country fail.
I doubt that anyone would argue that we have fucked it up quite badly over there, but Iraq was never sold as retribution for 9/11.
It came up all the time. This was a G5 with 4Gb of RAM. It usually only made an appearance when I tried to get to a downed server through the finder. The other apps were usable, but Finder was out for about five minutes as it figured out what the problem was. This could also happen through a program's file menu dialogs, so if I was trying to open a file in Photoshop and misclicked on a toasted server in the sidebar, Photoshop became frozen.
To the best of my recollection, various probes we have shot outside of the solar system just aren't where we should be according to Newton and even Einstein. Even factoring in various factors that could have thrown off the trajectory, nothing really accounts for the discrepancy other than a possible misunderstanding of how things work.
This is from memory, though, so it may have been resolved by now.
Like the lefty rhetoric over the last seven years has been about love and happiness. Example: Twice, Charles Rangel (D) has introduced measures to reinstate the draft. What human impulse does that play to, exactly? And the hyperbolic predictions of an Orwellian state, Bush not stepping down in January 2009, and the like, what does that say about what motivates leftists?
already said what I thought when I read your post. Barring accidental destruction by the owner, Apple products are intended to last a long time. I've seen five-year old Apple desktops (with a bit of RAM added) run the OS of the day well for heavy multimedia applications, both back in the caveman days of OS 9 and up to 10.4. The last place I worked had a Mac from 1996 still used to get things done.
Apple products are more expensive, but with that comes the expectation that they are of higher quality and will last longer. No amount of Apple magic is going to make that battery last longer than that AT&T contract, especially if the owner uses it 4+ hours a day. Judging from the behavior of most people with cell phones and iPods, this isn't an unreasonable expectation. Cell phones use a small amount of juice constantly. The iPod portion won't since it is flash, but any video or internet usage tends to use a lot of energy. The average user will have to replace their battery at some point, and it will needlessly be a pain in the ass. Apple deserves no excuses here.
You say perjury like the guy was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Please, he lied about being an adulterer. That's something cared about only by arrogant pricks who like to enforce their morals on others yet are just as culpable for the same dirty dealings.
He committed perjury in a sexual harassment trial for a former subordinate. His behavior with his current set of subordinates was certainly pertinent to the case. Guess which party is responsible for sexual harassment laws?
Yes, it was a witchhunt, but the President, of all people, should be expected to tell the truth when under oath. This applies to Bush, Clinton, and every president, past or present.
I was in EE a few years ago, and I was a terrible student. We still wired ICUs together on breadboards and I have personally electrocuted myself on all kinds of components. Capacitors hurt the worst.
Re:Why Emulate Vista?
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1
You neglect to mention the pain in the ass that comes with getting hardware to work. I've run Gentoo for the last four years on my PC, and that is easy since I built it myself with Linux compatibility in mind. Laptops are a different story. Getting the wireless to work in Gentoo was a pain in the ass, but I couldn't even get it to work on the preinstalled Vista, so I'm not sure if that's Gentoo's fault or the hardware. In the end it just turned out to be more work than I was prepared to do.
Why Emulate Vista?
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I tried the beta a while back and was unimpressed. Then, yesterday, I went out and bought a laptop with the intention of putting Ubuntu on it. It came with Vista Home on it. I gave it a chance while the Ubuntu installer was downloading. Holy crap, it actually got worse. It seems like they ripped stuff off from OS X solely for the sake of ripping it off. The sidebar that contains "gadgets" is a complete waste of screen real estate, with a distracting slideshow and a completely redundant clock a few hundred pixels above the taskbar clock by default. It was slow as hell, and the eyecandy made the machine grind to a halt. All in all, the interface was made less navigable and slower.
The story has a happy ending, though. After Ubuntu's installer crashed and Gentoo proved to be a pain in the ass, I traded it in for a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, atoms have been known to be divisible for over 70 years now, your school must have some ancient books. Do they contain references to the Aether?
Also, if this bugs you, wait until you hear of symmetry, with its sparticles, squarks, and so on.
But mass is less relevant than you may think. The electron-positron pair is held together by the Coulomb force, which is the same force that binds the proton and the electron. The electron-positron system has a net electric charge of 0, making it electrically neutral.
As I said in the title, maybe "atom" is a bad word to describe this system. However, the word "atom" comes from a Greek word meaning "indivisible", and since we've since discovered that what we call atoms are divisible after all, the word isn't even appropriate in its accepted usage.
I remember the whining of the conservative talk show guys in the 90s about Clinton not getting more than 50% of the popular vote and claiming he doesn't represent the wishes of the people because of that.
Did I mention that? Do you infer that I like Bush because I can read my nations charter, a pretty straightforward document? I was merely stating that the electoral college, for better or worse, is part of the game. You can't lose the game and bitch about the rules after the fact.
The rule is that the president must get 270+ electoral votes. The popular vote is meaningless. It always has been.
I suppose I fail to see any evidence of the intention of the administration to do what is being claimed. Don't forget that a similar percentage of Americans cannot locate Iraq on a map.
can't locate Iraq on a map? What percentage can't locate the USA? The answers are in the 60s and the 20s, respectively. What percentage believes in a deity? 95?
Strangely enough, no one I know has believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. This comes from a very diverse group: Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I've never met anyone in the real world that bought into this supposed illusion.
If I talk about bob and in the same breath mention 9/11, if that sentence comes from somebody in a position of knowledge or power, enough times, everything between bob and 9/11 blends, and misforms, and becomes bob caused 9/11
Only if the audience is composed solely of idiots. And here, the idiots don't vote.
I don't associate them at all, and I tend to have various newsfeeds running in the background whenever I am doing work. I was in a position to be completely brainwashed by this supposed technique, and yet I wasn't. Could it be because this is all bullshit?
Strange how if they never said it, so many people believed it. Of course the whole point was to create the connection in people's minds, but to do it in such a way that they couldn't technically be accused of lying.
So, in other words, they didn't lie? I pay much more attention to current events than the average American, and nowhere in the run up to the war did I get the impression that it was being sold as retribution for September 11th. The public may believe something false to be true, but a surprising number couldn't even find Iraq on a map, so how significant is their misunderstanding?
qualifies as saying that Iraq was behind September 11th. Try again.
this is all ridiculous hand-waving and baseless accusation. Petty partisan politics, in other words.
It is the fault of a public that has an attention span that lasts less than 30 seconds.
Where did Bush or an administration official say that Hussein was behind 9/11? Nowhere? That's what I thought.
Aside from No Child Left Behind, you cannot blame the ignorance of the American public on Bush.
I was under the impression that Bush wasn't that clever. Regardless, I'd expect politicians such as the Republican you refer to be slimy like that, but it does not change the fact that the justification for the war was not 9/11 and that then entire premise of this article is false.
The justification used in the run-up to the war was quite similar to this:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
Bush's and Clinton's speeches were virtually identical. The only instance of an administration official even relating Iraq and 9/11 happened well after the war had been approved and had begun, I believe it was Rumsfeld.
The truth is, Hussein had an obligation to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. He did possess them before, and by the terms of the ceasefire for Desert Storm, he had to prove to weapons inspectors that they had been neutralized. He failed to do this. For more than a decade. That alone was proper justification for the invasion.
The idea that we attacked Iraq for complicity in 9/11 didn't show up until well after the war had begun, after US troops failed to discover any significant caches of NCB arms. Those that opposed the administration found it to be an effective strawman.
Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this. If anyone can dig up a pre-war speech that accused Hussein of plotting 9/11, I'd love to be corrected.
In the terms of the ceasefire that ended the war with Iraq in the early nineties, Hussein agreed to allow weapons inspectors into his country, and to give them full access to his labs to prove that all WMD (mostly chemical) had been destroyed. He did not follow through on this. Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 for (supposedly) the same reason. See here:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
Bush used the same justification. In his speeches leading up to the war, he never claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11; this is just a myth promoted by various factions that want to see the country fail.
I doubt that anyone would argue that we have fucked it up quite badly over there, but Iraq was never sold as retribution for 9/11.
It came up all the time. This was a G5 with 4Gb of RAM. It usually only made an appearance when I tried to get to a downed server through the finder. The other apps were usable, but Finder was out for about five minutes as it figured out what the problem was. This could also happen through a program's file menu dialogs, so if I was trying to open a file in Photoshop and misclicked on a toasted server in the sidebar, Photoshop became frozen.
To the best of my recollection, various probes we have shot outside of the solar system just aren't where we should be according to Newton and even Einstein. Even factoring in various factors that could have thrown off the trajectory, nothing really accounts for the discrepancy other than a possible misunderstanding of how things work.
This is from memory, though, so it may have been resolved by now.
You know, when reading your post it seems as though you found an Appalachia in Europe.
Like the lefty rhetoric over the last seven years has been about love and happiness. Example: Twice, Charles Rangel (D) has introduced measures to reinstate the draft. What human impulse does that play to, exactly? And the hyperbolic predictions of an Orwellian state, Bush not stepping down in January 2009, and the like, what does that say about what motivates leftists?
already said what I thought when I read your post. Barring accidental destruction by the owner, Apple products are intended to last a long time. I've seen five-year old Apple desktops (with a bit of RAM added) run the OS of the day well for heavy multimedia applications, both back in the caveman days of OS 9 and up to 10.4. The last place I worked had a Mac from 1996 still used to get things done.
Apple products are more expensive, but with that comes the expectation that they are of higher quality and will last longer. No amount of Apple magic is going to make that battery last longer than that AT&T contract, especially if the owner uses it 4+ hours a day. Judging from the behavior of most people with cell phones and iPods, this isn't an unreasonable expectation. Cell phones use a small amount of juice constantly. The iPod portion won't since it is flash, but any video or internet usage tends to use a lot of energy. The average user will have to replace their battery at some point, and it will needlessly be a pain in the ass. Apple deserves no excuses here.
You say perjury like the guy was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Please, he lied about being an adulterer. That's something cared about only by arrogant pricks who like to enforce their morals on others yet are just as culpable for the same dirty dealings.
He committed perjury in a sexual harassment trial for a former subordinate. His behavior with his current set of subordinates was certainly pertinent to the case. Guess which party is responsible for sexual harassment laws?
Yes, it was a witchhunt, but the President, of all people, should be expected to tell the truth when under oath. This applies to Bush, Clinton, and every president, past or present.
I was in EE a few years ago, and I was a terrible student. We still wired ICUs together on breadboards and I have personally electrocuted myself on all kinds of components. Capacitors hurt the worst.
You neglect to mention the pain in the ass that comes with getting hardware to work. I've run Gentoo for the last four years on my PC, and that is easy since I built it myself with Linux compatibility in mind. Laptops are a different story. Getting the wireless to work in Gentoo was a pain in the ass, but I couldn't even get it to work on the preinstalled Vista, so I'm not sure if that's Gentoo's fault or the hardware. In the end it just turned out to be more work than I was prepared to do.
I tried the beta a while back and was unimpressed. Then, yesterday, I went out and bought a laptop with the intention of putting Ubuntu on it. It came with Vista Home on it. I gave it a chance while the Ubuntu installer was downloading. Holy crap, it actually got worse. It seems like they ripped stuff off from OS X solely for the sake of ripping it off. The sidebar that contains "gadgets" is a complete waste of screen real estate, with a distracting slideshow and a completely redundant clock a few hundred pixels above the taskbar clock by default. It was slow as hell, and the eyecandy made the machine grind to a halt. All in all, the interface was made less navigable and slower.
The story has a happy ending, though. After Ubuntu's installer crashed and Gentoo proved to be a pain in the ass, I traded it in for a Mac.