And you're claiming to know how to fly a future spacecraft that hasn't been designed yet, whose fuel source hasn't been discovered yet, and whose flying instructions have only been theorized about.
I also fail to see how the laws of the conservation of mass and energy don't apply to "modern physics", as you call it (string theory, reeeeally????).
It's also become just slightly more expensive to take care of a kid. If you have 19 kids nowadays, unless you are filthy rich, a bunch of tax payers are supporting your irresponsible life choices (at least in the US). And as a tax payer, I say "fuck that!!".
OK, Hawking has officially lost it. He's past his prime. Also according to the laws of physics, you can't create something from nothing. Is he trying to claim that energy from gravity just spontaneously turned itself into all sorts of matter? Where did gravity come from? Where did energy come from?
Really Hawking, you could just say "I have no frakin clue" and people would still think you're a genius. You don't need to try to claim such asinine things. I'm not arguing there's a divine being of some kind that created it all, but c'mon, his argument by contrast is just as insane.
You know, that'd be pretty fucking sweet if net neutrality rules forced ports open if the customer, ANY type of customer, wanted them open. Buuuuttt, I somehow doubt that will happen.
Tired of paying double for the same thing but with open ports. And too bad you can't just pay $5 for a static IP like you used to be able to. It's utterly ridiculous that my internet bill is over $105/mo every month without even being on the top tier. It's a "business" account for the open ports but the QoS is still shit. Plus, I have service outages constantly.
Update: I actually RTFA, and yes, it's solid rock. Furthermore, it's under a mountain, so while it's that deep from the surface, I'd imagine there's even more solid rock between the nuclear strike entry point and the actual server rooms. A bit of winding here and there would protect even further.
That much solid rock between you and the EMP blast wouldn't protect you? I would think that'd be pretty solid shielding? Besides, you don't build a nuclear bunker necessarily because you're worrying about the EMP blast...
Depends on what type of nuclear attack. A bomb targeting the city it resides in would be detonated in the air for maximum mayhem. This bunker would have ZERO issue with that.
Altering the shape of the projectile to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial results. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet (46 m) in concrete[citation needed] when traveling at 4,000 ft/s (1,200 m/s). The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slow). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.
So, it still depends. What material is between the surface and this bunker? I'd imagine a hard rock would have a lot more stopping power than concrete (due to how they penetrated the concrete). Either way, it sounds like if you would line the bunker with a pretty thick layer of steel in addition, you'd probably turn out OK.
Head-On! Apply directly to forehead! Head-On! Head-On! Head-On! Apply to forehead! Head-On!
Sorry. That's the first ad that came to mind that was so annoying I actually cringe when I see it in real life. It upholds your point.
To add to the discussion, if I make a purchase of anything over $15-$20, I probably do at least a little bit of research on it first. If that's an audio CD, it's probably just a few general reviews. The more expensive the item the more research (TV hunting literally took 6 weeks) unless time is of the essence (car broke down and you need a new one NOW). I most definitely rarely buy something worth more than $15-$20 on a whim. And that's only based on TV ads.
Internet ads are a breed that are far worse by nature, but at least they're blockable for the most part. The only times I leave them on is when I feel the site is worthy of advertising revenue and when the ads aren't super annoying or intrusive. Example:/.
Just knowing about the US, and knowing nothing of Europe, is a terrible cop-out. It smacks of wilful ignorance.
I would agree. But is the current situation in the U.S. just knowing nothing of Europe or just knowing some about their geography?
That you seem to think that what goes on in France or Germany doesn't have a direct impact on the US, and its citizens within, is also rather strange.
Depends how you define "direct impact". Close geographical ties tend to have a greater significance in perspective. "Close to home" if you will. In no way did I mean that foreign countries don't have a significant impact on the U.S. as if the U.S. is special in some way. My point was purely geographical and the perceptions of the general population based on geographical locations of certain events.
An old manager in the US asked me if England was near the UK. Wow. He's a manager, and he doesn't know that? He went to university. He's supposed to be educated.
OK, granted, I'm a bit surprised at that, but to play the devil's advocate here.... did his higher education cover international geography? Probably not. I don't remember any geography classes at my university. All that stuff I remember being taught in grade school and junior high school. Did his job require that he knew where these two countries were geographically to each other? Since he had to ask, probably not.
I'll reiterate what I said before. I didn't excuse not knowing what's going on in other countries, I more stressed the importance of knowing the actual geography of those countries (which is obviously not as high as knowing what's going on). You can have the complete international geography perfectly memorized, but if you don't know what's going on, that's far more ignorant than not being able to pick out a few countries on the other side of the planet.
I'm not at all sure that the government should be regulating in the internet at this picky level of detail.
Consumers have no technical way to protect themselves. Block cookies and there are a thousand other ways to track them (web bugs, LSO cookies, etc. etc.). Block those and the vendors will find another solution.
The only solution is legal: Give consumers legal authority to stop vendors from tracking them, and penalties if that's violated.
We've all been trained to memorize the meme that government regulation is bad. Fine if you want to believe it, and sometimes the meme is true, but sometimes, bad or not, the regulation is worse than the alternative.
I think you missed the point. There's more of an important difference to Europeans than to Americans because European countries are so close together geographically. If you took the same people in America, same country, same mentality, and squeezed everything into the size of a European country (biggest one?), and surrounded them with all these other countries that make a decent impact on you, your defense, and your economy, many of whom actually share the same currency, you can bet your ass they'd know the same information.
You can't compare, because it's not the same. Americans know all 50 states because that's what impacts them. It's easier to remember. And the U.S. is literally surrounded by a total of two countries. Furthermore, reaching other countries takes more than a hop, skip, and jump so experiencing other countries and their cultures isn't so easily done. You can bet kids are taught world maps, but it's tough to keep in mind something that doesn't have as direct an impact on you, especially when everything is so damned far away.
No, Europe is slightly bigger than the U.S... barely.
But hell, we're comparing an entire continent to a country. Needless to say, the original point is still sustained. Considering there's roughly the same number of countries in Europe (depending on who/when you ask) as there are states in the U.S., Europeans calling us ignorant because we can't name all their countries or place them on a map is just as ludicrous as Americans calling Europeans ignorant because they can't name and place all 50 states (not even including extra districts and territories).
Question: do 6 out of 10 American young adults need to find Iraq on a map, or Sudan? Do they need to know what religion the majority of the population of India practice?
Honestly, the other 4 out of 10 young American adults is a bigger number than those that really need to know this information.
I'd say knowing our relationship with these countries, and their relationships with some other countries (most likely just who is in conflict) are much more important pieces of information than the actual location of said countries. A few reasons why, also. Knowing the actual geography of those locations may help in the understanding of why things are they way they are, but it certainly isn't necessary unless they deal with it in some way directly.
People don't expect you to understand how a nuclear bomb works. That's not nearly as useful as simply knowing that it's crazy destructive and that they shouldn't be used. The only people that SHOULD care about those details are the engineers who work on them, or the people trying to figure out how to defend against them. Anyone else that knows about them is just simply interested.
Knowing a few mostly unimportant details doesn't mean you understand the situation more than everyone else. It doesn't make everyone who doesn't know those few details ignorant either.
Mind you, I've been in places where tips were "pooled". That is, all the tips for the whole day go in one big jar, and everyone (including management-- evil!) gets their share. So, the tip you leave or don't leave may not go to the person that deserved it.
Did not know about management getting a cut of tips. That's just WRONG. But, I do see pooling tips as still be effective (though, not as much) because if a certain waiter/waitress doesn't bring in tips, they'll receive pressure or a piss poor attitude from the other workers. Granted, some people just won't care.
Never been a fan of the pooling tips thing though, from a customer point of view.
I didn't say what should or should not be illegal. I just said what my personal feelings were for what I believe is acceptable social behavior. Certainly, public breast feeding should not be illegal, but I was just asking for a little bit of social awareness and respect.
The only reason it's a private act is because you arbitrarily define it as such.
Bullshit. You can falsely apply that same rule to ANYTHING if you want to justify it.
A mother breast feeding a child is very intimate. It only occurs between mother and child. Therefore, it is a very private act. Not private as in "teehee, private parts, smirk smirk". Private as in occurring between only two very specific parties. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying.
...the problem is the lack of empathy and tolerance...
Exactly. And that goes both ways. You can't tell people who are offended to stop being offended. It doesn't work that way. Just the same, you can't tell a mother to stop breast feeding. It just goes both ways, and all I ask is both parties respect the other. You can't make everybody happy, but you can go a long way to keeping the peace.
A good example of how to do that: if I spot a mother breast feeding, I'll respect what she's doing and leave her alone. I won't bother her and tell her what to do, that's her business.
At the same time, if I'm a woman and I need to breast feed, since it's not everybody else's business I would try to see if there's someplace nearby a bit more inconspicuous. That's respecting the act just as much as tolerating someone else doing it in public.
I just don't see why tolerance has to be a one-way street.
But people also murder in the name of greed, selfishness, power, vengeance, because they're batshit crazy, some other non-religious cult, being brainwashed, etc. There are a billion reasons why people kill. And just because they belong to a particular group, you can't subscribe that group to being behind it all. Eliminating the group won't eliminate the extremists. And that's what these modern wars are about, extremists.
Also, religious persecution has been around for a very long time as well. People have been killed for simply being religious. Let's not pretend that never happens.
But really, I think everything should just be about mutual respect. The woman breastfeeding doesn't just get a free pass for unpopular public behavior just because a kid is involved. She should be aware of where she's at and what's going on. That being said, I don't have a problem with public breastfeeding if that's just what she's gotta do at that given time. However, if it doesn't take much effort to move out of the center of attention, I think that should be done. It's still a private act between mother and child, and I don't think it should be put on display so readily and just expect everyone else to avert their eyes and go out of their way to make sure she's undisturbed. I've seen some women make it a point to sit on the bench in the mall in the area with the most traffic, whip out a boob without bothering to cover anything up, and feed the kid. The kid wasn't crying or anything so it didn't appear hungry, plus there was another empty bench not 20ft away that was less attention-getting. Now, in that instance, I think she should have just moved to the less attention-getting bench out of respect for everyone else around her. Not in the act of being ashamed or anything, just simply out of respect. However, if she couldn't or there wasn't room anywhere else or <insert some other excuse here>, fine.
Just, really, try to be respectful. Some people may find it offensive. I'm not asking for you to tip-toe around, but at least don't intentionally create waves.
Second, here's how I look at it. EVERYBODY fucks. VERY FEW people kill, maim, torture, or disembowel somebody. So why do we think showing a boob is a bad thing? Everybody's seen one. Therefore, it shouldn't be a shock. Seeing someone's gutted corpse, however, should cause one hell of a shitstorm by comparison.
To add to the irony, if the part in question is maimed or sliced up or disfigured horribly, then it's OK to show. It's like the only organ that's not allowed on TV is your skin, which even more ironically is your most exposed organ in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a +1 "creative" mod?
And you're claiming to know how to fly a future spacecraft that hasn't been designed yet, whose fuel source hasn't been discovered yet, and whose flying instructions have only been theorized about.
I also fail to see how the laws of the conservation of mass and energy don't apply to "modern physics", as you call it (string theory, reeeeally????).
It's also become just slightly more expensive to take care of a kid. If you have 19 kids nowadays, unless you are filthy rich, a bunch of tax payers are supporting your irresponsible life choices (at least in the US). And as a tax payer, I say "fuck that!!".
Starting with the Duggars...
No kidding. Not only is it terribly irresponsible, but vaginas aren't clown cars. (Joke Credit: someone out there in the interwebs).
OK, Hawking has officially lost it. He's past his prime. Also according to the laws of physics, you can't create something from nothing. Is he trying to claim that energy from gravity just spontaneously turned itself into all sorts of matter? Where did gravity come from? Where did energy come from?
Really Hawking, you could just say "I have no frakin clue" and people would still think you're a genius. You don't need to try to claim such asinine things. I'm not arguing there's a divine being of some kind that created it all, but c'mon, his argument by contrast is just as insane.
You know, that'd be pretty fucking sweet if net neutrality rules forced ports open if the customer, ANY type of customer, wanted them open. Buuuuttt, I somehow doubt that will happen.
Tired of paying double for the same thing but with open ports. And too bad you can't just pay $5 for a static IP like you used to be able to. It's utterly ridiculous that my internet bill is over $105/mo every month without even being on the top tier. It's a "business" account for the open ports but the QoS is still shit. Plus, I have service outages constantly.
Update: I actually RTFA, and yes, it's solid rock. Furthermore, it's under a mountain, so while it's that deep from the surface, I'd imagine there's even more solid rock between the nuclear strike entry point and the actual server rooms. A bit of winding here and there would protect even further.
Needless to say, I'd feel pretty safe down there.
That much solid rock between you and the EMP blast wouldn't protect you? I would think that'd be pretty solid shielding? Besides, you don't build a nuclear bunker necessarily because you're worrying about the EMP blast...
For bunker busters, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
Altering the shape of the projectile to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial results. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet (46 m) in concrete[citation needed] when traveling at 4,000 ft/s (1,200 m/s). The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slow). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.
So, it still depends. What material is between the surface and this bunker? I'd imagine a hard rock would have a lot more stopping power than concrete (due to how they penetrated the concrete). Either way, it sounds like if you would line the bunker with a pretty thick layer of steel in addition, you'd probably turn out OK.
Someone in the know correct me on this.
I guess that's why Xbox Live has so much more to offer. You get what you pay for.
Solution: grow a spine.
So the proposal is to put more criminals under house arrest? Really?
Head-On! Apply directly to forehead! Head-On! Head-On! Head-On! Apply to forehead! Head-On!
/.
Sorry. That's the first ad that came to mind that was so annoying I actually cringe when I see it in real life. It upholds your point.
To add to the discussion, if I make a purchase of anything over $15-$20, I probably do at least a little bit of research on it first. If that's an audio CD, it's probably just a few general reviews. The more expensive the item the more research (TV hunting literally took 6 weeks) unless time is of the essence (car broke down and you need a new one NOW). I most definitely rarely buy something worth more than $15-$20 on a whim. And that's only based on TV ads.
Internet ads are a breed that are far worse by nature, but at least they're blockable for the most part. The only times I leave them on is when I feel the site is worthy of advertising revenue and when the ads aren't super annoying or intrusive. Example:
Just knowing about the US, and knowing nothing of Europe, is a terrible cop-out. It smacks of wilful ignorance.
I would agree. But is the current situation in the U.S. just knowing nothing of Europe or just knowing some about their geography?
That you seem to think that what goes on in France or Germany doesn't have a direct impact on the US, and its citizens within, is also rather strange.
Depends how you define "direct impact". Close geographical ties tend to have a greater significance in perspective. "Close to home" if you will. In no way did I mean that foreign countries don't have a significant impact on the U.S. as if the U.S. is special in some way. My point was purely geographical and the perceptions of the general population based on geographical locations of certain events.
An old manager in the US asked me if England was near the UK. Wow. He's a manager, and he doesn't know that? He went to university. He's supposed to be educated.
OK, granted, I'm a bit surprised at that, but to play the devil's advocate here.... did his higher education cover international geography? Probably not. I don't remember any geography classes at my university. All that stuff I remember being taught in grade school and junior high school. Did his job require that he knew where these two countries were geographically to each other? Since he had to ask, probably not.
I'll reiterate what I said before. I didn't excuse not knowing what's going on in other countries, I more stressed the importance of knowing the actual geography of those countries (which is obviously not as high as knowing what's going on). You can have the complete international geography perfectly memorized, but if you don't know what's going on, that's far more ignorant than not being able to pick out a few countries on the other side of the planet.
I'm not at all sure that the government should be regulating in the internet at this picky level of detail.
Consumers have no technical way to protect themselves. Block cookies and there are a thousand other ways to track them (web bugs, LSO cookies, etc. etc.). Block those and the vendors will find another solution.
The only solution is legal: Give consumers legal authority to stop vendors from tracking them, and penalties if that's violated.
We've all been trained to memorize the meme that government regulation is bad. Fine if you want to believe it, and sometimes the meme is true, but sometimes, bad or not, the regulation is worse than the alternative.
Two words: ad blockers.
I think you missed the point. There's more of an important difference to Europeans than to Americans because European countries are so close together geographically. If you took the same people in America, same country, same mentality, and squeezed everything into the size of a European country (biggest one?), and surrounded them with all these other countries that make a decent impact on you, your defense, and your economy, many of whom actually share the same currency, you can bet your ass they'd know the same information.
You can't compare, because it's not the same. Americans know all 50 states because that's what impacts them. It's easier to remember. And the U.S. is literally surrounded by a total of two countries. Furthermore, reaching other countries takes more than a hop, skip, and jump so experiencing other countries and their cultures isn't so easily done. You can bet kids are taught world maps, but it's tough to keep in mind something that doesn't have as direct an impact on you, especially when everything is so damned far away.
No, Europe is slightly bigger than the U.S... barely.
But hell, we're comparing an entire continent to a country. Needless to say, the original point is still sustained. Considering there's roughly the same number of countries in Europe (depending on who/when you ask) as there are states in the U.S., Europeans calling us ignorant because we can't name all their countries or place them on a map is just as ludicrous as Americans calling Europeans ignorant because they can't name and place all 50 states (not even including extra districts and territories).
Question: do 6 out of 10 American young adults need to find Iraq on a map, or Sudan? Do they need to know what religion the majority of the population of India practice?
Honestly, the other 4 out of 10 young American adults is a bigger number than those that really need to know this information.
I'd say knowing our relationship with these countries, and their relationships with some other countries (most likely just who is in conflict) are much more important pieces of information than the actual location of said countries. A few reasons why, also. Knowing the actual geography of those locations may help in the understanding of why things are they way they are, but it certainly isn't necessary unless they deal with it in some way directly.
People don't expect you to understand how a nuclear bomb works. That's not nearly as useful as simply knowing that it's crazy destructive and that they shouldn't be used. The only people that SHOULD care about those details are the engineers who work on them, or the people trying to figure out how to defend against them. Anyone else that knows about them is just simply interested.
Knowing a few mostly unimportant details doesn't mean you understand the situation more than everyone else. It doesn't make everyone who doesn't know those few details ignorant either.
You can have him. He proved he's little more than the words he speaks.
Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, eh?
Mind you, I've been in places where tips were "pooled". That is, all the tips for the whole day go in one big jar, and everyone (including management-- evil!) gets their share. So, the tip you leave or don't leave may not go to the person that deserved it.
Did not know about management getting a cut of tips. That's just WRONG. But, I do see pooling tips as still be effective (though, not as much) because if a certain waiter/waitress doesn't bring in tips, they'll receive pressure or a piss poor attitude from the other workers. Granted, some people just won't care.
Never been a fan of the pooling tips thing though, from a customer point of view.
The only reason it's a private act is because you arbitrarily define it as such.
Bullshit. You can falsely apply that same rule to ANYTHING if you want to justify it.
A mother breast feeding a child is very intimate. It only occurs between mother and child. Therefore, it is a very private act. Not private as in "teehee, private parts, smirk smirk". Private as in occurring between only two very specific parties. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying.
...the problem is the lack of empathy and tolerance...
Exactly. And that goes both ways. You can't tell people who are offended to stop being offended. It doesn't work that way. Just the same, you can't tell a mother to stop breast feeding. It just goes both ways, and all I ask is both parties respect the other. You can't make everybody happy, but you can go a long way to keeping the peace.
A good example of how to do that: if I spot a mother breast feeding, I'll respect what she's doing and leave her alone. I won't bother her and tell her what to do, that's her business.
At the same time, if I'm a woman and I need to breast feed, since it's not everybody else's business I would try to see if there's someplace nearby a bit more inconspicuous. That's respecting the act just as much as tolerating someone else doing it in public.
I just don't see why tolerance has to be a one-way street.
But people also murder in the name of greed, selfishness, power, vengeance, because they're batshit crazy, some other non-religious cult, being brainwashed, etc. There are a billion reasons why people kill. And just because they belong to a particular group, you can't subscribe that group to being behind it all. Eliminating the group won't eliminate the extremists. And that's what these modern wars are about, extremists.
Also, religious persecution has been around for a very long time as well. People have been killed for simply being religious. Let's not pretend that never happens.
Don't be ridiculous.
Exactly. When ya gotta go ya gotta go.
But really, I think everything should just be about mutual respect. The woman breastfeeding doesn't just get a free pass for unpopular public behavior just because a kid is involved. She should be aware of where she's at and what's going on. That being said, I don't have a problem with public breastfeeding if that's just what she's gotta do at that given time. However, if it doesn't take much effort to move out of the center of attention, I think that should be done. It's still a private act between mother and child, and I don't think it should be put on display so readily and just expect everyone else to avert their eyes and go out of their way to make sure she's undisturbed. I've seen some women make it a point to sit on the bench in the mall in the area with the most traffic, whip out a boob without bothering to cover anything up, and feed the kid. The kid wasn't crying or anything so it didn't appear hungry, plus there was another empty bench not 20ft away that was less attention-getting. Now, in that instance, I think she should have just moved to the less attention-getting bench out of respect for everyone else around her. Not in the act of being ashamed or anything, just simply out of respect. However, if she couldn't or there wasn't room anywhere else or <insert some other excuse here>, fine.
Just, really, try to be respectful. Some people may find it offensive. I'm not asking for you to tip-toe around, but at least don't intentionally create waves.
First, nudity is not porn.
Second, here's how I look at it. EVERYBODY fucks. VERY FEW people kill, maim, torture, or disembowel somebody. So why do we think showing a boob is a bad thing? Everybody's seen one. Therefore, it shouldn't be a shock. Seeing someone's gutted corpse, however, should cause one hell of a shitstorm by comparison.
To add to the irony, if the part in question is maimed or sliced up or disfigured horribly, then it's OK to show. It's like the only organ that's not allowed on TV is your skin, which even more ironically is your most exposed organ in the first place.
Absolutely fucking retarded.
Yes, I was confused. I was talking modern ASP (.Net). Sorry about that. My point was ASP didn't come until after PHP, even in modern varieties.