Addressing #2: Space was the thing that was expanding. While photons can move *within* that space (thru time) faster than other particles/conglomerations of particles, they cannot expand it themselves. Thus a photon would wrap around (if inflation/VSL/What-have-you caused it to travel faster than the expansion of space.
Thus, even though matter within space-time is not uniform (galaxies and such (are they fractally uniform, thus lending a fractally uniform nature to background radiation? Errant speculation)), the background radiation would (mostly) be.
In effect, we *are* looking back at what happened to our particles (or what became our particles) every time we look at particular parts of the background radiation (again, assuming VSL/inflation is true).
As many physical reflexes can be short-circuited much more easily than the described visual reflexes.
Re:can someone explain to me
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
"You'll never reach a point where you're prohibited from accelerating. But you'll always be short of c, and when you accelerate, you'll make the amount that you're short smaller, but you'll never be able to get it to zero."
This seems to imply a non-disrete space and/or time. I thought the Planck units implied disreteness. Can you please explain?
In less than 1 Gigayear this "one planet" will become uninhabitable (for the most part). I hardly think one planet (or one universe--thanks entropy) is enough.
Re:Sounds like fun - shame about the name
on
Economy of Errors
·
· Score: 1
Considering all the products that were announced during the net boom, I'm not suprised some people took this seriously. The proliferation of Truth-Is-Stranger-Than-Fiction-type news stories also has had a profound affect on people's ability to judge the accuracy of these things.
Don't lump everyong into the same bag. Check out *who* is doing the posting. Perhaps they are trolls, perhaps they are a few US chauvanists. Perhaps they are non-USians who happen to dislike Russia. Good God, they are plenty of possible explanations. Do not just jump on the easy anti-American one. Just because there are a few loud-mouths, does not mean everyone is a jerk.
The Palestinians aren't the only ones being cruelly done to. So are the Israelis (unless you don't consider the deliberate murder and maiming of children to be cruel). This type of violence can only end when the VAST majority of BOTH sides SIMULTANEOUSLY decide they would rather have peace than conflict. Or when (as in the Cold War) both sides are so evenly matched and strong that an attack would be mutually destructive (though in this type of fight, if one side was willing to self-destruct in an Arthur-Modred type suicide attack, the stand-off will not last).
The majority Palestinian support for Hamas, et al., no matter how necessary in their eyes (due to Israeli actions), makes peace impossible barring the extinction of one side.
The least cruel thing that could be done is to euthanize everyone in the world as simultaneously as possible. If you let them live, they will suffer at some point in their life.
The distinction is not simple, because that's not what I was making my point on, not did that seem to be the point of said cartoons in your sig link. Sometimes you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. With Hamas refusing to make any deals whatsoever, the Israelis, and hence the Palestinians, are in that horrid middle place.
It would have been better if the expulsion had been permanent, ala the legal expulsion and seizure of property of the loyalists who chose to side with the British in the US Revolutionary war. (Most of said loyalists went to Canada during and following the war and made a new life) This probably would have been the best situation, but the other nations around Israel refused asylum/refuge to many of said Palestinians.
The site linked to in your sig shows a remarkable lack of geopolitical history, as well as an inability to see rational distinctions between situations. It so simplifies a handful of cases that the analogies fail.
You could as easily say that the 1840's Texans were Palestinian; only their allies (USA vs. Jordan/Syria/Egypt/Etc... for the Palestinians) actually won the first war, and conquered out a chunk of Mexico for the Texans to live in.
I'd seriously wondered whether anyone else had thought of this. The average American only drinks ~1 fizzy drink a day, so it shouldn't be that great a percentage contribution.
Drink Gatorade! (Or Snapple, if you want to get away from plastic)
I don't know whether the other person meant that phrase as a matter of semantics or not. It can also be viewed as a fundamental difference in thought between two states of mind.
He was talking about dictatorial regimes during the space age you utter Moron; which Russia (the USSR) was during these times. He wasn't talking about individuals.
"we write tickets to people for not wearing seatbelts, instead of convincing people at a young age that wearing seatbelts and protecting your own life is a good idea"
From what I've seen, we tend to do both in this country (USA). They need not be mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAP
Addressing #2: Space was the thing that was expanding. While photons can move *within* that space (thru time) faster than other particles/conglomerations of particles, they cannot expand it themselves. Thus a photon would wrap around (if inflation/VSL/What-have-you caused it to travel faster than the expansion of space.
Thus, even though matter within space-time is not uniform (galaxies and such (are they fractally uniform, thus lending a fractally uniform nature to background radiation? Errant speculation)), the background radiation would (mostly) be.
In effect, we *are* looking back at what happened to our particles (or what became our particles) every time we look at particular parts of the background radiation (again, assuming VSL/inflation is true).
As many physical reflexes can be short-circuited much more easily than the described visual reflexes.
"You'll never reach a point where you're prohibited from accelerating. But you'll always be short of c, and when you accelerate, you'll make the amount that you're short smaller, but you'll never be able to get it to zero."
This seems to imply a non-disrete space and/or time. I thought the Planck units implied disreteness. Can you please explain?
Read this site:s /cohen. html
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progres
This is no longer true! Ethanol produces between 4 and 10% more energy than it consumes:p df
http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.
The Uranium (and thorium) are going to run out in a couple billion years: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen. html
In less than 1 Gigayear this "one planet" will become uninhabitable (for the most part). I hardly think one planet (or one universe--thanks entropy) is enough.
Considering all the products that were announced during the net boom, I'm not suprised some people took this seriously. The proliferation of Truth-Is-Stranger-Than-Fiction-type news stories also has had a profound affect on people's ability to judge the accuracy of these things.
Bush in not a Prime Minister. His party doesn't even control the Senate. He *can't* commit to jack s**t.
Don't lump everyong into the same bag. Check out *who* is doing the posting. Perhaps they are trolls, perhaps they are a few US chauvanists. Perhaps they are non-USians who happen to dislike Russia. Good God, they are plenty of possible explanations. Do not just jump on the easy anti-American one. Just because there are a few loud-mouths, does not mean everyone is a jerk.
Why thank you! They truly do rock; thanks for the link. It's been way too long since I've read about my namesake.
and another.
The Palestinians aren't the only ones being cruelly done to. So are the Israelis (unless you don't consider the deliberate murder and maiming of children to be cruel). This type of violence can only end when the VAST majority of BOTH sides SIMULTANEOUSLY decide they would rather have peace than conflict. Or when (as in the Cold War) both sides are so evenly matched and strong that an attack would be mutually destructive (though in this type of fight, if one side was willing to self-destruct in an Arthur-Modred type suicide attack, the stand-off will not last).
The majority Palestinian support for Hamas, et al., no matter how necessary in their eyes (due to Israeli actions), makes peace impossible barring the extinction of one side.
and a PS.
Hopefully, the fence will stop most of this, and the Israelis will be smart enough to withdraw from the settlements.
The least cruel thing that could be done is to euthanize everyone in the world as simultaneously as possible. If you let them live, they will suffer at some point in their life.
The distinction is not simple, because that's not what I was making my point on, not did that seem to be the point of said cartoons in your sig link. Sometimes you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. With Hamas refusing to make any deals whatsoever, the Israelis, and hence the Palestinians, are in that horrid middle place.
It would have been better if the expulsion had been permanent, ala the legal expulsion and seizure of property of the loyalists who chose to side with the British in the US Revolutionary war. (Most of said loyalists went to Canada during and following the war and made a new life) This probably would have been the best situation, but the other nations around Israel refused asylum/refuge to many of said Palestinians.
The site linked to in your sig shows a remarkable lack of geopolitical history, as well as an inability to see rational distinctions between situations. It so simplifies a handful of cases that the analogies fail.
You could as easily say that the 1840's Texans were Palestinian; only their allies (USA vs. Jordan/Syria/Egypt/Etc... for the Palestinians) actually won the first war, and conquered out a chunk of Mexico for the Texans to live in.
Conservatives only jump on stem cells and Climate Change. Liberals jump on GM foods/animals, nuclear power (with MOX fuel from breeders).
Personally, I take issue with both camps.
It's usually thieves who make the "I gave you a $20" argument.
I'd seriously wondered whether anyone else had thought of this. The average American only drinks ~1 fizzy drink a day, so it shouldn't be that great a percentage contribution.
Drink Gatorade! (Or Snapple, if you want to get away from plastic)
I don't know whether the other person meant that phrase as a matter of semantics or not. It can also be viewed as a fundamental difference in thought between two states of mind.
He was talking about dictatorial regimes during the space age you utter Moron; which Russia (the USSR) was during these times. He wasn't talking about individuals.
A *food* pig has been modified quite a bit, actually. Primarily to provide more meat and be less dangerous.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/254144.html
China might be getting a current/former Russian spy base in Cuba.
"we write tickets to people for not wearing seatbelts, instead of convincing people at a young age that wearing seatbelts and protecting your own life is a good idea"
From what I've seen, we tend to do both in this country (USA). They need not be mutually exclusive.
Less concentrated power than in the feudal age.
I heard about through the local major network stations and maybe a paper. CNN is not the *only* news source.