Nah, that's all bullshit. Move the sun and the barycentre of the sol system will go with it. Walk out of your front door on a clear night you can watch the stars do absolutely fuck all. They move across the sky way too slowly to see the motion and in no way to they appear to rotate around you.
Spinning in the spot is not the same as standing still and having the universe rotate you. For one, you're not still. Your legs are moving you'll be bobbing up and down a bit and this supposed rotation of the universe exerts no effect on anything else but lifting my arms? And I suppose making me dizzy.
That sounds like trying to replace things with technicalities that are technically like the things but distinct so you can say HA it's not the thing it's the technically like the thing that is the thing, technically.
The frame of reference that is the opposite of what is happening is the one that is least correct. Seriously, I could be spinning or the universe could be rotating about me? What kind of nonsense is that? I've never heard of this Goedel guy but he sounds like either a hippy or a troll or both. Or maybe in one frame of reference physics tolled him?
So just to be clear, the solution to the problem that visual voicemail doesn't work over the internet is to get a phone which doesn't have visual voicemail,
What the fuck is visual voicemail? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
I got a bunch of Monster video and audio cables, with really nice machined, gold plated RCA ends. They're great, mostly because they were also free out of a dumpster in back of a Best Buy. (I was there looking for a large piece of cardboard for a project)
Get all the people who would be against it behind it by thinking they'll get faster downloads then once it's going either packet inspection and sell the infringers info to the xIAA, say 'psyche, net neutrality lol' or put an even faster fast lane for youtube/netflix etc traffic. For a premium of course. No way it will be as beneficial and sensible as the summary makes it seem.
So now we're assuming dark matter exists and we know how much of it is in any given galaxy?
I'm far from an expert in the subject but as I understand it's pretty simple. Total Mass (or whatever) or a galaxy - visible/known mass = assumed dark matter mass.
The thing about space is, it's black. And the thing about black holes, their main distinguishing feature is, they're black. So how are you supposed to see 'em?
I was thinking the same thing. I see this as a massive misappropriation of tax payers' funds. I don't know what the accountants would say on the issue, but I'd imagine that isolation has a higher cost to the tax payer than general population since the convict needs everything brought to them in special quarters built to what I can only assume is a higher standard.
A simple firewall with some sort of websense technology should be more than satisfactory to limit the use of these networks by the inmates. I'm sure it's an issue of "If you build a bigger mouse trap, I'll build a bigger mouse", but there is definitely a finite number of social networking sites out there and I'm pretty sure that there's a room full of near-slaves working in a sweatshop somewhere in the East which are constantly updating those web sense filters.
Here's an even better idea, why not actually track HTTP POST requests to unknown sites as well. This way, when the inmate clicks a button to post something and the websense filter doesn't know how to handle that request, an administrator somewhere on duty will immediately see their screen and then click whether it should be allowed or not. This will allow the inmates to apply to online universities to assist in their rehab while mindless blocking known "Red Zones" like Facebook. I can't imagine that we'd need more than one person on duty for an entire prison corporation during one shift per day....
That would be really good but you know, they ain't connecting via wifi so all that might as well be noise. In the article they say about signal blocking the area but the FCC comes down hard on it so they're trying to figure something out. Apparently a couple other states have a solution and they are looking to get on that but yeah, they still won't be connecting via wifi.
To OP there that thinks it's so they can't run a criminal business, in some form or another gang leaders have been running their organizations from behind bars in some cases decades before the creation of the internet.
What's the difference?
In the old days they had to be really clever and sly about it rather than hide a phone up their ass.
When I was super shy, I hit community college. I had social phobia. And like a death sentence, I was told in front of the entire class by a teacher that, "You will never become an engineer." The whole room when quiet. Even my fellow students were in shock someone would be so blatant. Well, I've got my degree and offered to start a Ph.D in Robotics, so that woman can suck a bag of moth balls.
If you want to really inspire or encourage someone tell them they cannot have what they really want.
thanks for the info, ive been confused all day with the static page at work, i thought maybe they got sick of me on here!
That's what I thought, fine, fine, fine access denied. I thought they'd blocked it but that didn't seem right as it would've taken a little bit of effort and direction from above. Apparently not and huzzah.
Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it.
That's my point thought defendants have right to defend themselves. When does covering up evidence gathering methods serve a legitimate judicial use? Why would hiding the methods used to gather evidence be necessary unless for example the government did something illegal?
Um that's what parallel construction is. Getting information though illegal means (usually better and quicker) and the presenting a story about how you got it legally.
In a free society with an adversarial justice system based on the presumption of innocence, what legitimate goals are furthered by secrecy around evidence gathering methods?
It would be nice if we had one of those but are you joking? Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it. it's not fucking rocket science.
An explosion IS something burning really fast, like really really fast. Don't be so pedantic. you go ask anyone in an English speaking country what burned alive means and they'll tell you it means burned to death or killed with fire or other wording to the same effect. If you held a lighter against my skin you would have just burned me, until I die you would have burned me through states of severity but when I die you burned me alive
On Tuesday evening, big screens were set up on the streets and squares of the Syrian town Raqqa, the stronghold of the self-styled Islamic State. As word spread of the show that was about to begin, thousands of men and young boys gathered around the screens and the projectors.... [M]ale residents stood transfixed watching the entire 22-minute segment, many chanting "Allahu Ahkbar" and "Takbir" (another form of "God is greatest") as the caged Kassasbeh was consumed by flames. "I would have burnt the pilot with my own hands," said one boy who looked on in fascination as the clip was replayed over and over.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, that's all bullshit. Move the sun and the barycentre of the sol system will go with it. Walk out of your front door on a clear night you can watch the stars do absolutely fuck all. They move across the sky way too slowly to see the motion and in no way to they appear to rotate around you.
Spinning in the spot is not the same as standing still and having the universe rotate you. For one, you're not still. Your legs are moving you'll be bobbing up and down a bit and this supposed rotation of the universe exerts no effect on anything else but lifting my arms? And I suppose making me dizzy.
That sounds like trying to replace things with technicalities that are technically like the things but distinct so you can say HA it's not the thing it's the technically like the thing that is the thing, technically.
The frame of reference that is the opposite of what is happening is the one that is least correct. Seriously, I could be spinning or the universe could be rotating about me? What kind of nonsense is that? I've never heard of this Goedel guy but he sounds like either a hippy or a troll or both. Or maybe in one frame of reference physics tolled him?
Look at how many people think they're scientifically literate because they think --
Then what does it do? From any point of reference the sun is the centre of this solar system and everything in this system orbits the sun.
Tell people all about the dangers of unregulated Dihydrogen Monoxide and they will call for the evil substance to be banned.
So just to be clear, the solution to the problem that visual voicemail doesn't work over the internet is to get a phone which doesn't have visual voicemail,
What the fuck is visual voicemail? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
I got a bunch of Monster video and audio cables, with really nice machined, gold plated RCA ends. They're great, mostly because they were also free out of a dumpster in back of a Best Buy. (I was there looking for a large piece of cardboard for a project)
Niiiice
Get all the people who would be against it behind it by thinking they'll get faster downloads then once it's going either packet inspection and sell the infringers info to the xIAA, say 'psyche, net neutrality lol' or put an even faster fast lane for youtube/netflix etc traffic. For a premium of course. No way it will be as beneficial and sensible as the summary makes it seem.
So now we're assuming dark matter exists and we know how much of it is in any given galaxy?
I'm far from an expert in the subject but as I understand it's pretty simple. Total Mass (or whatever) or a galaxy - visible/known mass = assumed dark matter mass.
If we weren't assuming it wouldn't be dark.
The thing about space is, it's black. And the thing about black holes, their main distinguishing feature is, they're black. So how are you supposed to see 'em?
So it's even more of a non-issue than I thought. Some people just love a good whinge about nothing.
...Shut the fuck up moaning and use the remote.
I was thinking the same thing. I see this as a massive misappropriation of tax payers' funds. I don't know what the accountants would say on the issue, but I'd imagine that isolation has a higher cost to the tax payer than general population since the convict needs everything brought to them in special quarters built to what I can only assume is a higher standard. A simple firewall with some sort of websense technology should be more than satisfactory to limit the use of these networks by the inmates. I'm sure it's an issue of "If you build a bigger mouse trap, I'll build a bigger mouse", but there is definitely a finite number of social networking sites out there and I'm pretty sure that there's a room full of near-slaves working in a sweatshop somewhere in the East which are constantly updating those web sense filters. Here's an even better idea, why not actually track HTTP POST requests to unknown sites as well. This way, when the inmate clicks a button to post something and the websense filter doesn't know how to handle that request, an administrator somewhere on duty will immediately see their screen and then click whether it should be allowed or not. This will allow the inmates to apply to online universities to assist in their rehab while mindless blocking known "Red Zones" like Facebook. I can't imagine that we'd need more than one person on duty for an entire prison corporation during one shift per day ....
That would be really good but you know, they ain't connecting via wifi so all that might as well be noise. In the article they say about signal blocking the area but the FCC comes down hard on it so they're trying to figure something out. Apparently a couple other states have a solution and they are looking to get on that but yeah, they still won't be connecting via wifi.
To OP there that thinks it's so they can't run a criminal business, in some form or another gang leaders have been running their organizations from behind bars in some cases decades before the creation of the internet. What's the difference?
In the old days they had to be really clever and sly about it rather than hide a phone up their ass.
Self inflicted and well deserved.
I guess the war has been harsh to you.
What, is there a sale on Loch Ness Munchies or something?
No, but he said 'I need about tree fiddy'
Even in Asia? Is it still the hetero while man's fault?
Yep
The top fashion designers are men, they have a penis.
Is that to share or each?
When I was super shy, I hit community college. I had social phobia. And like a death sentence, I was told in front of the entire class by a teacher that, "You will never become an engineer." The whole room when quiet. Even my fellow students were in shock someone would be so blatant. Well, I've got my degree and offered to start a Ph.D in Robotics, so that woman can suck a bag of moth balls.
If you want to really inspire or encourage someone tell them they cannot have what they really want.
thanks for the info, ive been confused all day with the static page at work, i thought maybe they got sick of me on here!
That's what I thought, fine, fine, fine access denied. I thought they'd blocked it but that didn't seem right as it would've taken a little bit of effort and direction from above. Apparently not and huzzah.
Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it.
That's my point thought defendants have right to defend themselves. When does covering up evidence gathering methods serve a legitimate judicial use? Why would hiding the methods used to gather evidence be necessary unless for example the government did something illegal?
Um that's what parallel construction is. Getting information though illegal means (usually better and quicker) and the presenting a story about how you got it legally.
In a free society with an adversarial justice system based on the presumption of innocence, what legitimate goals are furthered by secrecy around evidence gathering methods?
It would be nice if we had one of those but are you joking? Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it. it's not fucking rocket science.
An explosion IS something burning really fast, like really really fast. Don't be so pedantic. you go ask anyone in an English speaking country what burned alive means and they'll tell you it means burned to death or killed with fire or other wording to the same effect. If you held a lighter against my skin you would have just burned me, until I die you would have burned me through states of severity but when I die you burned me alive
So we were all hallucinating when we saw Bush in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished"?
Different mission. That was just talking about the mission to get Bush on a boat in front of a banner.
Well that's not going to get shot down at all. No'siree.
Maybe it is.
On Tuesday evening, big screens were set up on the streets and squares of the Syrian town Raqqa, the stronghold of the self-styled Islamic State. As word spread of the show that was about to begin, thousands of men and young boys gathered around the screens and the projectors. ... [M]ale residents stood transfixed watching the entire 22-minute segment, many chanting "Allahu Ahkbar" and "Takbir" (another form of "God is greatest") as the caged Kassasbeh was consumed by flames. "I would have burnt the pilot with my own hands," said one boy who looked on in fascination as the clip was replayed over and over.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articl...
Typical, perfect time for a few JDAMs and not a bomber about.
Peoples don't know what 'burn alive' mean.
Peoples know what burn alive mean. It means burned alive. The clue is in the name.