It does not necessarily pass through GEO. GEO is also defined as over the equator specifically, and it is rather unlikely that the asteroid will happen to be above that point when it crosses the proper altitude.
I just find it especially ironic that I was modded up more than the post I recommended be modded up. This is one of the very few cases where "-1 Overrated" is actually justified.
England would not have fallen, but other than that, your assessment was more or less accurate. Operation Sea Lion was cancelled nearly a year before Hitler attempted to invade Russia, and Hitler's plans to invade England were long since scrapped by the time Barbarossa began.
The US has been supporting (grudgingly accepting?) Gadhafi for a few years now, ever since he turned in his nuclear program in 2004 (several days after we pulled Sadaam out of a ditch. Probably not a coincidence, but I digress). Until the past month, really. We even shot down down a few of his MIGs in the 1980's on two separate occasions.
Opinion polls do that fairly often with public opinion (around 1,500 samples, tops, extrapolating to 300 million), and usually end up off by no more than a few percent.
I would argue the other way. We have a non-engineer describing an engineer as bored. Engineers can appear bored to people who don't have that mindset, because they're so interested in everything. Furthermore, I would be more likely to trust 'one bored engineer' than 'nine young investors'. That said, I have no retort to the iphone comment.
For primaries this is probably a really good idea. It would prevent Sarah Palin from winning with 40% of the conservative vote, because the sane conservatives won't have to be split among the other 4-5 reasonable candidates. I don't think this system will make much sense for the national election though.
Emotionally, it can make sense. I have no argument that it does financially. My post was meant to imply 'even assuming there is benefit in having 1-2', not to state that explicitly that I believe there is. Any sort of nationalistic reason involving paying for future social security I agree does not apply here, because the existence of YOUR 1-2 child(ren) will not really have any significant affect on the system. I put in the Churchill quote mostly because I find it amusing.
In all seriousness, with few exceptions, genetic natural selection no longer has much place in western society. With very few exceptions, the main factor in determining how many times over a person passes his DNA to the next generation is how many times said person wants to pass his DNA. There is very little practical reason to have more than 1-2 kids, so those with religious beliefs will those who don't. The question is whether there is such a thing as a 'religiousity gene' or combination of genes. If I were to bet, I would bet against that.
"You should have four children. One for Mother, one for Father, one for Accidents, and one for Increase." -Winston Churchill
Slashdot Mirror
It does not necessarily pass through GEO. GEO is also defined as over the equator specifically, and it is rather unlikely that the asteroid will happen to be above that point when it crosses the proper altitude.
I just find it especially ironic that I was modded up more than the post I recommended be modded up. This is one of the very few cases where "-1 Overrated" is actually justified.
Mod parent up. That was my first instinct as well.
You can get a degree in collage?
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
There, fixed that for you.
Suppose one out of a hundred people will sue if something goes wrong. How many patients do you think the average doctor sees a year?
England would not have fallen, but other than that, your assessment was more or less accurate. Operation Sea Lion was cancelled nearly a year before Hitler attempted to invade Russia, and Hitler's plans to invade England were long since scrapped by the time Barbarossa began.
Yes. But that's not our problem.
I read a good piece on this a while back. Link. It might be paywalled, so Google the title to get the whole article.
That's what a tuning set is for. Do you trust the summaries here to give a perfect description of what is going on?
The US has been supporting (grudgingly accepting?) Gadhafi for a few years now, ever since he turned in his nuclear program in 2004 (several days after we pulled Sadaam out of a ditch. Probably not a coincidence, but I digress). Until the past month, really. We even shot down down a few of his MIGs in the 1980's on two separate occasions.
If not, I stand corrected.
I'm pretty sure Facebook's privacy settings even allow you to deny people the ability to tag you in posts. Problem solved. Idiot.
So stop exhaling. And seal yourself in a plastic bag, so that when your suffocated corpse decomposes nothing goes back to the atmosphere.
Didn't the entire Earth come from meteorites and other space junk?
It isn't like Al-Jazeera to doctor photos. Only Reuters does that.
For all intensive purposes, his point was still clear.
Opinion polls do that fairly often with public opinion (around 1,500 samples, tops, extrapolating to 300 million), and usually end up off by no more than a few percent.
Or wrenches
I would argue the other way. We have a non-engineer describing an engineer as bored. Engineers can appear bored to people who don't have that mindset, because they're so interested in everything. Furthermore, I would be more likely to trust 'one bored engineer' than 'nine young investors'. That said, I have no retort to the iphone comment.
Insightful? Please, PLEASE, refute him with some sort of evidence rather than name calling.
For primaries this is probably a really good idea. It would prevent Sarah Palin from winning with 40% of the conservative vote, because the sane conservatives won't have to be split among the other 4-5 reasonable candidates. I don't think this system will make much sense for the national election though.
I probably should have been more clear initially.
Emotionally, it can make sense. I have no argument that it does financially. My post was meant to imply 'even assuming there is benefit in having 1-2', not to state that explicitly that I believe there is. Any sort of nationalistic reason involving paying for future social security I agree does not apply here, because the existence of YOUR 1-2 child(ren) will not really have any significant affect on the system. I put in the Churchill quote mostly because I find it amusing.
In all seriousness, with few exceptions, genetic natural selection no longer has much place in western society. With very few exceptions, the main factor in determining how many times over a person passes his DNA to the next generation is how many times said person wants to pass his DNA. There is very little practical reason to have more than 1-2 kids, so those with religious beliefs will those who don't. The question is whether there is such a thing as a 'religiousity gene' or combination of genes. If I were to bet, I would bet against that.
"You should have four children. One for Mother, one for Father, one for Accidents, and one for Increase." -Winston Churchill