What the OP means is that your 4-wheel drive will not magically enable you to stop on snow and ice like it was dry pavement. Many people in 4-wheel drive vehicles seem to be under the impression that it gives them an exemption from all the laws of physics.
Just out of curiosity, I looked up who *did* win the Nobel in 1938. It was the Nansen International Office for Reguees. Did them a lot of good; they closed shop that year. No Nobel Peace Prize was awarded 1939-1943 (1944 went to the Red Cross).
Nothing, really, since the bank will eat the costs of the fraud. It's annoying, yes, and it's a bit of a hassle, but generally you aren't buying much of value for that $3.
For Mr. Hiroshima, that $3 would have apparently bought him continued ownership of his single-letter Twitter account.
When you delete your account, somebody will go and get the corresponding disk, copy it (except your data), and destroy the old disk.
Except they won't. Facebook doesn't delete your data when you delete you account *now*, what makes you think they'll do it when it becomes this much harder?
SPARC will take Solaris with it. Sun never treated x86-64 Solaris well, but Oracle is just flat-out ignoring it . It's dying even faster than SPARC Solaris.
Tornadoes can happen *anywhere*. However, some places are more likely to get them than others; the American midwest is the most likely place, by a fairly wide margin. Meteorologists are are not entirely certain why.
If his facts are true as stated, he appears to have an unassailable case. Are disputing them? You have yet to state any evidence for your side of the argument.
As has been previously pointed out, it was a Rapid Chess game, with strict time limits. Also, the GM undoubtedly intentionally led Gates into some particularly trappy opening. There are opening lines that can result in a very rapid loss if you make a misstep that is not at all obvious over the board. Grandmasters, of course, have many such lines memorized, and know how to avoid the lines they don't know backwards and forwards.
Yes, nuclear subs are very noisy compared to diesels running on batteries. That disadvantage is minor compared to their ability to remain submerged indefinitely and their ability to move at high speeds while submerged.
And Boeing swooped in to "merge" with McDonnel and purchase an admittance ticket to the lucrative (but risky) Military Contracts party, which they hadn't been invited to previously.
Boeing had had lots of military contracts, but mostly transports like the C-17 and adaptations of their airliners like the E-6. Their last bomber had been the B-52. Merging with McDonnell got them back into the bomber business and into fighters for the first time since before WWII (the P-26 Peashooter had been a Boeing).
The 90% losses for the Germans is, I believe, correct. It should be remembered, however, that most of those losses were towards the end of the war, facing steeply unfavorable odds (in particular, massive Allied air supremacy). As far as I can determine, the US lost 52 subs out of a force of 300 S-class and fleet boats, not counting the older R-class and O-class, which didn't see combat.
Of course, all of these subs, Germans and US, were diesel subs. Nuclear subs are a very different beast.
On the other hand small but well trained and moderately well equipped enemies have been able to shoot down stealth bombers with impunity in the past.
My brief search on the internet has failed to uncover any stealth bomber ever shot down by anybody. Admittedly, it was not in-depth research. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to by whom, when, and where this feat was accomplished.
Books should also be categorized on *how* we read a book, not always on *what* we read.
That makes no sense. Given that each person reads a book differently, there is no way to categorize a book for multiple people based on *how* it is read, because no two people will agree on how it is read.
Slashdot Mirror
Hippopotamus itself is Greek for "river horse".
Silly boy, this story's from Britain. You need to call it a "boot" (which has a chain of etymology that does in fact involve footwear).
It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
No, hippopotamuses.
What the OP means is that your 4-wheel drive will not magically enable you to stop on snow and ice like it was dry pavement. Many people in 4-wheel drive vehicles seem to be under the impression that it gives them an exemption from all the laws of physics.
Does that mean we get to time travel four times?
Just out of curiosity, I looked up who *did* win the Nobel in 1938. It was the Nansen International Office for Reguees. Did them a lot of good; they closed shop that year. No Nobel Peace Prize was awarded 1939-1943 (1944 went to the Red Cross).
Well, Snowden's not Bush either, so that settles it. He should get one.
For Mr. Hiroshima, that $3 would have apparently bought him continued ownership of his single-letter Twitter account.
Except they won't. Facebook doesn't delete your data when you delete you account *now*, what makes you think they'll do it when it becomes this much harder?
SPARC will take Solaris with it. Sun never treated x86-64 Solaris well, but Oracle is just flat-out ignoring it . It's dying even faster than SPARC Solaris.
Tornadoes can happen *anywhere*. However, some places are more likely to get them than others; the American midwest is the most likely place, by a fairly wide margin. Meteorologists are are not entirely certain why.
I'd pick number 2. Number 3 is unlikely, and numbers 1 and 4 are just untrue, as Tata Steel is indeed a large Indian steel manufacturer.
If his facts are true as stated, he appears to have an unassailable case. Are disputing them? You have yet to state any evidence for your side of the argument.
Actually, yes, they do. Memorization (particularly of opening variations) is very much a part of chess mastery.
As has been previously pointed out, it was a Rapid Chess game, with strict time limits. Also, the GM undoubtedly intentionally led Gates into some particularly trappy opening. There are opening lines that can result in a very rapid loss if you make a misstep that is not at all obvious over the board. Grandmasters, of course, have many such lines memorized, and know how to avoid the lines they don't know backwards and forwards.
Yes, nuclear subs are very noisy compared to diesels running on batteries. That disadvantage is minor compared to their ability to remain submerged indefinitely and their ability to move at high speeds while submerged.
You said "stealth bomber" not "stealth fighter". Not that that invalidates your point, but it does mean I was searching in the wrong place.
However, it's still just one. Not "stealth bombers" plural, let alone "with inpunity". I do not think one lucky shot makes your case.
Boeing had had lots of military contracts, but mostly transports like the C-17 and adaptations of their airliners like the E-6. Their last bomber had been the B-52. Merging with McDonnell got them back into the bomber business and into fighters for the first time since before WWII (the P-26 Peashooter had been a Boeing).
The 90% losses for the Germans is, I believe, correct. It should be remembered, however, that most of those losses were towards the end of the war, facing steeply unfavorable odds (in particular, massive Allied air supremacy). As far as I can determine, the US lost 52 subs out of a force of 300 S-class and fleet boats, not counting the older R-class and O-class, which didn't see combat.
Of course, all of these subs, Germans and US, were diesel subs. Nuclear subs are a very different beast.
My brief search on the internet has failed to uncover any stealth bomber ever shot down by anybody. Admittedly, it was not in-depth research. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to by whom, when, and where this feat was accomplished.
Arguable only when the other country ever had the land.
No, they don't. Argentina has *never* owned the Falklands. Or else identify the period when the independent country of Argentina ruled over it.
Quick! We'll have to steal Druidia's air!
Did you notice that the middle F-14 has kill marks on the side? Apparently he's bagged two triceritops.
That makes no sense. Given that each person reads a book differently, there is no way to categorize a book for multiple people based on *how* it is read, because no two people will agree on how it is read.