It was actually a parody of environmentalism. I meant that to be completely and utterly absurd. I actually am not a big fan of animals and so if the spraypaint kills some animals I'll actually be happy. Every time I see a squirrel I have this urge to grab it by the tail and slam its head against the ground (I probably couldn't catch one though). Maybe I'm just imbalanced.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Since our chances of finding extraterrestrial life are more heavily dependent on the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial life and the probability that a signal from an extrasolar planet would reach this planet at all should aforementioned life exist, I would say no.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
I just noticed that the person I replied to pointed out that the "flow" in old windows was just the result of how they were made. Anyway, I remembered some other stuff. As a result of its molecular structure (or lack thereof) glass does not have a specific melting point but rather becomes malleable and eventually like a liquid. Some people say that since it has no melting point it is always a liquid. Nope, glass just doesn't have solid, liquid, and gas states (I suppose that you could heat it until the bonds break and end up with silicon dioxide gas but it wouldn't condense back into glass).
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Actually I remember being told that it is neither a liquid nor a solid. It's not a solid because it doesn't have any kind of crystalline structure. If I remember correctly the molecular structure of glass is a mess, just a bunch of random bonds everywhere. I can't remember what the term for such a substance was. Nevertheless, glass does not flow. What appears to be flow in old windows is simply the result of the way the windows were made.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
This sort of thing has been in development for years. Last article I saw had to do with storing data in some sort of gel. This is the first time I've heard of this sort of thing being done with glass. Anyway, everyone is crossing their fingers hoping that this technology will become practical for home use. The headline is similar to past stories, but there are new developments so its worth reading.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Well as precedent you can look at the fact that the movie industry did fairly well during the Depression. Even when short on money many people were willing to spend a little bit on entertainment.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
It's Earth Day. At my college PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) is having a cookout to celebrate it.
On a tangentially related note I'm considering founding an organization called PUTA (People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals). PUTA's ultimate goal is to wipe out all non-human life on earth.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
But aren't penguins covered with down or something similar rather than fully developed feathers found on other birds? I'm not sure, but one gets the impression that penguins feathers are very hair-like.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
The speed of sound depends on temperature and medium. The speed of sound would be different in two different materials with the same density because their different molecular structures would inhibit or prohibit the propagation of sound waves differently.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
My friend was playing it. He decided to make a guy a farmer. I was thinking, what if he wasn't suited to be a farmer. What if he as that society's greatest who would have been destined to produce some great work of art or invent something that would make everyone's life better. Now he's a farmer. Boy, he'll really help people now.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Try going here. With a little bit of trouble you can get your Wacom pad working. I don't have mine set up at the moment and I haven't tried it in a while but the last time I did the drivers weren't as good as the Windows drivers, but they still work and might have improved since I last used them.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
We happen to be studying this stuff right now (I also did this stuff in high school). Here it is quantitatively:
v=c/n
Where v is the speed of light in the medium and n is the index of refraction for that medium. This equation suggests that a material with an index of refraction of -1 would travel at -c. Clearly this can't be the case because the light would do a full reverse and leave the medium. So this equation must not work for materials with negative indices of refraction. It may be that the proper equation is something like v=c/abs(n) or something more complicated that simplifies to v=c/n for positive n. Anyway, they didn't conclude that the material had a negative index of refraction (for microwaves anyway) because of that equation. They used this equation:
n1*sin(theta1)=n2*sin(theta2)
Where n1 and n2 are the indices of the first and second media respectively, theta1 is the angle of incidence, and theta2 is the angle of refraction.
If n1 is positive and n2 is negative then solving for theta2 will give a negative value. So the angle of refraction bends in the opposite direction of the angle of incidence.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
The fundamental problem comes down to, why does anything exist at all when it is so much simpler for nothing to exist. In Sartre's words, existence is "de trop" (unnecessary, superfluous). At the root of all existence, there must be something that exists with no cause. Judeo-Christian-Islam belief says that says that this is God. But how can something, whether it be a god or a singularity, come into existence for no reason when nothingness needs no reason to exist (or rather to not exist).
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
I remember reading that goats can handle kudzu. Of course, I can't imagine there being any sort of program to have goats graze alongside highways all over the south east.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
I have to reset my visor. But it's just because this Hearts game I play freezes when I try to return to the app launcher. I would just not play it, but it doesn't take long to restart it and I'm addicted to Hearts right now. What I really need is a different Hearts game.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
This is a perfect application for framebuffer GTK+ or Qt/Embedded. In fact, this is pretty much what they both were designed for. Using either one would allow a great number of applications to be ported to this thing and would make it easy to write applications for.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
On a tangentially related note I'm considering founding an organization called PUTA (People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals). PUTA's ultimate goal is to wipe out all non-human life on earth.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
v=c/n
Where v is the speed of light in the medium and n is the index of refraction for that medium. This equation suggests that a material with an index of refraction of -1 would travel at -c. Clearly this can't be the case because the light would do a full reverse and leave the medium. So this equation must not work for materials with negative indices of refraction. It may be that the proper equation is something like v=c/abs(n) or something more complicated that simplifies to v=c/n for positive n. Anyway, they didn't conclude that the material had a negative index of refraction (for microwaves anyway) because of that equation. They used this equation:
n1*sin(theta1)=n2*sin(theta2)
Where n1 and n2 are the indices of the first and second media respectively, theta1 is the angle of incidence, and theta2 is the angle of refraction.
If n1 is positive and n2 is negative then solving for theta2 will give a negative value. So the angle of refraction bends in the opposite direction of the angle of incidence.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.