he only folks this appeals to are those that are locked in to t-mobile for some reason.
If you want a GSM carrier so that you can use your phone outside the US you've got a choice between T-Mobile and AT&T and I don't know why anyone would deal with AT&T unless there was really no other option.
Yes, because I understand that giving in to terrorist threats creates an even greater danger.
That's why it's illegal to pay ransoms - every time somebody pays a ransom it validates the concept that kidnapping for ransom is a valid business model.
This is a violation of a private companies policy that they set and they get to decide what is acceptable.
That has nothing to do with the principal expressed by the GP: "Religions, nor anyone else, do NOT have the right not to be offended, or to be exempt from criticism."
He picked the day and the action specifically to arouse the most emotions in all parties as possible, knowing full well that what he's going to do is going to upset and enrage more than just the "extremist" Muslims.
So what? No matter how offensive and upsetting someone else's speech is I don't have a right to commit violence because of it.
its black mail at best and terrorism at worst.
Bullshit. The blackmail and terrorism come from the people who actually commit the violence.
And at any rate, its not as if the government is stopping him. This is about one company deciding not to host his content.
Or at least it will never be proven otherwise. There's plenty of examples of government quietly leaning on private companies to get things done that they can't do themselves directly, though.
I would have more respect for them if they could at least ADMIT their cowardice and just admit that they're caving because they're afraid of violent retaliation.
One of two things is going to happen: either the whole world is going to gradually give in via appeasement or else someone is going to change the dynamics of the situation such that the cowards have to consider the risk of retaliation for NOT standing up for the principals that they've always convinced themselves that they supported.
Ignore the "Not available for Firefox 3.6" message - you can override compatibility checking with the Add-on Compatibility Reporter plugin and it works just fine.
You're right, the total acceleration would be the sum of the two values.
(as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth
This is the part the threw me off, because in Newtonian mechanics there's only one gravitational force involved, you just have to apply the force to both objects.
Do you think the moon would accelerate towards the earth at the same rate as an elephant if you dropped them both from 50 metres (in a vacuum of course)?
Yes it would.
M1=mass of the earth M2=mass of the moon (or elephant)
Fg = G*M1*M2/R^2 A=F/M2
A=(G*M1*M2/R^2)/M2
A=G*M1/R^2
The additional gravitational force between the earth and the moon as compared to the force between the earth and an elephant is balanced exactly by the fact that the moon has more inertia and therefore requires a greater force to be exerted on it to produce the same acceleration than the elephant does.
If you watch the two videos, the good dancer is moving his arms and legs much more than the bad dancer is. He even starts with the running man! I'm not exactly sure what the quantitative definition of "flailing" is, but the bad dancer definitely isn't flailing if the good dancer isn't.
Uh.. heavier objects do fall faster (as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth - of course the difference is negligible when compared to the gravitational pull of the earth so you can ignore it in most cases).
Un... no. In a vacuum, all object fall at the exact same acceleration regardless of their mass.
In the real world, friction caused by moving through the air mucks things up a bit.
The problem with Craiglist is that it bypasses the normal channels thus reduces kickbacks to law enforcement. That's why local officials get so pissed off about it - women who get their work that way can avoid paying the cops to look the other way.
What makes you think that the legislators expect redundancy? When that kind of money changes hands the only thing they care about is getting favors and campaign contributions.
The difference between paying a toll on a road and this is that you don't own the road. It's no different than buying something in the supermarket.
A business license states by its very existence that you must obtain permission from someone else in order to exchange your own labor and property for another person's.
The idea of a business license is completely incompatible with the idea of natural rights.
Seriously, way to put a damper on entrepreneurship and small businesses.
That's how they eliminated private enterprise in the Soviet Union - a steady ramping up of fees, taxes, rules and regulations until no one could afford to run a business any more.
If you have to have a license to blog, what happens when you "lose" your license?
You're missing the larger principle - once you've accepted the fact that you must ask permission from the government to exercise inherent rights then you don't really have any rights anymore. All you have are privileges that may be granted or withheld at whim.
This kind of result is to be expected once you concede the point that a person requires permission from the government (a license) in order to engage in commerce.
Once you have agreed to be a serf it's hardly surprising when you get treated like one.
I never thought I would see the day that slashdot linked to cracked
At least they didn't do it when the majority of their readers were at work. That site is highly addictive and it's likely that no one would have gotten any work done for the rest of the day. Of course, there might be a large chunk of the workforce that goes into work tired tomorrow because they get to sleep late...
Slashdot Mirror
If you want a GSM carrier so that you can use your phone outside the US you've got a choice between T-Mobile and AT&T and I don't know why anyone would deal with AT&T unless there was really no other option.
Yes, because I understand that giving in to terrorist threats creates an even greater danger.
That's why it's illegal to pay ransoms - every time somebody pays a ransom it validates the concept that kidnapping for ransom is a valid business model.
That has nothing to do with the principal expressed by the GP: "Religions, nor anyone else, do NOT have the right not to be offended, or to be exempt from criticism."
So what? No matter how offensive and upsetting someone else's speech is I don't have a right to commit violence because of it.
Bullshit. The blackmail and terrorism come from the people who actually commit the violence.
Or at least it will never be proven otherwise. There's plenty of examples of government quietly leaning on private companies to get things done that they can't do themselves directly, though.
One of two things is going to happen: either the whole world is going to gradually give in via appeasement or else someone is going to change the dynamics of the situation such that the cowards have to consider the risk of retaliation for NOT standing up for the principals that they've always convinced themselves that they supported.
In the US hate speech is protected by our Constitution, just like every other form of speech.
There's a Firefox plugin that does this for you.
Ignore the "Not available for Firefox 3.6" message - you can override compatibility checking with the Add-on Compatibility Reporter plugin and it works just fine.
The Coral Cache version works.
You're right, the total acceleration would be the sum of the two values.
This is the part the threw me off, because in Newtonian mechanics there's only one gravitational force involved, you just have to apply the force to both objects.
Neither does appeasement.
Yes it would.
M1=mass of the earth
M2=mass of the moon (or elephant)
Fg = G*M1*M2/R^2
A=F/M2
A=(G*M1*M2/R^2)/M2
A=G*M1/R^2
The additional gravitational force between the earth and the moon as compared to the force between the earth and an elephant is balanced exactly by the fact that the moon has more inertia and therefore requires a greater force to be exerted on it to produce the same acceleration than the elephant does.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
Un... no. In a vacuum, all object fall at the exact same acceleration regardless of their mass.
In the real world, friction caused by moving through the air mucks things up a bit.
The problem with Craiglist is that it bypasses the normal channels thus reduces kickbacks to law enforcement. That's why local officials get so pissed off about it - women who get their work that way can avoid paying the cops to look the other way.
Isn't prostitution legal, or at least tolerated there? Why hasn't the free market solved this problem yet?
What makes you think that the legislators expect redundancy? When that kind of money changes hands the only thing they care about is getting favors and campaign contributions.
The fact that a decision was made democratically has absolutely no bearing on whether or not is infringes on someone's rights.
The difference between paying a toll on a road and this is that you don't own the road. It's no different than buying something in the supermarket.
A business license states by its very existence that you must obtain permission from someone else in order to exchange your own labor and property for another person's.
The idea of a business license is completely incompatible with the idea of natural rights.
That's how they eliminated private enterprise in the Soviet Union - a steady ramping up of fees, taxes, rules and regulations until no one could afford to run a business any more.
Only someone who has a vested interest in license fees, or in the barrier to competition they create would say something like that.
Why not? What gives a person or group of people the right to demand that someone else must ask for permission from them before engaging in commerce?
You're missing the larger principle - once you've accepted the fact that you must ask permission from the government to exercise inherent rights then you don't really have any rights anymore. All you have are privileges that may be granted or withheld at whim.
This kind of result is to be expected once you concede the point that a person requires permission from the government (a license) in order to engage in commerce.
Once you have agreed to be a serf it's hardly surprising when you get treated like one.
What do you think the word license means?
At least they didn't do it when the majority of their readers were at work. That site is highly addictive and it's likely that no one would have gotten any work done for the rest of the day. Of course, there might be a large chunk of the workforce that goes into work tired tomorrow because they get to sleep late...