Half of the video was fully zoomed in on a nearby source yet still not impressive
What's "not impressive" supposed to mean? Are you "not impressed" because a video on the internet of a laser didn't temporarily blind you in the same way the actual laser would have?
the other half was clearly fake as the source was in the cockpit and yet again not very disturbing
Also they just happened to have a camera crew there. What are the chances?! Unless, of course, it was deliberately staged for the purposes of demonstration.
As for "not very disturbing," how about you point a green laser at your one remaining eye and let us know the results.
The pilot of an A340 has a view that extends about 20 degrees below the horizon on the tarmac. I haven't been able to find out how steeply they climb, but 747s usually only do about 20 degrees. Please confirm whether or not you pulled that number out of your bum.
I can also exclusively reveal that cockpits have windows that let you look out to the sides, a view which is unaffected by takeoff angle.
Furthermore, planes sometimes execute banking turns shortly after takeoff.
nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone
Just how long is "long enough to dazzle anyone"?
let alone just one of the two pilots.
Quite possibly the other one was looking in another direction at the time.
But we almost never hear of these incidents (are they so common they don't count as news, or cause accidents - which would be newsworthy)
Or so uncommon because a) it's not as much "fun" for the perpetrators (no challenge in shining a laser at a car) and b) it'd be way easier to get caught.
Does it make sense to ask that in this context? The headline says "1000 times its own mass".
A one inch square will hold 1000 times its own mass. A two inch square will hold 4x as much as the previous square, but it's still 1000 times its own mass.
wet paper will hold thousands of pounds too if you spread the material out enough.
One pound of wet paper won't hold a thousand pounds of something.
Although technically the article doesn't specify under what strength gravity this material can operate...
I'm pretty sure a supermarket plastic bag could hold nearly 1000x its own mass - certainly within an order of magnitude, at the very least. And those are made out of a polymer too!
They even shape-shift, crinkling up into a little blob if you set them on fire. They won't shape shift back again, admittedly...
Even worse, in my books, is that SR discarding the ether was the single most damaging thing to happen in physics in the last 110 years.
Why on earth is discarding the ether "damaging"?
There is no evidence for its existence. There is bucketloads of evidence against its existence. It almost certainly doesn't exist, based on everything we've learned so far.
Furthermore, the evidence against the ether really starting mounting in 1887 with the Michelson-Morley experiment, long before special relativity was formulated. The non-existence of the ether led to SR, not the other way around.
Would you rather live in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values, or Islamic ones?
Well, with those two sets of values being so universally unambiguously defined and understood in exactly the same way by every individual on the planet, that shouldn't be a hard question to answer.
It's a perfectly cromulent thing to say. We don't know if we're the first scientists to detect these things. We don't know that there are any non-human scientists, and the wording doesn't imply that we do.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 To Be Installed On 4 Million US Department of Defense Computers
They didn't want it; it's just going to happen.
were found to be a distinct species based on
...the abstract and ill-defined concept of "species."
Half of the video was fully zoomed in on a nearby source yet still not impressive
What's "not impressive" supposed to mean? Are you "not impressed" because a video on the internet of a laser didn't temporarily blind you in the same way the actual laser would have?
the other half was clearly fake as the source was in the cockpit and yet again not very disturbing
Also they just happened to have a camera crew there. What are the chances?! Unless, of course, it was deliberately staged for the purposes of demonstration.
As for "not very disturbing," how about you point a green laser at your one remaining eye and let us know the results.
The pilot of an A340 has a view that extends about 20 degrees below the horizon on the tarmac. I haven't been able to find out how steeply they climb, but 747s usually only do about 20 degrees. Please confirm whether or not you pulled that number out of your bum.
I can also exclusively reveal that cockpits have windows that let you look out to the sides, a view which is unaffected by takeoff angle.
Furthermore, planes sometimes execute banking turns shortly after takeoff.
nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone
Just how long is "long enough to dazzle anyone"?
let alone just one of the two pilots.
Quite possibly the other one was looking in another direction at the time.
But we almost never hear of these incidents (are they so common they don't count as news, or cause accidents - which would be newsworthy)
Or so uncommon because a) it's not as much "fun" for the perpetrators (no challenge in shining a laser at a car) and b) it'd be way easier to get caught.
It's not like he describes.
Matt Damon
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Taylor Kitsch
wonkey_monkey: No it won't.
I'll be back in 9 years to check up on this.
It has been well known that memory is unreliable.
Unless you're misremembering that.
You can get them at my supermarket whether you want them or not.
Not over here, you can't. That is to say, you have to pay a small charge per bag. Cuts down on waste.
Per square inch?
Does it make sense to ask that in this context? The headline says "1000 times its own mass".
A one inch square will hold 1000 times its own mass. A two inch square will hold 4x as much as the previous square, but it's still 1000 times its own mass.
wet paper will hold thousands of pounds too if you spread the material out enough.
One pound of wet paper won't hold a thousand pounds of something.
Although technically the article doesn't specify under what strength gravity this material can operate...
I'm pretty sure a supermarket plastic bag could hold nearly 1000x its own mass - certainly within an order of magnitude, at the very least. And those are made out of a polymer too!
They even shape-shift, crinkling up into a little blob if you set them on fire. They won't shape shift back again, admittedly...
Eh. It's overrated.
our very thought is what makes gravity
Well, you certainly sound dense enough to have your own gravitational field.
This discussion has gone off on a tangent.
I thought it was "That's weird..."
Michelson-Morley, a negative (i.e. non) result, did nothing whatsoever.
It proved that there was no such thing as the luminiferous ether.
I don't think you get how science works.
Even worse, in my books, is that SR discarding the ether was the single most damaging thing to happen in physics in the last 110 years.
Why on earth is discarding the ether "damaging"?
There is no evidence for its existence. There is bucketloads of evidence against its existence. It almost certainly doesn't exist, based on everything we've learned so far.
Furthermore, the evidence against the ether really starting mounting in 1887 with the Michelson-Morley experiment, long before special relativity was formulated. The non-existence of the ether led to SR, not the other way around.
Google Is Shutting Down Picasa In Favor of Photos
Capitalising words at random (why "in" and "is" but not "of"?) makes this close to meaningless.
Google is shutting down Picasa in favor of Photos
This way at least you have a hint that "Photos" is actually the name of something.
Title case makes even less sense for headlines than it does for titles.
I haven't slept for a week. Because that would be too long to sleep for.
Yuri Zhirkov was in attendance at the Stamford Bridge
it's just "Stamford Bridge", not "the Stamford Bridge".
Try again!
Would you rather live in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values, or Islamic ones?
Well, with those two sets of values being so universally unambiguously defined and understood in exactly the same way by every individual on the planet, that shouldn't be a hard question to answer.
Oh, wait...
Or just have some patience. Bloody kids.
When I were a lad, it took days to download a 700mb Xvid DVD rip at 640x360 resolution. And we felt blessed.
A couple of hours to download a 1080p MKV with 5.1 sound? Luxury!
Yes "h" please.
It's not a mistake. The word was coined before the spelling of "thal" (valley) was changed to "tal."
It's a perfectly cromulent thing to say. We don't know if we're the first scientists to detect these things. We don't know that there are any non-human scientists, and the wording doesn't imply that we do.