ehh probably a femto secound pulse 10^-15... Assume a 400m/s gust hits the plane... 400 m/s * 1s/10^15 fs = 4*10^-13 m/fs a 4*10^-13m displacement during the beams lifetime caused by that 400m/s gust of wind... wind isnt really the issue here nor is unexpected movement.
why aren't the intelligent, well-educated, technically minded of the world actually taking issues like this seriously, and doing something about it?
I think of two reasons when asked this question: 1) I have to spend, minimum 8+ years doing focused study in one area of knowledge just to get to the fringes of the body of knowledge in which I will be developing technology in. 2) I have to take all of those 8 years of knowledge condense it into a catch phrase of 2-10 words which explains the problem to people not in my field.
Part 2 is the killer. How am I going to explain a problem when I can't go 2 words without saying By X s postulate, or according to Ys theorem or Zs experiment? Also I need to make sure I take into account 1000 people using my work as reference and building upon it? The nuclear bomb wasn't made by 1 scientist in was made by thousands.
The way intelligent, well-educated, technically minded people end up explaining things to people who make the decisions is try to find the most simplest explanation possible that maybe gets 70% of the problems across. Take 'Global Warming' sounds kind of bad and it tells you the earth is heating up. But actually we are trapping more energy in our atmosphere so a more accurate description is 'Global Energy Increase' which unfortunately sounds somewhat positive. This is a tad more accurate since instead of the earth just heating up it also takes into account places getting much colder then usual (refrigerators need energy to run). We can continually expand it until it turns into a 500 page report, but no one will remember why we are concerned about the original problem.
Unfortunately allot of stuff can't be reduced to that level so it gets swept under the carpet.
Science DOES in fact have a great deal to say about the folly of the worship of such an untestable entity.
I disagree; science does have a great deal to say about how sensible it is to worship. (BTW I am a scientist and I dont believe in god.)
Mathematically it is called hedging your bets. Sure in this world we live in it looks like there is a 1% chance that there is a god and 99% chance that there isn't. So if I die and dont believe there is a god and there isnt a god I am in the clear. However if that 1% chance that he does exist is true well... I am royally screwed. So it is sensible to believe in a god since the risk of him being real outweighs the potential benefits of living your life not believing in him.
As a physicist you end up starting to believe in god once you start going to the extremes of your study, the really big and really small. At the really small side of the pond you begin to realize that we will one day very soon reach an accuracy level with all of our instruments that hits the hard barriers of the uncertainty principle. That is scary since at that moment when the tools we have to work with can no longer be improve upon we will know everything we can know and eventually know what we cant know about. We will just look into the black abyss and say this is where god reigns since we CANT know what happens there.
At the very large end of the scale we are continually drawn to the question how and why. Why is the universe stable as it is? How did it get that way? We are somewhat ok if we prove there is infinite number of universes since there could be infinite variations and we are here because we are in the few stable ones. However if it comes down to we are in the only universe I think every scientist would pause for a minute and conclude that there is a god because it is extremely unlikely that we would be in a universe as stable as this one without some divine intervention. Any subtle changes (.1% and less) to some fundamental constants would usually result in an unstable universe that rips itself apart.
I would have to say no. Since the mouse has no previous knowledge of the capibility that a normal mouse has it believes that it is normal and doesnt feel bad about being blind/disabled, since all the 'negative' side effects appears to it as just a function of normal life.
you can really only convey general feelings and emotions about an issue, little more than disconnected slogans and sound bites
I somewhat agree with your statement, however in this day an age isn't disconnected slogans and sound bits all we really care about when listening to an argument? The only reason we argue is because we care about if our decision was right or wrong. Given that we have no outside judge to tell us if our actions were 'right' we tend to make decision that we feel emotionally good about. Facts are just there to reassure us in our decision, not to persuade us.
While grammar makes an argument more persuasive I can not believe that it is my argument. I can write a paragraph ignoring every grammatical rule in the book and abuse every logical fallacy known to man but as long as it creates a more positive emotional response my argument will be chosen over others. True, in the end I am exploiting the emotional weakness of my audience. Also by no means is it the most elegant way of presenting an argument but it is sadly highly effective.
(BTW thanks for the link I will check read the chapters when I get the chance)
Why should he? Seriously, I pose this question to EVERY single grammar Nazi in the world.
Language is just a formalized means to transmit ideas from one persons head to another in a relatively elegant manner. While it isn't perfect since connotations of words vary from person to person, I really see nothing wrong with someone communicating with horrific grammar or use of short hand (b4).
Grammar and proper spelling only facilitate the persuasiveness of an argument since it sounds more pleasing. It rarely changes the core ideas presented by the author. While yes there are cases where the improper use of they/it/ect does hinder the reader or a comma would drastically change the meaning of a sentence, surprisingly people who talk in short hand avoid these problems, at least given my personal experience on Slashdot.
I guess the main point I am trying to covey is that the most important thing about writing is the ideas being passed from one person to another not the style or grammar.
Sadly the easiest way to sum up my argument is... List off how many Authors names you remember. Now, list off who edited their works.
is to express what you mean clearly and precisely so that people can understand you.
True however usually when we write something we try to create something that a small subset of people can understand. The one thing you forgot to add to this sentance is that the choice of audiance is getting smaller and smaller.
Historians write diffrently(choice of words, style of argument, tense ect.) then buissnessmen. Which is diffrent then scientist. It is just a basic fact of life. This thing annoys the hell out of me especially in science.
imaginary number? Well use an i... wait no I am an EE major lets use a j... but I am communicating with a math major.... damn wtf do I use? Or my all time favorite hey P is for power... actually p is for power if I am in EE... wait no Q with a dot over it is power if I am a thermo engineer... the uglyness of it all
Where did you go to school that your education WASN'T primarily a matter of rote memorization?
any IB school in america isnt really rote memorization. 30+page formula book you get for exams with all equations ect.
my college I have to say isnt focused on rote memorization they ask hard enough questions where you figure it is better to just memorize all the equations then not =\
Fav question on a thermo exam... How many cups of coffe can you make if you crash a dump truck into a wall. I said 105 =D
Yah it is pretty true that after about 2-3 year of learning hebrew you know the language enough to read text without the vowels. However this leads to a couple of ugly problems when translating hebrew into another language.
The first thing is that contradictory terms are grouped together. easiest one is Hello/Goodbye of shalome. Unfortunatly while it does not happen alot it does happen enough to make a non-contextual translation extreamly difficult.
The secound thing is that one word can/does pick up alot of diffrent meanings: Hello/Goodbye/Peace. This proves to make translations really ugly at times.
I used to know a rabi who's phd was in mistakes in the translation between hebrew->english. Most of the mistakes were 'somewhat' minor since the overall message behind the story was left intact. However there were a few stories that were extreamly mangled by the translation of it into english/latin. I cant rember which story it was in (it was 6 years ago since I talked to him) but it changed from a man binding some dogs that were attacking him to the dogs lashing the man and him being pinned down.
Actually you would have lost since you would have seen the other person reach 1pm on his clock in 1 minutes while according you your clock only a minute has past.
"During the first year of college, especially at a residential college, students have many new experiences," says Baird. "They are faced with new cognitive, social, and emotional challenges. We thought it was important to document and learn from the changes taking place in their brains."
Maturity happens through experiances. There is no age for it. I have met 12 year olds who are more mature and functional in the real world then the people I go to college with. It is just a matter of how much criticle thinking you have to do for your own welfare.
I personally think this study is pretty meaningless in order to find out when maturity sets in. Your putting your subjects through a (somewhat) emotionally traumatic event and seeing what effects it has on the brain. The only thing I think this will do is see how does changing from an enviroment where responsibility is on someone else's shoulder to one where it is not effects the brain.
I think that is your problem. I allways by maxtors for one reason-- when they fail I can recover all my data by freezing the HD. period.
Maxtors in a hot enviroment or running hot basicly equals dead hardrive really soon. however if you keep it properly cooled they last forever. Probably it has to do with material tolerances and the HD bios kicking in, but I am allways happy that I can recover my data by packing the drives in ice after it fails. 14 drives in a row has made me into a fairly happy person whenever a drive fails.
Haven't you ever read case studies of most disasters that take place in America?
When a construction worker makes a mistake --A inspector and compliance officer catches it.
When a quality control person makes a mistake -- The fault tolerances created in the design catches it.
When a politician makes a mistake -- It is more like 500ish politicians make a mistake -- and then everyone thinks it is the 'right' thing to do so it is swept under the rug.
All of these positions have a HIGH level of checks to make sure mistakes arent made. It happens but at least no one person can be blamed. As an engineer we dont have the luxury of 100-1000 possible checks to our work. What do you do if you get called up at 4 am during your vacation in hawaii asking if they can use 2 pieces of wood instead of one long piece of wood in an apartment design? Do I sign off on it or do I fly to my office in NY spend x hours cranking out the math?
Hopefully you would do the latter since in many cases this simple question has resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Collapsed balconies ect. Just start reading case studies and while everyone else gets some of the blame engineers get the brunt because as much as politicians can say gravity doesn't exist we still have to sign off on their plans.
Apparently in your case it does take more effort then you put forth.
You say there is a pattern but sadly there isnt. This is the main problem for any scientist studying global warming since there is essentially no data that can tell us if this is a natural trend or a human induced trend.
The graph on that website was laughable at best. To draw any conclusions you need a graph of paleoclimates of progressively shorter time periods to draw any hard conclusions. What conclusion will you draw? Well if you look back about 200 years we have had a steep incline recently and are.6-1 degree warmer on average. If you look back on the last 8Ka years we are on average a tad cooler. Look back by 100Ka we are EXTREAMLY warmer by 8 degrees. Look back into the Cretaceous and we are extremely cooler in comparison and if you go farther then that we are at a temperature that is at the lowest point on the graph. So where do you draw the line at relevant or non relevant data.
But sadly this data is ALL USELESS. Sure there is a correlation but there are 400,000 factors that go into our earth's temperature. Personally my bet is on the fact that we are destroying marine life hampering the effectiveness of the Ocean as a CO2 sink (the best one we have btw... due to sea shells) and the fact that we have more water vapor present in our atmosphere currently (H20 is BY FAR the best greenhouse gas that we have up there in the atmosphere).
so sadly, you cant call someone a smug shithead since there is no real usable data on the global warming debate. Since everyone on this debate is a smug shihead using your words.
Thus, for the purposes of this study, we were forced to restrict our searches to those queries that returned less than 1,000 results on both Yahoo! and Google. Any search result found to have more than 1,000 returned results on either search engine was disregarded from our sample.
my question is which search engine required them to disregard their sample the most. Did google hit the limit the most or was it yahoo?
By the way I love google but I do think yahoo indexs more pages. It index personal pages moreso then google does. So when I am searching for items which I know other people would point to I hit up google. But if I am searching for something that no one has a reason to link to (home page of your gf) I hit up yahoo.
We need Van Wilder with science. We need semi educational stupid movies.
Something where science isnt THE story line but just pushes the plot forward. Touch sensitive lite explosives, oscolation chemical reactions, maybe just maybe a basic explination of torque. Something along the lines of "Hey you know how objects feal heavier if they are farther away on a stick. That is a little thing called torque. And we are going to use it to toss these water balloons over the field to hit those jerks." Nothing overtly factual just stuff that will lead people to maybe find out more.
It isnt an issue. The reason they are doing this is to show that they are being extra careful. Very much like your mother punishing you for not doing something you are suppose to and you going out of your way to show her that you have reformed your ways.
In San Francisco you can. I started brewing beer when I was 16 with my best friend. A great and cheap way to get out of making the usual 'will this store card me if I buy booze?'.
Also the store http://www.sfbrewcraft.com/ is pretty chill. you can walk in, get your ingrediants and if you dont know where to start the guys who staff it will help you create a recipi on the spot.
Wow I really dislike the 'we dont need a footnote for X elements' anymore argument. The current periodic table tries to convey 4 key concepts with its current layout:
1. What seperates diffrent elements in number of protons 2. electron shells/sub orbitals 3. radius size, and other properties dealing with how many electrons it has 4. Common physical charecteristics.
Number 2 is my argument of why there is a 'footnote' in the periodic table. the first 2 columns are s orbitals the ones in the middle Sc-Zn are d orbitals and on the other side is p orbitals starting with B-NE. The footnote is f orbitals. Now please dont start the argument, well if that is the case then He should be in column 2. Alot of Chem programs do this weird thing where He is produced twice on the periodic table once above colomn 2 and in its usual place.
As for the new layout it dystroys this simple oh what orbital is being filled layout. as well as for the life of me I cant figure out why H, He, Be, and Li are on the same rung.
There are rule lawyers because of jackasses like me. I was playing this striped down RPG with a few of my friends. Had a board with 8 rooms surrounded by a an interconnected hallway. It was a mighty fun night but I dismantled the GM's plans fairly quickly.
ME: I move 5 spaces down the hallway. GM: you run into a trap and a boulder falls onto you. ME: does this game have a search for trap skill? GM: yep all you have to do is roll above a 5 on 1d10 and all the traps in the room are revealed. ME: I search the hallway. GM:... you found all the traps in the hallway all 24 of them.
Well I paid for that when I lead the group into a room and the GM summoned 8 'Grand Wizards' aka the head boss of the campaign. All in all I escaped by kicking down the door, tossing a torch from the hallway onto it and kicking the wizard into the resulting fire as I stole his wand of get the fuck out of there.
The wizard was not amussed at how I man handled his elf.
I believe it is art for the very simple reason that there are multiple ways to get the same result. It would be a science if there was one single definate way to do something.
Slashdot Mirror
ehh probably a femto secound pulse 10^-15...
Assume a 400m/s gust hits the plane...
400 m/s * 1s/10^15 fs = 4*10^-13 m/fs
a 4*10^-13m displacement during the beams lifetime caused by that 400m/s gust of wind... wind isnt really the issue here nor is unexpected movement.
why aren't the intelligent, well-educated, technically minded of the world actually taking issues like this seriously, and doing something about it?
I think of two reasons when asked this question:
1) I have to spend, minimum 8+ years doing focused study in one area of knowledge just to get to the fringes of the body of knowledge in which I will be developing technology in.
2) I have to take all of those 8 years of knowledge condense it into a catch phrase of 2-10 words which explains the problem to people not in my field.
Part 2 is the killer. How am I going to explain a problem when I can't go 2 words without saying By X s postulate, or according to Ys theorem or Zs experiment? Also I need to make sure I take into account 1000 people using my work as reference and building upon it? The nuclear bomb wasn't made by 1 scientist in was made by thousands.
The way intelligent, well-educated, technically minded people end up explaining things to people who make the decisions is try to find the most simplest explanation possible that maybe gets 70% of the problems across. Take 'Global Warming' sounds kind of bad and it tells you the earth is heating up. But actually we are trapping more energy in our atmosphere so a more accurate description is 'Global Energy Increase' which unfortunately sounds somewhat positive. This is a tad more accurate since instead of the earth just heating up it also takes into account places getting much colder then usual (refrigerators need energy to run). We can continually expand it until it turns into a 500 page report, but no one will remember why we are concerned about the original problem.
Unfortunately allot of stuff can't be reduced to that level so it gets swept under the carpet.
Science DOES in fact have a great deal to say about the folly of the worship of such an untestable entity.
I disagree; science does have a great deal to say about how sensible it is to worship. (BTW I am a scientist and I dont believe in god.)
Mathematically it is called hedging your bets. Sure in this world we live in it looks like there is a 1% chance that there is a god and 99% chance that there isn't. So if I die and dont believe there is a god and there isnt a god I am in the clear. However if that 1% chance that he does exist is true well... I am royally screwed. So it is sensible to believe in a god since the risk of him being real outweighs the potential benefits of living your life not believing in him.
As a physicist you end up starting to believe in god once you start going to the extremes of your study, the really big and really small. At the really small side of the pond you begin to realize that we will one day very soon reach an accuracy level with all of our instruments that hits the hard barriers of the uncertainty principle. That is scary since at that moment when the tools we have to work with can no longer be improve upon we will know everything we can know and eventually know what we cant know about. We will just look into the black abyss and say this is where god reigns since we CANT know what happens there.
At the very large end of the scale we are continually drawn to the question how and why. Why is the universe stable as it is? How did it get that way? We are somewhat ok if we prove there is infinite number of universes since there could be infinite variations and we are here because we are in the few stable ones. However if it comes down to we are in the only universe I think every scientist would pause for a minute and conclude that there is a god because it is extremely unlikely that we would be in a universe as stable as this one without some divine intervention. Any subtle changes (.1% and less) to some fundamental constants would usually result in an unstable universe that rips itself apart.
I would have to say no. Since the mouse has no previous knowledge of the capibility that a normal mouse has it believes that it is normal and doesnt feel bad about being blind/disabled, since all the 'negative' side effects appears to it as just a function of normal life.
you can really only convey general feelings and emotions about an issue, little more than disconnected slogans and sound bites
I somewhat agree with your statement, however in this day an age isn't disconnected slogans and sound bits all we really care about when listening to an argument? The only reason we argue is because we care about if our decision was right or wrong. Given that we have no outside judge to tell us if our actions were 'right' we tend to make decision that we feel emotionally good about. Facts are just there to reassure us in our decision, not to persuade us.
While grammar makes an argument more persuasive I can not believe that it is my argument. I can write a paragraph ignoring every grammatical rule in the book and abuse every logical fallacy known to man but as long as it creates a more positive emotional response my argument will be chosen over others. True, in the end I am exploiting the emotional weakness of my audience. Also by no means is it the most elegant way of presenting an argument but it is sadly highly effective.
(BTW thanks for the link I will check read the chapters when I get the chance)
you should hang your head in shame
Why should he? Seriously, I pose this question to EVERY single grammar Nazi in the world.
Language is just a formalized means to transmit ideas from one persons head to another in a relatively elegant manner. While it isn't perfect since connotations of words vary from person to person, I really see nothing wrong with someone communicating with horrific grammar or use of short hand (b4).
Grammar and proper spelling only facilitate the persuasiveness of an argument since it sounds more pleasing. It rarely changes the core ideas presented by the author. While yes there are cases where the improper use of they/it/ect does hinder the reader or a comma would drastically change the meaning of a sentence, surprisingly people who talk in short hand avoid these problems, at least given my personal experience on Slashdot.
I guess the main point I am trying to covey is that the most important thing about writing is the ideas being passed from one person to another not the style or grammar.
Sadly the easiest way to sum up my argument is... List off how many Authors names you remember. Now, list off who edited their works.
is to express what you mean clearly and precisely so that people can understand you.
True however usually when we write something we try to create something that a small subset of people can understand. The one thing you forgot to add to this sentance is that the choice of audiance is getting smaller and smaller.
Historians write diffrently(choice of words, style of argument, tense ect.) then buissnessmen. Which is diffrent then scientist. It is just a basic fact of life. This thing annoys the hell out of me especially in science.
imaginary number? Well use an i... wait no I am an EE major lets use a j... but I am communicating with a math major.... damn wtf do I use? Or my all time favorite hey P is for power... actually p is for power if I am in EE... wait no Q with a dot over it is power if I am a thermo engineer... the uglyness of it all
Where did you go to school that your education WASN'T primarily a matter of rote memorization?
any IB school in america isnt really rote memorization. 30+page formula book you get for exams with all equations ect.
my college I have to say isnt focused on rote memorization they ask hard enough questions where you figure it is better to just memorize all the equations then not =\
Fav question on a thermo exam... How many cups of coffe can you make if you crash a dump truck into a wall. I said 105 =D
Operating through port 443 ... Blocking port 443.
Yah it is pretty true that after about 2-3 year of learning hebrew you know the language enough to read text without the vowels. However this leads to a couple of ugly problems when translating hebrew into another language.
The first thing is that contradictory terms are grouped together. easiest one is Hello/Goodbye of shalome. Unfortunatly while it does not happen alot it does happen enough to make a non-contextual translation extreamly difficult.
The secound thing is that one word can/does pick up alot of diffrent meanings: Hello/Goodbye/Peace. This proves to make translations really ugly at times.
I used to know a rabi who's phd was in mistakes in the translation between hebrew->english. Most of the mistakes were 'somewhat' minor since the overall message behind the story was left intact. However there were a few stories that were extreamly mangled by the translation of it into english/latin. I cant rember which story it was in (it was 6 years ago since I talked to him) but it changed from a man binding some dogs that were attacking him to the dogs lashing the man and him being pinned down.
Actually you would have lost since you would have seen the other person reach 1pm on his clock in 1 minutes while according you your clock only a minute has past.
JC Denton.
Maturity happens through experiances. There is no age for it. I have met 12 year olds who are more mature and functional in the real world then the people I go to college with. It is just a matter of how much criticle thinking you have to do for your own welfare.
I personally think this study is pretty meaningless in order to find out when maturity sets in. Your putting your subjects through a (somewhat) emotionally traumatic event and seeing what effects it has on the brain. The only thing I think this will do is see how does changing from an enviroment where responsibility is on someone else's shoulder to one where it is not effects the brain.
other than their HDs running hot
I think that is your problem. I allways by maxtors for one reason-- when they fail I can recover all my data by freezing the HD. period.
Maxtors in a hot enviroment or running hot basicly equals dead hardrive really soon. however if you keep it properly cooled they last forever. Probably it has to do with material tolerances and the HD bios kicking in, but I am allways happy that I can recover my data by packing the drives in ice after it fails. 14 drives in a row has made me into a fairly happy person whenever a drive fails.
Haven't you ever read case studies of most disasters that take place in America?
When a construction worker makes a mistake --A inspector and compliance officer catches it.
When a quality control person makes a mistake -- The fault tolerances created in the design catches it.
When a politician makes a mistake -- It is more like 500ish politicians make a mistake -- and then everyone thinks it is the 'right' thing to do so it is swept under the rug.
All of these positions have a HIGH level of checks to make sure mistakes arent made. It happens but at least no one person can be blamed. As an engineer we dont have the luxury of 100-1000 possible checks to our work. What do you do if you get called up at 4 am during your vacation in hawaii asking if they can use 2 pieces of wood instead of one long piece of wood in an apartment design? Do I sign off on it or do I fly to my office in NY spend x hours cranking out the math?
Hopefully you would do the latter since in many cases this simple question has resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Collapsed balconies ect. Just start reading case studies and while everyone else gets some of the blame engineers get the brunt because as much as politicians can say gravity doesn't exist we still have to sign off on their plans.
Apparently in your case it does take more effort then you put forth.
.6-1 degree warmer on average. If you look back on the last 8Ka years we are on average a tad cooler. Look back by 100Ka we are EXTREAMLY warmer by 8 degrees. Look back into the Cretaceous and we are extremely cooler in comparison and if you go farther then that we are at a temperature that is at the lowest point on the graph. So where do you draw the line at relevant or non relevant data.
You say there is a pattern but sadly there isnt. This is the main problem for any scientist studying global warming since there is essentially no data that can tell us if this is a natural trend or a human induced trend.
The graph on that website was laughable at best. To draw any conclusions you need a graph of paleoclimates of progressively shorter time periods to draw any hard conclusions. What conclusion will you draw? Well if you look back about 200 years we have had a steep incline recently and are
But sadly this data is ALL USELESS. Sure there is a correlation but there are 400,000 factors that go into our earth's temperature. Personally my bet is on the fact that we are destroying marine life hampering the effectiveness of the Ocean as a CO2 sink (the best one we have btw... due to sea shells) and the fact that we have more water vapor present in our atmosphere currently (H20 is BY FAR the best greenhouse gas that we have up there in the atmosphere).
so sadly, you cant call someone a smug shithead since there is no real usable data on the global warming debate. Since everyone on this debate is a smug shihead using your words.
Thus, for the purposes of this study, we were forced to restrict our searches to those queries that returned less than 1,000 results on both Yahoo! and Google. Any search result found to have more than 1,000 returned results on either search engine was disregarded from our sample.
my question is which search engine required them to disregard their sample the most. Did google hit the limit the most or was it yahoo?
By the way I love google but I do think yahoo indexs more pages. It index personal pages moreso then google does. So when I am searching for items which I know other people would point to I hit up google. But if I am searching for something that no one has a reason to link to (home page of your gf) I hit up yahoo.
We need Van Wilder with science. We need semi educational stupid movies.
Something where science isnt THE story line but just pushes the plot forward. Touch sensitive lite explosives, oscolation chemical reactions, maybe just maybe a basic explination of torque. Something along the lines of "Hey you know how objects feal heavier if they are farther away on a stick. That is a little thing called torque. And we are going to use it to toss these water balloons over the field to hit those jerks." Nothing overtly factual just stuff that will lead people to maybe find out more.
It isnt an issue. The reason they are doing this is to show that they are being extra careful. Very much like your mother punishing you for not doing something you are suppose to and you going out of your way to show her that you have reformed your ways.
In San Francisco you can. I started brewing beer when I was 16 with my best friend. A great and cheap way to get out of making the usual 'will this store card me if I buy booze?'.
Also the store http://www.sfbrewcraft.com/ is pretty chill. you can walk in, get your ingrediants and if you dont know where to start the guys who staff it will help you create a recipi on the spot.
Wow I really dislike the 'we dont need a footnote for X elements' anymore argument. The current periodic table tries to convey 4 key concepts with its current layout:
1. What seperates diffrent elements in number of protons
2. electron shells/sub orbitals
3. radius size, and other properties dealing with how many electrons it has
4. Common physical charecteristics.
Number 2 is my argument of why there is a 'footnote' in the periodic table. the first 2 columns are s orbitals the ones in the middle Sc-Zn are d orbitals and on the other side is p orbitals starting with B-NE. The footnote is f orbitals. Now please dont start the argument, well if that is the case then He should be in column 2. Alot of Chem programs do this weird thing where He is produced twice on the periodic table once above colomn 2 and in its usual place.
As for the new layout it dystroys this simple oh what orbital is being filled layout. as well as for the life of me I cant figure out why H, He, Be, and Li are on the same rung.
So why dont they just show a movie of a car crashing into one of the buildings? should be fairly easy to do. Until then I cry FAKE.
There are rule lawyers because of jackasses like me. I was playing this striped down RPG with a few of my friends. Had a board with 8 rooms surrounded by a an interconnected hallway. It was a mighty fun night but I dismantled the GM's plans fairly quickly.
... you found all the traps in the hallway all 24 of them.
ME: I move 5 spaces down the hallway.
GM: you run into a trap and a boulder falls onto you.
ME: does this game have a search for trap skill?
GM: yep all you have to do is roll above a 5 on 1d10 and all the traps in the room are revealed.
ME: I search the hallway.
GM:
Well I paid for that when I lead the group into a room and the GM summoned 8 'Grand Wizards' aka the head boss of the campaign. All in all I escaped by kicking down the door, tossing a torch from the hallway onto it and kicking the wizard into the resulting fire as I stole his wand of get the fuck out of there.
The wizard was not amussed at how I man handled his elf.
I believe it is art for the very simple reason that there are multiple ways to get the same result. It would be a science if there was one single definate way to do something.
What is the meaning of life?
Where can I find the perfect women?
How many licks does it take to the center of a toosie pop?