As a human being with a mind and a means to communicate its thoughts, you can always make new content. That's the point of copyright law. To make you creative, instead of letting you just steal someone else's work.
I think they do it to give the actor a chance to own the character. And to throw out the gadgets and sidekicks and baggage from the previous episodes.
Only James Bond could get away with being a different guy in every movie, because we're not meant to know his past, and his present isn't an alternate superhero universe that needs underpinning and justification for suspension of disbelief. It's assumed to be the current world each time. Even that doesn't really work, because they went all backstory and rebooty in Daniel Craig's debut. But they only really did that because they were out of ideas and wanted to recycle Fleming's.
Twitter is exactly what you make of it, for those who choose to follow you.
It is exactly not a means for you to procure a distribution network for your opinions, with followers acting as distribution nodes at your behest.
It isn't commanded, it is purely social. Those who wish to retweet your words will do so.
And there are no barriers that you do not introduce yourself. If someone you want to follow is there, you can follow them, even @-reply to them and, if the probabilities and their opinion are willing, get a reply or a retweet from them. (All the better if you aren't begging openly to be retweeted.)
Strong opinions affect a larger number of people. Weak or obvious ones don't induce the need to act. Sounds perfectly social to me.
In other words, if you want the news media, you know where to find it, and how it works.
I think if Newton thought photons had 0 mass he'd have found it impossible to apply GMm/r^2 to them without getting the answer f=0 and deducing that photons did not curve in a gravity field.
But, what I failed to remember yesterday, is that Newton knew that light was particles. "How do I know that light is corpuscular? Because I grind my own lenses," or words to that effect. One of my favorite sayings, but apparently I only call it up when messing around with optics, not for gravity. He reasoned that since lenses are not infinitely smooth, because they are polished by successive reduction in the depth and width of scratches you make in them, waves would behave in a way that corpuscles do not.
Since he believed light was particles, he could easily assume they would have mass, and therefore react to gravity.
And then the tricky thing Einstein did was figure out that the mass of a photon is 100% relativistic. Which is good, because if the Higgs Boson is the charge carrier of mass, there's no room for it in a photon, and in fact no photon could reach the speed of light without sucking up all the energy in the universe. And if photons didn't move at the speed of light, a whole lot of our math would already be way off.
But the rub is, relativistic mass is only pseudo-mass, and its reaction to gravity is only due to relativistic effects, not to massiveness. So Newton's reason for believing that light would react to gravity is incorrect, and he gets a partially-correct result. Good thing he always showed his work. Half-marks.
Burgers and chips can be as balanced as cutlets and curry and noodles. It's a matter of ingredients. Fatty meat and palm oil are unnecessary economizations. 95% fat-free beef and canola oil balances it out. All of these choices are missing some fibrous veggie matter, so put some tomato and lettuce on that burger.
Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
So if I down a cube of fiber-con with my spoonful of sugar, am I safe?
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
How is processed sugar chemically different from the sugar in the plant it's extracted from?
Do you know? Or do you not even consider that?
There is a precedent. Saturated fat from natural sources contains no trans-fats, but saturated fat made by hydrogenating vegetable oils has significant trans-fats (trans-fats are deformed fat molecules that a cellular system, whether vegetable or animal, wouldn't produce, but bubbling hydrogen through a vat of fat doesn't have molecular-level geometric control of the production process). Saturated fat is not bad for you but trans-fats are.
So is there something about the production of sugar in concentrated form that chemically alters it so that it has poison in it? What is the altered chemical? Has it been detected in the concentrated sugar?
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Tobacco is still one of the leading causes of death in America and on Earth.
The people who produce it know that, but still work hard to increase its spread and use.
You think they'd miss a chance to repeal the laws that keep them from getting back the massive market penetration they enjoyed in the mid-20th Century?
No fucking way. They not only don't care if you live or die, but hope you do it by buying as much of their product as they can economically deliver to you.
Slashdot Mirror
You can wave your old, textless cell-phone at them.
Why do you feel the need to say "self" when saying "masturbatory"?
Was it something that happened to you when your parents were being murdered by robbers when you were a child?
Or is it an isotope in the radioactive spider's venom that causes you to emphasize the obvious?
As a human being with a mind and a means to communicate its thoughts, you can always make new content. That's the point of copyright law. To make you creative, instead of letting you just steal someone else's work.
I wonder if people got all pissed-off when the actors repeated a performance every day on the stage, before movies existed.
I think they do it to give the actor a chance to own the character. And to throw out the gadgets and sidekicks and baggage from the previous episodes.
Only James Bond could get away with being a different guy in every movie, because we're not meant to know his past, and his present isn't an alternate superhero universe that needs underpinning and justification for suspension of disbelief. It's assumed to be the current world each time. Even that doesn't really work, because they went all backstory and rebooty in Daniel Craig's debut. But they only really did that because they were out of ideas and wanted to recycle Fleming's.
For they have...gin?
Twitter is exactly what you make of it, for those who choose to follow you.
It is exactly not a means for you to procure a distribution network for your opinions, with followers acting as distribution nodes at your behest.
It isn't commanded, it is purely social. Those who wish to retweet your words will do so.
And there are no barriers that you do not introduce yourself. If someone you want to follow is there, you can follow them, even @-reply to them and, if the probabilities and their opinion are willing, get a reply or a retweet from them. (All the better if you aren't begging openly to be retweeted.)
Strong opinions affect a larger number of people. Weak or obvious ones don't induce the need to act. Sounds perfectly social to me.
In other words, if you want the news media, you know where to find it, and how it works.
Now you're talking more Br'er Rabbit than Tom Sawyer.
Or the Huffingtong Post?
I was thinking more like...
Google Maps has had a "report a problem" link for years.
Not that it ever did a lick of good. But it was there.
I think if Newton thought photons had 0 mass he'd have found it impossible to apply GMm/r^2 to them without getting the answer f=0 and deducing that photons did not curve in a gravity field.
But, what I failed to remember yesterday, is that Newton knew that light was particles. "How do I know that light is corpuscular? Because I grind my own lenses," or words to that effect. One of my favorite sayings, but apparently I only call it up when messing around with optics, not for gravity. He reasoned that since lenses are not infinitely smooth, because they are polished by successive reduction in the depth and width of scratches you make in them, waves would behave in a way that corpuscles do not.
Since he believed light was particles, he could easily assume they would have mass, and therefore react to gravity.
And then the tricky thing Einstein did was figure out that the mass of a photon is 100% relativistic. Which is good, because if the Higgs Boson is the charge carrier of mass, there's no room for it in a photon, and in fact no photon could reach the speed of light without sucking up all the energy in the universe. And if photons didn't move at the speed of light, a whole lot of our math would already be way off.
But the rub is, relativistic mass is only pseudo-mass, and its reaction to gravity is only due to relativistic effects, not to massiveness. So Newton's reason for believing that light would react to gravity is incorrect, and he gets a partially-correct result. Good thing he always showed his work. Half-marks.
Most models accept the data that say that photons are never at rest.
You'll note I wasn't responding to the video, I was responding to the person to whose post I was responding.
Except for candy, foods are not made of pure sugar. The GI of sugar is always moderated when it's mixed with things that have a lower GI.
The guy doesn't really have an argument against HFCS, he's got an argument against a low-fiber diet.
Have you isolated your problem to the MSG? It's available as a seasoning in the store, you could try that and see.
Who eats poppy plants?
I'm just going to stare at you until you realize that HFCS is sugar.
Burgers and chips can be as balanced as cutlets and curry and noodles. It's a matter of ingredients. Fatty meat and palm oil are unnecessary economizations. 95% fat-free beef and canola oil balances it out. All of these choices are missing some fibrous veggie matter, so put some tomato and lettuce on that burger.
How did Newton give light mass?
Or did he somehow grok that space itself is warped by mass?
We didn't start publicizing the example until the late 1800's. Had to have some evidence that it worked. Then everyone started getting into it.
That's what "redundant" means, coward.
So if I down a cube of fiber-con with my spoonful of sugar, am I safe?
How is processed sugar chemically different from the sugar in the plant it's extracted from?
Do you know? Or do you not even consider that?
There is a precedent. Saturated fat from natural sources contains no trans-fats, but saturated fat made by hydrogenating vegetable oils has significant trans-fats (trans-fats are deformed fat molecules that a cellular system, whether vegetable or animal, wouldn't produce, but bubbling hydrogen through a vat of fat doesn't have molecular-level geometric control of the production process). Saturated fat is not bad for you but trans-fats are.
So is there something about the production of sugar in concentrated form that chemically alters it so that it has poison in it? What is the altered chemical? Has it been detected in the concentrated sugar?
Tobacco is still one of the leading causes of death in America and on Earth.
The people who produce it know that, but still work hard to increase its spread and use.
You think they'd miss a chance to repeal the laws that keep them from getting back the massive market penetration they enjoyed in the mid-20th Century?
No fucking way. They not only don't care if you live or die, but hope you do it by buying as much of their product as they can economically deliver to you.